Talk:Al-Ahbash/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

fundamentalist groups

well those are the top figures that influence the fundamentalist islamic groups in the world wahabis, muslim brotherhood etc so i think its important to put down that ahbash doesnt like them which causes a major controversy becuz those leaders i mentioned are influences of the islamic militants here's a source. http://www.meforum.org/meib/articles/0104_ld1.htm Baboon43 (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Calling them fundamentalist (even if true from most points of view) is a contentious label that I don't think should be used in the article, and I don't think that link establishes enough WP:WEIGHT to make it worth mentioning in the article. - SudoGhost 13:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

ok what about just putting down that ahbash is against the teachings of those individuals because their website backs it up and other reliable sources. Baboon43 (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure they're against a few things, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's important for the article or relevant to the article's subject. - SudoGhost 13:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

i think its relevant because its even in the "a sufi response" source under DOCTRINAL ROOTS "These attributes of the Ahbash creed set the group on a collision course with the political thought of Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, Sayyid Qutb". http://ddc.aub.edu.lb/projects/pspa/al-ahbash.html ....these differences has caused them to have clashs with muslim brotherhood in jordan as stated in the article and the wahabists. also their own website takes jabs at the individuals "Unlike the followers of Sayyid Qutub who deviated from the right path by following an erroneous idea that sprung fifty years ago, and unlike the followers of Muhammad ibn ^adbil-Wahhab who deviated from the right path by following an erroneous idea that sprung two hundred years ago"..its obviously very important for the group to keep repeating that they dont like their teachings if that is in the about section of aicp http://aicp.org/about-us-mainmenu-2...also keep in mind the article is still stub compared to the others and this would be my last input for belief section of ahbash. Baboon43 (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The current version of Ahbash page has some serious NPOV issues.

The current version of Ahbash page has some serious NPOV issues, thus, I am going to tag it accordingly. McKhan (talk)

no it doesnt..you cant just say its not NPOV without giving any reasons Baboon43 (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

To begin with: If it is kosher and "neutral" enough to use the information provided by the AICP on its web-site then why we cannot use sources like this (Islamic Science University of Malaysia), this or this. (I already know your answer but I will let you elaborate one more time.)

With reference to your edit here (with the edit summary: "removed shia element source as it appears to be false"), why does it "appear to be false" when all the academic sources are right there (i.e. "Al'Ahbash beliefs are an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunni and Shi'a theology with Sufism.").

FURTHERMORE, quite interestingly, you have NOT only used this reference by yourself (to substantiate one of your other edits) but also quoted this reference on this very talk page which clearly highlights, "Supporting the legitimacy of the Imama of Ali, and of his sons Hasan and Hussein, and upholding the teachings of Imam Hussein's son, Zayn al-Abidin. They believe that fighting on Imam Ali's side against Muawiyah was a duty and a Sunna. In this, al-Ahbash set themselves apart from all other Sunni jurists and are closer to Shi'ite Islam." These are just few examples. I will be highlighting more as I get some more time. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

you cant use opponents of ahbash as sources those are not NPOV...ahbash is described as a sunni group and its shia element is taken off of its opponents writing and used by one source when thomas piet doesnt say they have a shia element so its conflicting and that last source you wrote has flaws..one thing it says is that ahbash rejects takfir which is wrong...ahbash is known for throwing takfir so you cant use that source. Sunnis believe ali was on the right side because he was the caliphate leader so it doesnt make sense plus i explained to you sufis are a blend of sunni and shia anyway. Baboon43 (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Having taken whatever the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies state on their web-site on as-it-is basis WITHOUT ANALYZING their content UNDER THE LIGHT of NEUTRAL, VERIFIABLE and ACADEMIC sources is a tantamount to POV by the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies. IF your statement stands correct then we should take ANYTHING and EVERYTHING provided by the AICP / Ahbash / Habashies on their web-site with grain of salt as there are plethora of academic sources (including your favorite/not-so-favorite-depending-upon-the-edit-and-situation academics like Thomas and others) which proves the AICP / Ahbash / Habashies otherwise. FOR EXAMPLE: One of your recently quoted sources (e.g. "Al-Ahbash" CLEARLY and CATEGORICALLY states, "His school of thought mixes elements of Sunni and Shi'a theological doctrines with Sufi spiritualism....accept the legitimacy of the Imam Ali (the Shi’a doctrine of legitimacy) and of his sons Hassan and Hussein; uphold the teachings of Hussein's son, Zayn al-Abidin....22" Thus, this fact should be and must be added to the content of this version of Ahbash page to strengthen the NPOV. That would be a great idea to insert a Comparison similar to this one to highlight the differences between the mainstream Sunnis' beliefs vs. the beliefs of Ahbash / AICP / Habashies. I hope you can help in due course. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

i told you that they are using one source and repeating it off of "a sufi response" even the islamist almanac took it from the same source...a sufi response is not an accurate description of ahbash..they used the opponents of ahbash writing to state they mix shia theology..take a look at thomas piet and hamzeh they state ahbash are sufi sunnis thats their ideology...and about the comparison i think i know what your talking about you want to put that graph in that compares wahabism with traditonal islam but this is not the article for that.. Baboon43 (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid what you are implying isn't entirely correct. Nevertheless, if that is good for the goose then why isn't it good for the gander? Haven't you used the same article to substantiate some of your other edits? Then why are you hesitant to use the same source along-with the other sources to insert "Al'Ahbash beliefs are an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunni and Shi'a theology withSufism." It is NOT only fair but will also strengthen the NPOV of this version of Ahbash. Under the light of example, I provided, in my humble point of view, this IS the article for that very crucial comparison. I will be looking forward to your cooperation. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

"a sufi response" is using quotes from an opponent of ahbash to declare them to have shia elements..they use Ibn Taymiyyah as a sunni scholar when he is infact a wahabi scholar therefore not mainstream. so basically those who wrote the article were not aware of this writer whom labeled ahbash to use shia doctrine when the majority of the sources say ahbash is a traditional sunni group. Baboon43 (talk) 06:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Let us not bring or fight the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' war against the Wahabis on the Wikipedia pages as it isn't the battlefield nor platform for that purpose. Having said that, let me PROVE the FACT (contrary to your claim that "a sufi response" is using quotes from an opponent of ahbash) that the acadmics, A. Nizar Hamzeh and R. Hrair Dekmejian, who wrote "A Sufi response to political islamism: Al-ahbash of Lebanon", are IN FACT using the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' / Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi's own material (particularly, Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi's books, Sarih al-Bayan (Explicit Declaration), Al-Kafil bi-'Ilm al-Din al-Daruri (The Guarantor of the Necessary Science of Faith) as well as quotations from the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' official magazine, Manar al-Hudd).

Here is the excerpt you are referring to:

THE SHI'A DIMENSION

One of the most revealing aspects of Shaykh Habashi's thought is his acceptance of the Shi'a doctrine of legitimacy. He begins by quoting Shafi'i, that everyone who fought 'Ali was a baghi (transgressor).[37] Habashi further cites Ibn Hanbal to jus tify 'Ali's caliphate against Mu'awiya and his "faction of transgressors" (al-firqa al-baghiya).[38] As a further step, Habashi underlines the legitimacy of all four members of the Prophet's family -Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Husayn - by citing the canonical writings of Muslim and al-Nisa'i.[39] Equally significant is Shaykh Habashi's rejection of the use of ijtihad by some Sunni jurists to legitimize Mu'awiya's opposition to 'Ali. As a case in point, Habashi takes issue with Ibn Taymiyya's view that fighting with 'Ali against Mu'awiya was neither a duty nor a Sunna. This product of Ibn Taymiyya's ijtihad is found invalid by Habashi because of the presence of a clear Qur'anic text and hadith. In support of his position, Habashi cites the verse "fight the group that is a transgressor," along with the Prophet's hadith warning 'Ammar bin Yasir, a companion of Muhammad and 'Ali, about the faction of transgressors who would kill him. Habashi concludes that "the faction of transgressors" was that of Mu'awiya, and fighting on 'Ali's side was a duty and Sunna.[40] Furthermore, Habashi explicitly disagrees with most contemporary Sunni jurists by citing several ahadith in order to uphold the legitimacy of the imama of 'Ali and of his sons Hasan and Husayn.[41] Also, Habashi upholds the teachings of Imam Husayn's son, Zayn al-'Abidin, who is held in high esteem by the Ahbash.[42] Yet, beyond his acceptance of the foregoing doctrinal positions, Habashi's closeness to Shi'ism comes from another source-his deep immersion in Sufism.

