Talk:Salafi movement/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Requested move 19 November 2014

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus after 58 days, no messages in last 25 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Salafi movement → Salafism – The name for this page must be Salafism from Arabic Salafiyya. That's an exact translation from Arabic. The article itself mentions the name Salafism several times. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 07:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)  – Islamic11111 (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Not done, not uncontroversial. The current title is the result of a previous move request at Talk:Salafi movement/Archive 3#Requested move. A title on the English Wikipedia need not be a direct translation of the Arabic term. Requires discussion. Dekimasuよ! 06:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Further, the editor who made the request was the one who changed all the references to the current title to "Salafism." As of a few days ago, it looked like this. Dekimasuよ! 06:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Support as per Islamic11111. In the parallel article, ar:سلفية, a single word is presented which google translates to Salafi in the title and to Salafism in context of the opening sentence.

• Salafism gets "About 379,000 results" on the web
• "Salafi movement" gets "About 73,000 results" on the web

I thought I had proposed this change myself but this may have been related to a parallel topic.

Add: "Salifi" gets 1.4 million hits Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose as per Toddy1 below GregKaye ✍♪ 06:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Support per popular usage. Forgot to add, I think movement is correct for an aspect of this page, but it does not hug the entire topic. Some aspects might be a "movement" but i think the term does not hug the full topic enough. --Inayity (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't really see the need to rename the article as the phrases "Salafism", "Salafi Movement", "Salafist Movement", "Salafi methodology" seem to be synonyms. The first line of the article itself states this. I have found many instances of all of these phrases being used in both media and academic sources.

For example, consider the following media articles:

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19914763. (Salafism and Salafi movement are used).
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12985619. (Salafist and Salafist movement are used).

or the following academic sources:

• Richard Gauvain, Salafi Ritual Purity: In the Presence of God: The Search for Purity in Modern Cairo (Salafism is used)
• http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/259592?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104597851711 (Salafi movement is used)
• http://www.cerium.ca/IMG/pdf/WIKTOROWICZ_2006_Anatomy_of_the_Salafi_Movement.pdf (Salafi movement is used) RookTaker (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Support As I mentioned below, the name was initially Salafism and was changed to Salafi movement by the efforts of two sock puppeteers who hated Salafism and did not know English fluently, and thought that by calling it a movement (which technically it is) they were somehow insulting Salafism via its Wikipedia article name and "winning." All they won from the POV pushing and socking were permanent bans all around in the end. I suppose it is partially semantic as all these names refer to one thing as pointed out above, but from my reading most sources in English do simply say "Salafism." MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo, you are mistaken in your belief that that the article was originally called "Salafism". I have added a history of the article name at Talk:Salafi movement#Article name history. It is true that two of the editors (1, 2) who opposed the 2013 proposal to rename the article "Salafism" were sock puppeteers and you may be right about their motives.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I find the arguments for change unconvincing. Both "Salafi" and "Salafism" are about equally common in English writing. I would prefer that the article retained its original name "Salafi" - it was only changed from that because some editors claimed that "Salafi" was not a noun - this dictionary suggests that they were wrong. A thing that disturbs me is that "Salafi" tends to be used in neutral POV writing, whilst "Salafism" tends to be used by people who believe that "Salafists" are a law enforcement/terrorist problem - for example "Salafism" is used in the "Dictionary of Law Enforcement", whereas "Salafi" is used in "The Oxford Dictionary of Islam", etc.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

As I understand, "salaf" and "salafi" are almost the same names in Arabic or they mean the same thing. Salaf is ancestor and Salafi is ancestrial, it's a noun and adjective. As such "Salafi" is used sometimes instead of "Salaf" as may be the case in the Oxford dictionary. There is already a page "Salaf", and it means "Salafi" as well. I think Salafism is a proper name to mean a Salafi religious affiliation. Islamic11111 (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I've rarely seen it referred to as the "Salafi moveement". "The Salafist movement", maybe. Salafism covers it better. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support, per funkmonk. 92.25.91.170 (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion - The page name better be Salafism

If someone reads from Arabic version of this page then it is named their Salafiyya, meaning Salafism. It's the name of orthodox Islamic school that teaches Islam as it sees it. The Arabs or the whole Arab Islamic world name it Salafiyya or Salafism and to name it otherwise is a distortion. Arabs don't name it a movement, they name it their as Salafiyya and explain it as an established "Manhaj Islamiyy" and go on to talk about it's Islamic teachings to mean it's a Sunni school. Salafism is not a movement like Muslim Brotherhood which is something like a political organisation. To name this page a "Salafi movement" means to misunderstand what those Arabs mean by Salafiyya. In my opinion, the preference should be given to the Arabic understanding of the term, which is Salafism in English. Islamic11111 (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Islamic11111 I absolutely agree with what you say but I am interested in your thoughts as to how the perception of a "salafi movement" may have developed in the west. Obviously that title can be taken to represent people that follow salafism (but I'd equate that to shoe boxing all people that followed Christianity as being "Christian movement" but I may be exaggerating). How did the "Salafi movement" interpretation come about? Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC) I really should remember to sign.