• [37]. Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi, Sarih al-Bayan (Explicit Declaration) (Beirut: Jam'iyyat al-Mashari', 1990), 195, Ibid., 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
• [38]. Habashi, Sarih al-Bayan, 90
• [39]. Ibid., 111. Habashi does not give much importance to the Hanafi and Maliki Schools of Law
• [40]. Ibid., 107; see also Manar al-Hudd, April-May 1993, 45
• [41]. 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."
• [42]. Manar al-Hudd, November 1992, 32; ibid., April 1993, 37

Thus, it is fair and paramount that the statement, "Al'Ahbash beliefs are an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunni and Shi'a theology withSufism." should be and must be inserted back to this version of Ahbash page which remains to have other NPOV issues. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

Please say exactly what you think is not neutral about the article, it seems neutral enough to me. This is not what I would call a reliable source. Also p113 0f Everyday jihad: the rise of militant Islam among Palestinians in Lebanon does not support that edit at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A source/link from a University is not "reliable" and yet the information from the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' own web-site is? Alright. Then what about the other academic sources (i.e. ) which quite interestingly has been used to substantiate other statements of this version of Ahbash. Right now, I am just addressing one of the point of contention raised by Baboon43 and rest of the NPOV issues will be highlighted as I get some more time. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

Their own website is good for what they believe yes, read WP:RS. I already told you Rougier's work does not support your proposed edit. I will look at the others when time allows. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis does not support your proposal either, do you often misrepresent sources? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

With reference to the above discussion with Baboon43, there are other academic sources as well as the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' own material [Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi's books, Sarih al-Bayan (Explicit Declaration), Al-Kafil bi-'Ilm al-Din al-Daruri (The Guarantor of the Necessary Science of Faith) and quotations from the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' official magazine, Manar al-Hudd)] which support the edit. Let me point out very clearly that I am NOT the author of ANY of the versions posted on Ahbash page. I must further confess that I am NOT quite proficient (i.e. master enough) in the sorcery of quoting various Wikipedia guidelines to advocate my edits. Having confessed that, I think you are the author of this version (as you were approached by Baboon43 for help) of Ahbash and as far as I recall you kept that statement until Baboon43 removed it. Is it about WP:OWN now? Thank you. McKhan (talk)

You have some cheek accusing me of OWN when you and your sockpuppets kept this article a stub for years. Baboon43 never approached me at all, I got to this article after you used one of your sockpuppets to report him for edit warring. And yes, I wrote the majority of the content in the article as it currently stands. I have no idea what Baboon43 has removed, perhaps you would try giving me a diff. And what you say regards your proposed edit, get some reliable sources, not someones opinion. If you look at the article history I have already covered your complaint with my last edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me begin by providing Baboon43's edit (I am just guessing that's what you meant by 'diff'.).

I appreciate the fact that you have just added the statement "According to Gary Gambill the AICP arrived in the Lebanon in the 1950's were he says "they blended Sunni and Shi'a theology with Sufi spiritualism into a doctrinal eclecticism that preached nonviolence and political quietism." but under 'History' which vaguely implies that in the PAST the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies "blended Sunni and Shi'a theology with Sufi spiritualism..." consequently misrepresenting the following academic sources (along-with Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' own material [Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi's books, Sarih al-Bayan (Explicit Declaration), Al-Kafil bi-'Ilm al-Din al-Daruri (The Guarantor of the Necessary Science of Faith) and quotations from the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' official magazine, Manar al-Hudd):

• Hamzeh, A. Nizar; Dekmejian, R. Hrair (1996). "A Sufi Response to Political Islamism: Al-Ahbash of Lebanon". International Journal of Middle East Studies (Beirut, Lebanon: American University of Beirut) 28: 217–229. doi:10.1017/S0020743800063145. Retrieved 2009-04-10.
• Rubin, Barry (2009). Guide to Islamist Movements. M.E. Sharpe. p. 322. ISBN 978-0765617477.
• Rubin, Barry (2009). Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 139. ISBN 0230623069.
• The World Almanac of Islamism: 2011
• Marshall, Paul; Shea, Nina (2011). Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 356. ISBN 0199812284.
• Dossier: Al-Ahbash (April 2001)

Thus, it is suffice to state that the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies never gave up their beliefs [as preached by their beloved Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi in his books Sarih al-Bayan (Explicit Declaration), Al-Kafil bi-'Ilm al-Din al-Daruri (The Guarantor of the Necessary Science of Faith) and through their official magazine, Manar al-Hudd] of blending Sunni and Shi'a theology with Sufi spiritualism to this day which goes quite contrary to mainstream Sunnis' beliefs. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

He never removed any content in that diff[1] just an extra reference, what exactly is it you are complaining about there? And as for my edit, that is what the source says, the group now say that are Sufi, as do a great many sources, so that is what the article says. What they started off as along with the roots of their ideology belongs in the history section. Can you stop with the wallsotext btw? Try to keep your post succinct so this can be worked through a little easier. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

i told you sufis are a mix of shia sunni belief anyway so its not needed in the article..the sufi page on wiki will tell you some orders are mixed with shia sunni belief...by saying fighting on the side of ali is a sunnah doesnt make one a shia because sunnis believe ali was rightful khalifa anyway..Gambill and the rest of sources you added seem to be using the same source "a sufi response" to declare ahbash uses shia beliefs.."a sufi response is the first to analyze ahbash and it didnt do a good job as it conflicts with other sources especially the academics that did independent research instead of quoting "a sufi response". supporting a leader doesnt make you shia but its the beliefs, ahbash doesnt accept shia texts they accept sunni ones. Baboon43 (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, Let's try one more time. Shall we?

• Are you sure that through this edit here (with the edit summary: "removed shia element source as it appears to be false") Baboon43 "never removed any content"? Following is the list of his edits which he made:

* (cur | prev) 09:25, 28 April 2012‎ Baboon43 (talk |contribs)‎ . . (9,600 bytes) (-377)‎ . . (removed double citation) (undo)

* (cur | prev) 09:19, 28 April 2012‎ Baboon43(talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,977 bytes) (-933)‎ . . (removed shia element source as it appears to be false) (undo)

* (cur | prev) 10:31, 27 April 2012‎ Baboon43(talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,910 bytes) (+711)‎ . . (expanded beliefs section) (undo)

* (cur | prev) 05:39, 27 April 2012‎ Baboon43 (talk |contribs)‎ . . (10,199 bytes) (+521)‎ . . (group growth in history added) (undo)

As per your demand, I have provided you the following reliable and verifiable academic sources which support the edit:

• Hamzeh, A. Nizar; Dekmejian, R. Hrair (1996). "A Sufi Response to Political Islamism: Al-Ahbash of Lebanon". International Journal of Middle East Studies (Beirut, Lebanon: American University of Beirut) 28: 217–229. doi:10.1017/S0020743800063145. Retrieved 2009-04-10.
• Rubin, Barry (2009). Guide to Islamist Movements. M.E. Sharpe. p. 322. ISBN 978-0765617477.
• Rubin, Barry (2009). Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 139. ISBN 0230623069.
• The World Almanac of Islamism: 2011
• Marshall, Paul; Shea, Nina (2011). Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 356. ISBN 0199812284.
• Dossier: Al-Ahbash (April 2001)

Thus, the statement "Al'Ahbash beliefs are an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunni and Shi'a theology withSufism." should be andmust be inserted back to the "Religious beliefs" section (Not the "History" section) - like it was before Baboon43 removed it - of this version of Ahbash page which remains to have other NPOV issues. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

Baboon43, Please, read it very carefully. Let me PROVE the FACT (contrary to your claim that "a sufi response" is using quotes from an opponent of ahbash) that the acadmics, A. Nizar Hamzeh and R. Hrair Dekmejian, who wrote "A Sufi response to political islamism: Al-ahbash of Lebanon", are IN FACT using the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' / Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi's own material (particularly, Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi's books, Sarih al-Bayan (Explicit Declaration), Al-Kafil bi-'Ilm al-Din al-Daruri (The Guarantor of the Necessary Science of Faith) as well as quotations from the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' official magazine, Manar al-Hudd).

Here is the excerpt you are referring to:

THE SHI'A DIMENSION

One of the most revealing aspects of Shaykh Habashi's thought is his acceptance of the Shi'a doctrine of legitimacy. He begins by quoting Shafi'i, that everyone who fought 'Ali was a baghi (transgressor).[37] Habashi further cites Ibn Hanbal to jus tify 'Ali's caliphate against Mu'awiya and his "faction of transgressors" (al-firqa al-baghiya).[38] As a further step, Habashi underlines the legitimacy of all four members of the Prophet's family -Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Husayn - by citing the canonical writings of Muslim and al-Nisa'i.[39] Equally significant is Shaykh Habashi's rejection of the use of ijtihad by some Sunni jurists to legitimize Mu'awiya's opposition to 'Ali. As a case in point, Habashi takes issue with Ibn Taymiyya's view that fighting with 'Ali against Mu'awiya was neither a duty nor a Sunna. This product of Ibn Taymiyya'sijtihad is found invalid by Habashi because of the presence of a clear Qur'anic text and hadith. In support of his position, Habashi cites the verse "fight the group that is a transgressor," along with the Prophet's hadith warning 'Ammar bin Yasir, a companion of Muhammad and 'Ali, about the faction of transgressors who would kill him. Habashi concludes that "the faction of transgressors" was that of Mu'awiya, and fighting on 'Ali's side was a duty and Sunna.[40] Furthermore, Habashi explicitly disagrees with most contemporary Sunni jurists by citing several ahadith in order to uphold the legitimacy of the imama of 'Ali and of his sons Hasan and Husayn.[41] Also, Habashi upholds the teachings of Imam Husayn's son, Zayn al-'Abidin, who is held in high esteem by the Ahbash.[42] Yet, beyond his acceptance of the foregoing doctrinal positions, Habashi's closeness to Shi'ism comes from another source-his deep immersion in Sufism.

* [37]. Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi, Sarih al-Bayan (Explicit Declaration) (Beirut: Jam'iyyat al-Mashari', 1990), 195, Ibid., 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

* [38]. Habashi, Sarih al-Bayan, 90

* [39]. Ibid., 111. Habashi does not give much importance to the Hanafi and Maliki Schools of Law

* [40]. Ibid., 107; see also Manar al-Hudd, April-May 1993, 45

* [41]. 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."

* [42]. Manar al-Hudd, November 1992, 32; ibid., April 1993, 37

Under the light of above mentioned academic sources (along-with Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' own material [Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi's books, Sarih al-Bayan (Explicit Declaration), Al-Kafil bi-'Ilm al-Din al-Daruri (The Guarantor of the Necessary Science of Faith) and quotations from the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' official magazine, Manar al-Hudd)], it is abundantly clear that the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies blend Sunni and Shi'a theology with Sufi spiritualism and thus should be and must be added under the "Religious beliefs" section. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

again all 6 sources your listing are taken from "a sufi response" and i have told you its conflicting with the current article, other academics and ahbash based on their website...on sources 37,40,42..the ahbash are a sufi order so the article doesnt need to state the input of mixing shia belief its not relevent because ahbash follows sunni texts..ahbash is labeled sufism already so its quite clear they are not only sunni but also sufis! which according to wiki some orders tend to mix shia and sunni believes anyway. what you requesting is to define the word sufi on the ahbash page which would confuse things further for the reader when they can click on sufi which i linked in the article to know about the subject but on the belief of ahbash they are sunni that is how they identify. Baboon43 (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you stating or implying that Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi did NOT write Sarih al-Bayan (Explicit Declaration), Al-Kafil bi-'Ilm al-Din al-Daruri (The Guarantor of the Necessary Science of Faith) and Manar al-Hudd is not the official magazine of the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies? Please, feel welcome to elaborate. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

no im telling you your proposal is not necessary for the following reasons listed above.Baboon43 (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Section break

Baboon43 read WP:INDENT McKhan read WP:TLDR. As to the sources, for your suggested edit. Guide to Islamist Movements p322 Rubi, Barry ed. Says they are Sufi. It does not support the content you suggest, nor does Everyday jihad: the rise of militant Islam among Palestinians in Lebanon as was already pointed out. Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis discusses it in a historical context, and this is already in the article. I also get the feeling that your use of "Habashies" is derogatory, so stop with that please. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Another source checked Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide does not support the edit, yes it says they combine Sunni and Shi'a. but it also says they are Sufi. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• The World Almanac of Islamism: 2011 Says they are Sufi. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me address this part - "I also get the feeling that your use of "Habashies" is derogatory" - of your comment first.

• Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi (also spelled as Habesha) was from Ethiopia.
• In Arabic, Ethiopia is called Arabic: الحبشة al-Ḥabašah which according to Wikipedia's own page, "In the broadest sense, the word Habesha may refer to anyone from Ethiopia or Eritrea."
• In the case of Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi, since he was from Ethiopia, thus, the terms 'al-Habashi', Al-Ahbash, Ahbash, Habashies and / or Habashis has been used denoting his followers as 'Habashis' or 'Habashies' as well as the origin of their Shaykh.

Please, rest assured that there is no mal-intention to use the term Habashies or Habashis in derogatory sense on my part.

Prior to addressing other parts of your comment, I think it is very important to point out and clarify that I am ONLY focusing upon this statement (as of now): "'Al'Ahbash beliefs are an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunni and Shi'a." Whether they are Sufi or NOT, we have not moved to that part yet.

Having said that you claim that "Guide to Islamist Movements p322 Rubi, Barry ed. Says they are Sufi. It does not support the content you suggest, nor does Everyday jihad: the rise of militant Islam among Palestinians in Lebanon as was already pointed out. Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis discusses it in a historical context, and this is already in the article."

Let us see:

• Rubin, Barry (2009). Guide to Islamist Movements. M.E. Sharpe. p. 322. ISBN 978-0765617477. ("As explained on al-Ahbash's own Web site, his system mixes elements of Sunni and Shi'a theological doctrines with Sufi spiritualism.")
• Rubin, Barry (2009). Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 139. ISBN 0230623069. ("...Shaykh Abdullah al-Hirari, an Islamic scholar of East African origins (al-Ahbash literally means "the Ethiopians") who immigrated to Lebanon in 1950, the movement blended Sunni and Shi'a theology with Sufi spiritualism...")
• Rougier, Bernard (2007). Everyday jihad: the rise of militant Islam among Palestinians in Lebanon. Harvard University Press. p. 115. ISBN 978-0674025295. ("By describing Mu'awiyya, the governor of Damascus, as "seditious" and taking the side of Ali, his adversary, Shaykh al-Hirari adopts the Shi'ite tradition of paying special respect to certain members of the Prophet's family--Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Husaysn--while condemning the caliph Mu'awiyya and his son Yazid. The Ahbash thereby reject the dominant values of their religious community; they break with Sunni tradition by granting symbolic concession to "Alid legitimism" (in the words of Henri Laoust and P. K. Hitri) in the Lebanese context, where tensions between Sunnis and Shi'ites is particularly sharp.")