The name "Salafi movement" is not totally wrong, it could be somewhere in the article under some title like "The spread of Salafism". Salafism can be described as an Islamic movement. Islamic11111 (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree, the first time I heard of Salafi movement was on the page. --Inayity (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see the need to rename the article as the phrases "Salafism", "Salafi Movement", "Salafist Movement", "Salafi methodology" seem to be synonyms. The first line of the article itself states this. I have found many instances of all of these phrases being used in both media and academic sources.

For example, consider the following media articles:

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19914763.
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12985619

or the following academic articles:

• http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/259592?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104597851711
• http://www.cerium.ca/IMG/pdf/WIKTOROWICZ_2006_Anatomy_of_the_Salafi_Movement.pdf

Therefore, it doesn't seem that important to change the title of this article. RookTaker (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this reveals the problem with looking for accuracy in BBC and Western publications. And while wiki has rules regarding RS, what you find is some guy in Penn University is writing using a name he is unaware is actually unheard of in the actual living Islamic world. I have never in my life heard of Salafi movement. Its not a big deal, but I have to point out that "academic" articles are not the definitive anything. Which Muslim site is talking about a "movement"? The same academic articles talks so much nonsense on Africa you would not believe. I guess it goes back to the debate WP:TRUE and is Google etc a mirror of reality, or selective reality. ? --Inayity (talk) 06:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Islamic11111:, you either don't speak Arabic at all or are being intentionally dishonest. Salafi movement IS used in the Middle East as "al-haraka as-salafiyya" by mainstream media, in addition to simply "salafiyyun" or Salafists. Calling it a manhaj is only used by certain branches of the movement when it names itself, the Qutubi and Madkhali branches to be precise.

Additionally, reliable sources are based on WP:IRS guideline, not what you personally find to be non-definitive. The opinions of one or even a few editors do not override established policy and if there is a dispute, then there are routes for mediating what is and isn't reliable - and it doesn't involve one guy saying on a talk page "while wiki has rules regarding RS, some guy is unaware of what he's writing about." Wikipedia follows guidelines, period.

That being said...while "salafi movement" is absolutely a common term in Arabic media and "salafi manhaj" is more or less unheard of among non-Salafists, the reality is that the term "salafi movement" isn't common in English. I can explain how the name of the article got this way now that the editors responsible are banned.

A few years ago, some editors came to Wikipedia with a number of different sockpuppets (more than one editor and more than one sock account) for the purpose of pushing certain points of view, in violation of WP:NPOV. Those editors happened to hate Salafism and because they were not native speakers of English, they felt that calling it a movement (which is factually true) was somehow an insult to Salafism. So they came, had a request discussion, flooded it with their accounts and forced the move. I don't think I was the only one who knew what was going on, but since they change wasn't really an actual insult at the group (these guys just didn't understand English well) nobody made an issue out of it. All the associated accounts are now permanently banned due to rudeness and socking elsewhere, so I'm relatively free to say this. User:Toddy1 probably remembers what I'm talking about.

Short version: "salafi movement" IS what is commonly used in Arabic media in the Middle East, "salafi manhaj" IS NOT. However, in English, Salafism is the common term and the reason the article's name got changed in the first place was from now-permabanned troublemakers. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I am saying that the Arabic version of this page has a correct name "Salafiyya" that would be Salafism in English. The Arabic wiki names Salafism a "Madhhab" or a certain Sunni school. So for all the Arabs the name Salafiyya or Salafism is the initial name to name the teachings of Salafis. The name Salafi movement is secondary, it's about describing Salafism. It's wrong to assume that I was saying that in the Arab world no one names Salafism as Salafi movement. There are other names that end in "ism" that mean some sort of religious school and in Arabic they have the ending "iyya", and they use the word "movement" only in describing their "ism". The name "Salafi movement" is some sort of distortion of the initial Arabic name "Salafiyya" or "Salafism". In other languages on wiki the name that is used is the translation of English "Salafism". The name of the article has to be Salafism. Islamic11111 (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Islamic11111 You had said, as if with authority, "Arabs don't name it a movement". MezzoMezzo replied: "you either don't speak Arabic at all or are being intentionally dishonest. Salafi movement IS used in the Middle East as "al-haraka as-salafiyya" by mainstream media," You then changed the conversational indentation and failed to directly reply. I personally think that if you continue to use of your current user name and if your make statements like you have done, principles of honesty require you to check the validity of your claims. GregKaye ✍♪ 08:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

[content above placed out of chronological sequence]