• The World Almanac of Islamism: 2011 ("His school of thought mixes elements of Sunni and Shi'a theological doctrines with Sufi spiritualism....accept the legitimacy of the Imam Ali (the Shi’a doctrine of legitimacy) and of his sons Hassan and Hussein; uphold the teachings of Hussein's son, Zayn al-Abidin...")
• Marshall, Paul; Shea, Nina (2011). Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 356. ISBN 0199812284. ("Al-Ahbash combines Sunni and Shia elements and is Sufi in outlook.")
• Dossier: Al-Ahbash (April 2001) ("The Ahbash's belief system mixes elements of Sunni and Shi'ite theological doctrines with Sufi spiritualism. Supporting the legitimacy of the Imama of Ali, and of his sons Hasan and Hussein, and upholding the teachings of Imam Hussein's son, Zayn al-Abidin. They believe that fighting on Imam Ali's side against Muawiyah was a duty and a Sunna. In this, al-Ahbash set themselves apart from all other Sunni jurists and are closer to Shi'ite Islam.")

Thank you. McKhan (talk)

contrary to popular belief the Battle of Siffin was not sunni vs shia battle..the battle was over disagreements and sunnis all agree that ali was on the right side since he was the KHALIFA.Baboon43 (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Again with the wallsotext? For christs sake it is already mentioned in the article that they blend various beliefs, but they self identify as Sufi, all the sources you provided say they are Sufi. Your proposal is already in the article, just drop it FFS. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid you are NOT reading CAREFULLY despite the fact that I quoted the pertinent text right from the sources contrary to your claim. This statement, "The Association of Islamic Charitable Projects was founded in the 1930s by Ahmad al-Ajuz, According to Gary Gambill the AICP arrived in the Lebanon in the 1950's were he says "they blended Sunni and Shi'a theology with Sufi spiritualism into a doctrinal eclecticism that preached nonviolence and political quietism." is NOT only contradicting itself (The first sentence states that the AICP was founded in 1930s and the second sentence reads that the AICP arrived in Lebanon in the 1950s.) but also bias (It only quotes just ONE source (i.e. Gary Gambill) despite other above-mentioned academic sources and we have not even used any Muslim / Islamic sources here.) and inaccurate (as the practice of blending Sunni, Shia with Sufi beliefs by the Ahbash is NOT something they used to do in the HISTORY / PAST but they continue to do so EVEN today. Please, NOTE the date of publications of all academic sources provided above). Thus, it should be and must be corrected under its proper section (i.e. 'Religious Beliefs'). If you will not do it some other neutral admin or editor will do it without twisting or misrepresenting the academic sources. It is just matter of time. And last but not the least, please, be civil and don't invoke 'FFS' and Christ in the same comment. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

If I wish to write FFS and for christs sake I will, it already says in the first line of the religious beliefs section Al-Ahbash beliefs are an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunni Islam and Sufism. So again I ask you, WTF are all the wallsotext for? It is already in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sufis are known to mix sunni and shia beliefs an example "Additionally, various rulers during the reign of the Delhi Sultanates used sufi holy men, who advocated a mixture of Sunni and Shia beliefs, in order to unify India under their rule. also keep in mind much of the islamic world was ruled by sufi sunnis "ottomans". Mawlid initially a shia innovation is celebrated by traditional sunnis. so your suggestion is redundant http://books.google.ca/books?id=KhvTGgP7cuEC&pg=PA268&dq=sufis+mix+sunni+shia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iVapT5fbJOmh6gH-jfj4CA&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=sufis%20mix%20sunni%20shia&f=falseBaboon43 (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Baboon43 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), since the day (March 20, 2012 as per Wikipedia's "Revision history of Al-Ahbash" page) you started editing (sometimes as 70.54.66.158 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))) Wikipedia's Al-Ahbash page and other pages, we have had quite EXTENSIVE discussions. Then Darkness Shines wrote the whole Al-Ahbash page again. While Darkness Shines and I were blocked, you made extensive edits which included the removal of "'Al'Ahbash beliefs are an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunni and Shi'a"' from 'Religious beliefs' section with the edit summary "removed shia element source as it appears to be false" despite the academic references with the statement. NOW after another lengthy discussion and despite having EVEN more academic sources supporting the statement, you are claiming that my suggestion is "redundant." It is very important to note that you want each and everything presented by the Al-Ahbash on their web-site or written favorably for the Ahbash to be taken on as-it-is basis and thus kosher to be added to the content of Al-Ahbash page and yet you want to discard, discredit and even undermine (in some cases, from the sources which you present by yourself) anything critical of the Ahbash [written by the Muslim scholars (in the case of Muslim scholars, you don't even consider them "Muslim" or their views credible enough to be added to the Al-Ahbash and thus castigate them by labeling them as "Wahabis" or simply "opponents.") or even the non-Muslim academics) as written by the "opponents" which is against the essence of NPOV. On the top of that, you constantly accuse me of being the stumbling block in expanding this page despite the fact that NONE of the VERSIONS presented on the Al-Ahbash page have EVER written by me. Consequently, I find it really strange and categorically unfair and unjust that you and Darkness Shines (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · Shines.html RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) are given free-hand to insert, edit, incorporate and even misrepresent whatever you feel like despite the EXTENSIVE DISCUSSIONS and whatever I suggest (with academic sources over and over again) is either deemed "already added" or "redundant." I, sincerely, hope that a neutral editor or admin gets involved who can present the information written by the Ahbash as well as its opponents objectively under the light of pertinent academic sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

Baboon43 just made another PARTIAL / POV "edit": "In 2012 The Ethiopian Islamic Council closed down Saudi funded "Awolia institute" and invited Al Ahbash into the country. Protests against both Al Ahbash and the Islamic Council were than organized in the capital." by MISREPRESENTING the source, "Ethiopian Muslims protest government 'interference." The source, which has been used to substantiate the "edit", NOWHERE mentions the word "Saudi" NOR "funded." To the contrary, the source highlights the following facts ('EXCERPTS):

• "Also known as the Association of Islamic Charitable Projects, Al Ahbash was founded in the early 1980s by Sheikh Abdullah al Harrari, an Ethiopian cleric who was forced to leave his country for Lebanon in 1950."
• "The protesters accuse Meles' government of interfering by seeking to impose the beliefs of a little-known sect as doctrine. They say the government is promoting the Al Ahbash, an Islamic movement that opposes ultra-conservative ideology and rejects violence."

• "Since the beginning of the year, demonstrations have taken place on an almost weekly basis in mosques throughout the capital, and more are expected. The London-based Control Risks group said this week Ethiopia's security forces might come down hard on any further protests, based on the government's past responses to unrest."

• "According to Abubeker Ahmed, an Ethiopian Muslim activist and head of an independent Islamic arbitration committee, the protesters are lamenting what they see as efforts to impose the sect, rather than the sect itself."

• "He says the appointed leadership of Ethiopia's Islamic Affairs Supreme Council was not representative of the country's Muslim community." "It (Al Ahbash) has the right to exist in Ethiopia, but it is unacceptable that the Council tries to impose it on all members of the Muslim community," Ahmed told Reuters. He said the government wanted to prevent a vote to elect a new council and replace the decade-old one. "They (the government) want to keep them because they agree to whatever orders," he said.

Jimma Times, "an international independent news media outlet run by reporters both in Ethiopia and the Ethiopian Diaspora," reports the following it its news story, "Ethiopia's Muslims in row over Ahbash ideology's link with Meles" (EXCERPTS):

• "Followers of Abhash say they practice the original Islam that promotes tolerance and protects Muslim youth from harmful radical and political Islam. But critics of Abhash say it is anti-Islam, a blasphemy and it weakens the empowerment of Muslims worldwide."

• "Under pressure from western organizations and due to some religious violence in Muslim dominated towns of Ethiopia, the government of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi has reportedly began a new indoctrination program to persuade some Ethiopian Muslims to accept the moderate Abhash ideology. While the intention of the Meles government is to reduce violence and regulate foreign extremist ideologies, many Muslims are blaming the government for its interference. In Jimma city and Bahir Dar, there are already rumors of government harassment of Muslims who oppose the Abhash. In a country where media is suppressed and false rumors spread like wildfire, mistrust is expected to grow further between government officials and the Muslim community."

• "Critics also accuse the Meles government for ignoring radical evangelism imposed on Ethiopians by western Christian groups. Political analyst Kemal Abdisa told Jimma Times that the Meles government’s favoritism and undemocratic policies contribute to the existing problem. “In a democratic society where traditional media flourishes, facts would have won over gossips and rumors. But the one-party Meles regime has de facto outlawed independent media,” according to Mr. Abdisa. He said Ethiopian Muslims are already moderate and the government should not impose another version of Islam on Sunni Muslims in Ethiopia."

Here is another news story "Ethiopia Muslims Reject Gov’t Interference" echoing the same facts.

Thus, this PARTIAL / POV / statement / edit, "In 2012 The Ethiopian Islamic Council closed down Saudi funded "Awolia institute" and invited Al Ahbash into the country. Protests against both Al Ahbash and the Islamic Council were than organized in the capital." should be removed or at least corrected. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

The article says that the protests began when the council shutdown the wahabi school "awolia institute" which not only is funded by saudi but according to the u.s treasury has branches that are tied to terrorism in indonesia and the phillipines and give me a second ill add this source to the article. http://almanac.afpc.org/Ethiopia "Alawiyah School and Mission Center" Baboon43 (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I see NO REASON whatsoever to INCLUDE that statement, which you have added in the name of "edit", in the first place. And now what you are doing is a BLATANT misrepresentation of the source. If you are referring to this paragraph / excerpt "What sparked the protests in the Ethiopian capital, activists said, was the Islamic Council's dismissal of several teachers at the Awoliya institute - a move they said signalled the government's determination to crack down on groups it believes poses a threat to stability. The institute's college and an Arabic language learning centre have also been shut down." and IMPLYING that "the protests began" ONLY WHEN "In 2012 The Ethiopian Islamic Council closed down Saudi funded "Awolia institute. (the wahabi school "awolia institute")." THEN you are DEFINITELY MISREPRESENTING it without mentioning or taking into account the other grievances (Please, read the excerpts above which I have quoted from the very source you provided to substantiate your "edit.") which the protesters are protesting about. And NOW you have found YET another source to MISREPRESENT [That source does NOT state that "Alawiyah School" BUT "In August 2006, the U.S. Treasury Department formally designated the Philippine and Indonesian branches of the IIRO for facilitating terrorism." which "donated food and medical relief to Ethiopia following natural disasters." You keep on bringing and editing this page on the basis of "Al-Ahbash vs. Wahabis" war. This is PRECISELY why this version of Al-Ahbash reads like an ADVERTISEMENT by the Ahbash and thus has some serious NPOV issues. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

I have to agree with McKhan here about the source (although I wish McKhan would be a bit more concise with the comments). The source you included mentions the "dismissal of several teachers at the Awoliya institute" being the catalyst for a protest, and mentions a "college and an Arabic language learning centre" being shut down. The source does not say it closed down the institute itself, nor does it describe it as "Saudi funded". The edit also says that the government "invited" Al-Ahbash in conjunction with shutting down this institute; the source says nothing about this. The closest thing it says is that the protesters "say the government is promoting the Al Ahbash". - SudoGhost 08:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes that is what sparked the protest the closing of the school most importantly and invitation of ahbash in the country so i put that in the article..the other things you mentioned is irrelevant because the article is about al ahbash not whats going on in ethiopia..ahbash controversy revolves around wahabists so it has to be mentioned..ignoring the al ahbash wahabi war would be ignoring the subject...plz read the almanac source carefully it says "Alawiyah School" is funded by saudi arabia and owned by IIRO than it says IIRO's branches in indonesia and philippines are tied to terrorism. Baboon43 (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Not a single thing you wrote is not supported by the source you gave, the "things I've mentioned" are what the source actually said, so if it's all irrelevant, why include it? - SudoGhost 08:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

SudoGhost, it doesnt mention "A college" it says "the institute" so thats basically the whole institute that has been shut down..i can change it to "after dismissal of instructors" since the protests began than...but ill keep the "saudi funded" part since my 2nd source mentions that so ill add the second source with some minor changes. Baboon43 (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid cherry-picking from with-in the sources to substantiate one's POV (s) in the name of "edit" is not only unethical but also disingenuous. Your statement, "ahbash controversy revolves around wahabists," is proven inaccurate under the light of your own source as well as plenty of other academic sources. Ironically, Ahbash's own Shaykh spent quite sometime in Saudi Arabia for educational purposes. It is sad but true that you want each and everything presented by the Al-Ahbash on their web-site or written favorably for the Ahbash to be taken on as-it-is basis and thus kosher to be added to the content of Al-Ahbash page and yet you want to discard, discredit and even undermine (in some cases, from the sources which you present by yourself) anything critical of the Ahbash [written by the Muslim scholars (in the case of Muslim scholars, you don't even consider them "Muslim" or their views credible enough to be added to the Al-Ahbash and thus castigate them by labeling them as "Wahabis" or simply "opponents.") or even the non-Muslim academics) as written by the "opponents" which is against the essence of NPOV. I, sincerely, hope that a neutral editor or admin gets involved who can present the information written by the Ahbash as well as its opponents objectively under the light of pertinent academic sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

It does quite clearly mention "a college". It does not say "the institute was shut down", the exact words are "The institute's college and an Arabic language learning centre have also been shut down." There is a key difference there, especially because the wording used in the source does not support the wording used in the article. Also, the "Saudi funded" part doesn't belong either, this is a synthesis of sources, especially because the second source does not say it is Saudi funded, but that it is "owned since 1993 by the Saudi-controlled World Muslim League’s International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO)". Again, there's a subtle but key difference there. I'm also not seeing anything that says that the Awoliya institute is the same as the Alawiyah School and Mission Center. - SudoGhost 08:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Mckhan, stop denying the fact that this group is against wahabis as even their own website says so in the about section so i dont see how you can connect the founder of the group with wahhabis just because he studied in saudi arabia..SudoGhost, ok here's the thing ill change "saudi funded" to "saudi-controlled" and that the protests started when some instructors were dismissed..also that the government promotes al ahbash according to protestors..and about awoliya its a mispelling its the same.. on the official website it says " In this respect, Awolia college was established on November 2003 in the then Awolia Muslim Mission High School Compound which is found in Kolfe Keranyo Sub city of Addis Ababa". http://www.awoliacollege.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12&Itemid=12 Baboon43 (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"Saudi-controlled" is still WP:SYNTH; it's combining the sources to make it seem like this is relevant to why the protests happened. If it was relevant, then the first source would have mentioned this. - SudoGhost 09:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Baboon43, I know enough about the Ahbash / AICP that I will take each and everything published on their web-site with a grain of salt. Thus, you must stop promoting and slanting the Wikipedia pages in the favor of Ahbash / AICP. As far as the "Ahbash vs. Wahabis" war is concerned, I have already mentioned to you and lots of others who came before you that Wikipedia is NOT the platform to wage that war, thus, it should NOT be fought on the Wikipedia pages which aspires to have NPOV. That statement should not be added to the content of Al-Ahbash page which is already very much slanted and contains lots of other pro-Ahbash POVs taken on as-it-isbasis and/or by simply cherry-picking from with-in the sources. You should also correct this POV / edit on Abdullah_al-Harari page (as well as this one) of yours under the light of our EXTENSIVE and LENGTHY discussions as you keep on MISREPRESENTING the sources. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

Darkness Shines, I don't recall that you ever discussed ANYTHING prior to re-writing your version arbitrarily. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

That would be due to extensive sock puppetry keeping the article a stub for how many years? Given your obvious prejudice towards this group it would be better to gain consensus before such massive POV changes, I noted you again inserted the term "sect" which really will not do. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I have NEVER been the author of ANY of the versions posted on the Al-Ahbash page including the one which I posted (It was written by some other editor. I just tried to make it NEUTRAL.) few minutes ago. I have no "prejudice" towards this group. I just want them to present themselves whatever they are rather than hiding behind the mainstream Sunnis. There are plenty of academic sources which consider the AICP / Ahbash a sect as well as a group or movement and the version I posted had both in order to comply with the NPOV. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

You took information from an editor that you REVERTED accusing his version of being bias? but now you added your own edits making the info slanted POV..by adding "Conflation of different branches of Islamic theology" and other things...Ahbash is sufi according to most ACADEMIC sources and their own website. Baboon43 (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

As near as I can see you have never added to this article at all' [2] since 2006 you and your socks kept it at a stub though. So forgive my lack of good faith here. but you need to discuss any changes made to this article. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Baboon43 , Indeed, that editor's version was a POV towards the Ahbash / AICP. That's precisely WHY I added my owen edits using the Ahbash's and their Shaykh's own books and material along-with the academic sources. The bottom line IS that you want to make sure that ANY version of Al-Ahbash page considers them as "Sunni" (which they are NOT as they mix Shia and Sunni beliefs with Sufism. Interestingly enough, Sunnis are considered as a SECT by the Wikipedia, thus, I don't understand that why shouldn't the Ahbash be treated as a sect too SPEICALLY when there are plenty of academic sources available indicating that the Ahbash are NOT only a SECT but ALSO a movement or group.), "Moderate" , "Tolerant", (How can the adherents of a sect be "moderate" and "tolerant" when they ex-communicate their own "fellow" Muslims by categorizing them "Kafir", "Wahabi" or "Non-Muslim" altoghether and YET still want to remain under the umbrella of Islam? ) "Victim of other 'Militant' or 'Islamist" organizations (And yet they are the ones who participated in the "war of mosques" and there are scores of academic sources which consider them "Islamist" and "Militant" just like they consider other Muslim organizations.). The version I posted at least is NPOV and consider both sides (It is IMPORTANT to note that I did NOT use ANY Fatwa but just the academic sources along-with Ahbash's and their Shaykh's own material. )You seem to be happy with the current version as it contains lots of Ahbash's POVs. On the Shaykh Hariri page, you want to call him a "Professor" and yet both of sources WHICH YOU PROVIDED by yourself NOWHERE mentions that he was EVER a "Professor." That speaks volume about your agenda. It is just matter of time that the truth will prevail. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

Its quite obvious no version is acceptable to you except for your own POV edits or stub lines hence that is why you have been reverting edits to this article for more than half a decade...I told you a million times that sufis are known to mix sunni and shia belief that is why they are called SUFI..Ahbash are moderate and tolerant but just not to extremists who want to bulldoze graves and kill muslims..have you not heard of the term meet fire with fire? Ahbash doesnt take any mosques by force they are SUPPORTED by governments..do you actually think ahbash can get away with stealing mosques when there is a government in the country? No your version is POV not NPOV and also you deleted reliable sourced info contributed by me..by the way "tariq ramadan" whom you like to quote is bitter over the fact that ahbash defeated his grand daddys group the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD.."in a book published by Encounter Books, Caroline Fourest analysed Tariq Ramadan's 15 books, 1,500 pages of interviews, and approximately 100 recordings,[53][54] and concludes "Ramadan is a war leader," and the "political heir of his grandfather," Hassan al-Banna, stating that his discourse is, "often just a repetition of the discourse that Banna had at the beginning of the 20th century in Egypt," and that he "presents [al-Banna] as a model to be followed"..for the last part WRONG talk page. Baboon43 (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ditto! For the past half decade, your Ahbash brethren (And YES you are one of them. No matter how hard you deny. It is written all over your edits.) have been trying (using scores of sock puppets - a partial list can be found on my Talk Page - and tactics including edit-warring) their mighty best to use this page as a marketing tool just because this is the very first page which appears in the Search Results. The book you quoted is a POV, nothing more and nothing less. The fact remains that Tariq Ramadan is a bona-fide Professor with a Ph.D. in Arabic and in Islamic studies. And there are lots of other MUSLIM SCHOLARS and PUBLICATIONS which know the reality of Ahbash. Had Ahbash some courage then they wouldn't have been hiding behind the mainstream Sunni and THEN claiming to be Sufis. And you wouldn't be here twisting, misrepresenting and cherry-picking the ACADEMIC SOURCES to portray the Shaykh as a "Professor" and Ahbash group as a "Sufi". IF you agree that "sufis are known to mix sunni and shia belief" then why are you so adamant about NOT adding this fact about the Ahbash that they blend Shia and Sunni beliefs with Sufism - which is supported by lots of VERIFIABLE / NEUTRAL and PEER-VIEWED ACADEMIC SOURCES - to the content of Al-Ahbash page. Why did you remove that? Did you even bother to read the version of the other editor? EVEN he points out that the point that they are "Sufi" is contentious - a fact which is supported by other verifiable sources too. I have NOT seen a Muslim scholar or academic source YET which will satisfy the Ahbash / AICP. They consider themselves to be a "Saved Group" of people, thus, for them anybody who is NOT adherent to their school of thought is either "Wahabi", "Kaafir", "Opponent" or simply out of his/her mind. It might be easy for you and your brethren to fool some of the gullible editors of Wikipedia but I know enough about Ahbash, thus, it will be really hard to fool me. I ALREADY have had very LENGTHY and EXTENSIVE discussions with you now it is up to you whether you work with me to make this page NEUTRAL and come up with a version which presents the information written by the Ahbash as well as its opponents objectively under the light of pertinent academic sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines, otherwise, I will be more than happy to try other venues available on Wikipedia. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

Wanted

Sudo, Please, be specific if you really are NEUTRAL and want to help with this page. Here is the first paragraph or executive summary:

Al-Ahbash (Arabic: الأحباش‎ al-Aḥbāš; literal meaning “the Ethiopians”), also known as Association of Islamic Charitable Projects or the Society of Islamic Philanthropic Projects (Arabic: ‏جمعية المشاريع الخيرية الإسلام‎ jam'iyyat al-mashari' al-khayriyya al-islamiyya / Ǧamʿīya al-Mašārīʿ al-Ḫairīya al-Islām) , is an Islamic sect and a Sufi religious movement from Lebanon.

This page needs NEUTRAL Wikipedia editors who will help with a version of this page which presents the information written by the Ahbash as well as its opponents objectively under the light of pertinent academic sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. The current version has lots of NPOV issues. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

The current article is somewhat neutral but your recent input is bias therefore is not acceptable and i have explained to you the issues with it above. Baboon43 (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I have had VERY LONG and EXTENSIVE discussions with you since you came along. And I have provided AMPLE NEUTRAL, VERIFIABLE and PEER-VIEWED ACADEMIC sources INCLUDING the books written by Ahbash's own Shaykh as well as their official magazine. This version is NOT Neutral as it is full of Ahbash POVs, thus, it has lots of NPOV issues. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

Of course facts are not neutral but opinions are right? Everyone is wrong and your right! It doesnt work like that because wikipedia is not the place to battle fellow editors..If you were actually interested in a good faith edit to this article you would have done it 6 years ago instead of reverting everything..Not only is your recent input bias you continue to revert other peoples work under the guise of new input now. Baboon43 (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It is NOT about my "opinions" - it is WHAT the NEUTRAL, VERIFIABLE and PEER-VIEWED ACADEMIC sources state. AND I am afraid you keep on cherry-picking the sources just like you are trying to misrepresent the sources on Abdullah_al-Harari page. Here is an example of your POV / edit on Abdullah_al-Harari page (as well as this one too). Apparently, you are cherry-picking from the discussions too. I think I am going to have to escalate the matter to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

You folks seem to be reverting back and forth between two very different articles with different viewpoints. As an outsider, I have no basis for deciding which is right, but I do have some perhaps annoying advice to offer: one of you should stop reverting, and start editing incrementally. Right now the debate you are having is impossible for an outsider to evaluate, because the changes between the disputed versions are too large. There are clear problems with the User:McKhan version, but that doesn't convince me that this version is POV. If you were to take this step by step it's possible you could get some useful feedback from other editors. If the two sides are both pushing a POV (which, to be clear, I am not asserting!), then probably neither of you will do this, but if one or both sides really want NPOV, I think this is the way to get there, even if the short-term version of the article is hard to stomach. Abhayakara (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I have taken a look at both versions and have make the necessary adjustments combining both versions. The state of the article was in shambles - edits whereby the text is skewed to shine a positive light on any group of individual is a violation of WP:NPOV, McKhan's edits provide verifiable references and I have refined any potential problems. I believe that other users are simply bullying McKhan and this does not cease then further action will be taken, This isn't a battleground. Sakimonk ^talk 00:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have completed the changes; overall I have compromised and merged the two edits together, the article is now in a very strong state and unnecessary removal of content to instigate rev-warring will be dealt with and the page may have to be protected. Sakimonk ^talk 00:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

@sak speak for yourself your stating users have an agenda and following my contributions also making personal attacks is not wise...user sak is here because he took my discussion abit personal see Talk:Wahhabi Baboon43 (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sakimonk, Thank you very much for taking interest into this article. Your edits so far are on the right track. As far as Baboon43 is concerned, I have had very long and extensive discussions with him and all in vain as he doesn't seem to be interested in academic, independent and verifiable sources as per the Wikipedia guidelines. Please, keep up the good work. Sincerely, McKhan (talk)

sak if you dont stop ill have to report you for wp:hounding Baboon43 (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

And if you will not stop edit-warring, I will take this matter further as well. All the sources which have been provided are VERIFIABLE and PEER-VIEWED ACADEMIC sources as per the Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

Don't threaten me, it is yourself who should be concerned for violating wiki guidelines. Presently rev warring and blanking sections while hounding McKhan.Sakimonk ^talk 17:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not hounding, I checked your contributions and found you were harassing mckhan and stepped in to resolve a potential rev war. Also I am concerned that you intend on vandalising Wahhabi.Sakimonk ^talk 17:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems that you just wholesale restored a to previous version of the article. I've reverted this for multiple reasons, not least of all because that's not how collaborative editing works; if you have an issue with the article, discuss that issue. Reverting back to a months old version of the article is not how things are handled. Not to mention the unexplained formatting changes and the interwiki link removal. You haven't actually given a reason why you reverted it back to a previous state, the only reasoning you gave was concerning editor conduct, coincidently this is an editor that you have a strong disagreement with on another article. Please discuss the actual content, as opposed to editors you're already disagreeing with elsewhere, because that just gives the appearance of following their edits. - SudoGhost 00:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sudo, I am afraid you not being neutral here. Sakimonk has attempted to combine the two versions. Baboon43 and Darkness_Shines are the ones who has been making wholesale "changes" to this article without any discussion. I never heard from you about the following:

Sudo, Please, be specific if you really are NEUTRAL and want to help with this page. Here is the first paragraph or executive summary:

Al-Ahbash (Arabic: الأحباش‎ al-Aḥbāš; literal meaning “the Ethiopians”), also known as Association of Islamic Charitable Projects or the Society of Islamic Philanthropic Projects (Arabic: ‏جمعية المشاريع الخيرية الإسلام‎ jam'iyyat al-mashari' al-khayriyya al-islamiyya / Ǧamʿīya al-Mašārīʿ al-Ḫairīya al-Islām) , is an Islamic sect and a Sufi religious movement from Lebanon.

Furthermore, you seem to be contradicting your own advice.

I would like to reiterate that this page needs NEUTRAL Wikipedia editors who will help with a version of this page which presents the information written by the Ahbash as well as its opponents objectively under the light of pertinent academic sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. The current version has lots of NPOV issues. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

I'm quite aware of what I wrote, so please don't sign your comments with my signature, even if you're just copy-pasting what I wrote; a diff works just fine. Secondly, there is a difference between "I'm making a bold edit" and "I'm going to roll this article back to a months-old version without a single explanation". If the article has issues, then discuss them, you're saying the article has issues, what are they? All you've said so far is that anyone that disagrees with you "isn't neutral". - SudoGhost 22:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is there double-standard? Baboon43 made several edits and his edits were defended under the clout of WP:BOLD. And when Sakimonk (who decided to retire from the Wikipedia) attempted to combine the two versions as per following (edit summaries):

00:38, 21 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+250)‎ . . Al-Ahbash ‎ (Refined. Please discuss changes in the talk page. SAKI.)

00:24, 21 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-4)‎ . . m Al-Ahbash ‎ (→‎Controversy: Dead link, spelling.)

00:23, 21 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-53)‎ . . Al-Ahbash ‎ (Sorted text into criticism section and refined sourced information. Sources such as Oxford University Press and Tariq Ramadan, a Professor at Oxford are extremely valid sources and should not be removed without valid reasoning.)

00:09, 21 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+16,189)‎ . . Al-Ahbash ‎ (There is no censorship on Wikipedia, unvalidated removal of fully referenced and sourced text simply to put an individual or group in favourable light is unacceptable and violates WP:NPOV. I have seen the talk page and this is simply soapboxing.)

Now the WP:CONSENSUS is being used. Here is diff which highlights the issues with this article which was apparently reverted back by Baboon43 and he never got accused of "edit-warring" and yet me and Sakimonk did. The bottom line is that nobody wants to help with this article and thus no consensus will ever be achieved. McKhan (talk)

You don't need to copy the article's edit history, it's right there for everyone to see. Reverting back to a months-old version of the article is not helpful for multiple reasons, especially without any explanation other than "editor conduct" concerning an editor they're disagreeing with on another page. Nobody said anything about a consensus, but again it would help if you would state concerns you have with the article as opposed to just claiming that anyone that doesn't agree with you is "non-neutral" because that's not exactly helpful. - SudoGhost 06:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Sudo, As usual, you are using various Wikipedia guidelines to advocate your own sentiments. I offered you the diff. Did you go through the diff? And what is wrong with Sakimonk's attempt to combine the both versions? The current version reads like an advertisement of the Al-Ahbash. It must present the information written by the Ahbash as well as its opponents objectively under the light of pertinent academic sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Why don't you work on that article? Let's see what you come up with. McKhan (talk)

I use "various Wikipedia guidelines" because that is how Wikipedia works; a guideline is a large consensus of many, many editors. These guidelines are there to guide how articles are presented, and I don't see why you find it odd to use policies and guidelines the way they were intended. That diff is over 15kb of difference, and that's without taking into account the text that was altered. Merely presenting a massive diff does not say anything, and it doesn't explain why you think certain information should be changed. - SudoGhost 06:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• None of this will be achieved by merely edit-warring, hence why I have protected the article in order that actual discussion can take place instead. Merely claiming "this is not neutral" and replacing with a preferred version isn't going to be useful unless there is consensus that the replacement version is, indeed, neutral. Which there currently clearly isn't. Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I am very much curious to know that - this time - who is "edit-warring" and who is replacing the current version with a "preferred version". The current version of this article - which you have protected through drive-by protection without anybody's request and without going through the talk pages - was written by your buddy Darkness_Shines. And just like its author, that version is not NPOV. McKhan (talk)

Given that nearly every single one of your article edits this year has been some sort of edit-warring, I did consider solving the problem by blocking you instead, but decided it would be fairer to allow both sides to discuss the issue. Still, thank you for proving my point. Black Kite (talk) 06:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Executive Summary (Proposed)

Darkness_Shines's version:

Al-Ahbash (Arabic: الأحباش‎‎ / al-aḥbash / English: The Ethiopians), also known as the Association of Islamic Charitable Projects (Arabic: ‏جمعية المشاريع الخيرية الإسلام‎‎ / jam'iyyat al-mashari' al-khayriyya al-islamiyya)^[1] is a Sufi religious movement which was founded in the mid 1980s.^[2] The group follow the teachings of Ethiopian scholar Abdullah al-Harari.^[2]

Sakimonk's version:

Al-Ahbash (Arabic: الأحباش‎ al-Aḥbāš; literal meaning “the Ethiopians”), also known as Association of Islamic Charitable Projects or the Society of Islamic Philanthropic Projects (Arabic: ‏جمعية المشاريع الخيرية الإسلام‎ jam'iyyat al-mashari' al-khayriyya al-islamiyya / Ǧamʿīya al-Mašārīʿ al-Ḫairīya al-Islām) ^{[1] [2]} is a Sufi Islamic group founded in the mid 1980s^[3], although considered a sect by some.^[4][5][6][7] The group follow the teachings of Ethiopian scholar Abdullah al-Harari^[3][8][9] who was the group's spiritual leader from 1983 until his death in 2008^[10]. It is also a political party that occasionally runs for elections. The Al-Ahbash have also gained a fair amount of controversy for their anti-Salafi religious stance as well as their Sufi and other beliefs which some consider heretical.^[1][11][7] The group also has heavy opposition among several Muslim and Lebanese groups because of both its religious and political positions, eclectic doctrinal roots and pro-Syrian stance.

Under the name of the Association of Islamic Charitable Projects (AICP) the group has become a transnational movement with branches throughout the Western world, particularly in Lebanese expatriate communities in North America, Australia, Western Europe, and Ukraine ^[11] . It is known for its intensive use of the internet^[12], publishes its own monthly, Manar al-Huda and possesses a radio station by the name of Nida' al-Ma'rifa ^[2].

Comments:

• In my humble point of view, Sakimonk's executive summary is more neutral (as it presents both sides) and elaborate than Darkness_Shines's one as the reader quickly finds out that what the Ahbash are all about. Should sh/e like to continue further then sh/e can always continue reading further (i.e. reading further bullets). McKhan (talk)

The article already includes most of those points therefore its redundant Baboon43 (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• It seems to me that you are trying again to get agreement on a complete version of the article, rather than introducing small edits and discussing them here. What I mean by small edits is that if you want to add five paragraphs, first add one paragraph that contains the most important essence of those five paragraphs, and provides reliable secondary sources to substantiate it. Have a discussion about that paragraph and see if you can get consensus. If people dispute the accuracy of the paragraph, try to find a compromise position rather than defending the contents you have proposed. When you find yourself writing executive summaries, you have lost track of this process, and there's little hope of an end to the dispute other than as a consequence of you and/or the other editors being banned. Abhayakara (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Should you kindly provide an example then I would be greatly thankful. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

It is important to remember that the article's lede, or introduction, should be a brief summary of the main body. Therefor, it is generally best to write the complete article first, then write the summary. There is little point in trying to complete the intro before the main body is finished, since it must reflect the main content, nothing more or less. So, is the body of the article complete? Does it contain all of the info that has been suggested for the lede? If not, it would probably be better to work on the article first. Doc Tropics 13:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Methodology / Ground-rules (Proposed)

Given that the topic is extremely controversial, the following Methodology / Ground-rules I would like to propose assuming that only independent, peer-reviewed academic and verifiable sources will be used:

• The article should present

• a). What Al-Ahbash has to say about them
• b). What the independent, peer-reviewed academic and verifiable sources have to say about the Al-Ahbash and last but not the least
• c). What the opponents of Al-Ahbash have to say about them.

• It is extremely crucial that the NEUTRAL and UN-INVOLVED editors keep an eye on the edits made by the editors and intervene as soon as they find a tangible cause for intervention. Please, make sure to be NEUTRAL, FAIR and JUST as it is an extremely controversial topic.
• The ultimate goal should be to have NPOV compliant version of the Al-Ahbash page.

That would be wonderful if there are more NEUTRAL and UN-INVOLVED editors involved into this process. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

I just want to let you know that the more you boldface things the less people read. I honestly cannot read this, it's a bit of an eyesore. - SudoGhost 03:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Tarekkassar is making further non-NPOV changes to this article which is already lacking NPOV. McKhan (talk)

McKhan, please speak for yourself. Tarekkassar —Preceding undated comment added 13:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

NPOV/POV edits

With regards to the following edits of Tarekkassar:

• "However, the Australian government granted the license for fiscal year 2012-2013 to the same radio management who claim to be a member of the largest coalition of Islamic organizations in Australia, the Islamic High Council of Australia."
  • ^ Kassar, Tarek (November 19, 2012). "Member organizations of the Islamic High Council of Australia".

I have got following questions for Tarekkassar:

• Why is he using his own name next to a list [(i.e. ^ Kassar, Tarek (November 19, 2012)."Member organizations of the Islamic High Council of Australia". , Associations of Darulfatwa)] which has NO indication of author's name on that list at all by itself?
• Why is he using a list of "Associations of Darulfatwa" to substantiate his "edit", "However, the Australian government granted the license for fiscal year 2012-2013 to the same radio management who claim to be a member of the largest coalition of Islamic organizations in Australia, the Islamic High Council of Australia.", when there is NO mention of that at all on that very page either?
• Why is he using Darulfatwa, a self-proclaimed "Islamic High Council of Australia" and a front entity of AICP / ICAP which has NO endorsement, affiliation or association with the mainstream Australian Muslims' organization, Australian Federation of Islamic Councils and/or Australian National Imams Council?

Thank you. McKhan (talk)

In response to above.

Answer to Question No.1 = Technical error, I will review it with my new update.

Answer to Question No. 2 = I will add more cited sources in my new update.

Answer to Quesiton No. 3 = This point has nothing to do with this page. However, it's a point of view (POV) that could be valid if you can bring an evidence because some people claim the same. Then, we can create a wikipedia page for Islamic High Council of Australia and post it there.

Tarekkassar 3:00, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

Here are my answers:

• 1. "Technical error"? What you are doing is a tantamount to sublime or hideous self-advertising (Apparently, this is not your first attempt. Let this edit of yours speak for itself) which is not allowed as per the Wikipedia guidelines. As a sagacious media adviser, you should know that better as it is used as a tool to boost (i.e. SEO, Name propagation on Search Result pages) one's image by media professionals all over the world. Furthermore, you are inserting a categorically unsubstantiated statement without any INDEPENDENT, NEUTRAL and ACADEMIC source.

• 2. IF you are going to add more "cited sources" later on then you should revert your own unsubstantiated edit as soon as possible.

• 3. It is NOT "POV" but a fact that "Darulfatwa" or "Islamic High Council of Australia" is a front entity of AICP / ICAP (Even the content of that page which you inserted by yourself certifies and verifies that fact as it ONLY lists and links to all the AICP / ICAP entities in Australia hence the title "Associations of Darulfatwa") in Australia and NOT associated nor endorsed by the mainstream Australian Muslims' organization, Australian Federation of Islamic Councils and/or Australian National Imams Council.

Thus, let us not make this Wikipedia (which aspires to NPOV) page about Al-Ahbash / AICP a Marketing Flyer or Marketing Brochure by the Al-Ahbash / AICP. Please, do the right thing and revert your unsubstantiated edits if you truly are "unbiased" editor. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

Can only wahabi organizations be listed as mainstream? & plz tell me at what point does an organization became "mainstream" is it after the gulf countries like saudi arabia pump oil revenue into it? or when terrorism is allowed? also why cant a sufi organization be "mainstream"?? Its quite obvious ahbash is supported heavily by the australian government so if that doesnt make it "mainstream" then what does? Its very easy to name an organization "international" or "Islamic" to camouflage its true motives..example, the infamous ISNA. Ahbash can easily join these groups however they have declined because the prerequisite to join is to not attack the Wahhabis Baboon43 (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

McKhan, the discussion is becoming pointless, and out of subject. You may continue talking but I will not answer you anymore because I have a life and just contributing some time each day to Wikipedia, so I want to make my contribution beneficial, fruitful, and effective. Either you remain rational in your discussion or expect from me to keep on skipping any comments by you. This is not a battlefield, so keep your tone and language as Wikipedia platform, a place for sharing information.

I'm currently working on creating a new article, once I have more time for this page, I will start making my substantial edits (with citations) and you will definitely find what whether I'm putting any POV or not. Tarekkassar 2:18, November 27, 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.50.34 (talk)