"Arabs don't name it a movement" — what I meant was obviously the Arabic page name "Salafiyya". Salafism movement or "al-haraka as-salafiyya" is not a one-word-name to name a religious sect that usually in Arabic has a name with the ending "iyya" like English "ism". As such it's about dishonest comments I read. There was nothing dishonest as I understand in my writing. It was my suggestion that the page name should be Salafism, but I don't mind if it remains as it is, like the other page with "Wahhabism" misnomer. Islamic11111 (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Islamic11111 My advice is check what you write. "What I meant" type of belated clarifications should not be needed. Follow the stepped conversations format using : :: ::: etc. colons or use the {{od}} template to return to the left margin. These are standards. I think Wikipedia editors should aim for better. GregKaye ✍♪ 07:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me just clarify something, No one is suggesting at any stage that Wiki RS be over written with personal anything. But We need more than RS sources to write good articles and that includes people familiar with a great deal of things, the living world, RS, local news, language, etc. Its not so rigid. And we also need to establish how important is it, does movement compromise anything? What does it compromise if it is wrong? These r the questions. I am allowed to offer my opinion as an editor here and my view is it is not that important, but I think the suggestion of a name change is better. As movement is inaccurate in its broad usage as discussed here--its more than a "movement" while some aspects of Salafi are 100% a movement. And let us remember the word in itself is not clear!--Inayity (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Islamic11111:, you're not being totally clear and what you're saying now is not what you were saying before. You clearly said above: "Arabs don't name it a movement, they name it their as Salafiyya and explain it as an established "Manhaj Islamiyy" and go on to talk about it's Islamic teachings to mean it's a Sunni school" and "To name this page a "Salafi movement" means to misunderstand what those Arabs mean by Salafiyya." Now here you're saying: "It's wrong to assume that I was saying that in the Arab world no one names Salafism as Salafi movement." This is a clear contradiction.

"This is a clear contradiction." — it's about your misunderstanding of what I am writing or you are intentionally dishonest. What I said "To name this page a "Salafi movement" means to misunderstand what those Arabs mean by Salafiyya." refers to the Arabic page name and the other stuff "It's wrong to assume that I was saying that in the Arab world no one names Salafism as Salafi movement." refers to other names the Arabs may use to discribe Salafism. Islamic11111 (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Arabic Wiki refers to it with numerous terms. including "الحركات والتنظيمات" which, for those who don't speak Arabic (I slightly suspect you might not really know it based on what you're saying) means "movements and organizations" on the Islam template. That's just Wiki; in mainstream Arabic media it is almost always called a movement despite your statement that "Arabs don't name it a movement."

Now, I don't think that's so important here as articles on English Wikipedia can have names different from the Wikis in the original languages of the topics of such articles. Like I said above, I agree that "Salafi movement" is a misnomer but I feel that way because the English-language sources do not refer to the subject that way; Salafism is almost always used. Regarding the two sock puppeteers responsible for gaming the system and changing the name to "salafi movement" to begin with, then they were both pathalogical liars with no respect for Wikipedia guidelines and policies who held a fanatical hatred for Salafism along with a lot of other Muslim movements. I sincerely hope that such combative, POV-pushing attitudes will no longer prevail. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

This is a disgraceful and vulgar attack by 23.27.249.130 on MezzoMezzo, who is a reputable and highly effective editor. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

What I mean is that Salafism is in my opinion the obvious initial name corresponding to the Arabic Salafiyya. I understood that the Arabs do use initially the name Salafiyya. Islamic11111 (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Propose Salafist movement
-ist is a more appropriate word ending as per: Islamist, Arabist, Ba'athist, Buddhist, cabalist etc.
See also: wikt:-ist#English.

1. Added to words to form nouns denoting: ...
   1. one who proscribes to a particular theological doctrine or religious denomination;

      Calvinist, Baptist, deist

      Note, these are related to -isms: Calvinism, deism

GregKaye ✍♪ 07:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Gregkaye:, one comment is that many of these other articles like Calvinist, whatever-ist don't contain the appellation "movement" after the first word. Salafism is a movement, but as far as I can tell mainstream English media refers to the people as Salafists and the movement as Salafism. Is there any particular reason as to why you would prefer keeping "movement" in the title? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo Your edit is suggestive Salafist refers typically to the name of the people. As far as I have seen, mainly in Wikipedia related research, the people are often regarded as "Muslims", "Islamists", "radicals" and occasionally "extremists", "jihadists" or "Salafists". Salafist is more widely used as an adjective for things pertaining to things related to the Salafi/Salafist movement otherwise known as Salafism. GregKaye ✍♪ 18:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye:, my question was why you wish to include the word "movement" in the title of this article when it isn't included in the titles of similar articles (such as those you've mentioned). MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

From the article: " The migration of Muslim Brotherhood members from Egypt to Saudi Arabia and Saudi King Faisal's "embrace of Salafi pan-Islamism resulted in cross-pollination between Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab's teachings on tawhid, shirk and bid‘ah and Salafi interpretations of the sayings of Muhammad"

Its clear that what M-Brotherhood brought with them was salafism (The salafi movement of md.abduh) and the salafism of this time is the cross-pollination of diffrent movements.Its not a singal movement rather it can be defined as a trend as a methodology or a school

So, its better to rename the page as salafism .Plus we may add "known as salafi movement in west Ejaz92 (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Ejaz92's References

Search results

Google advanced search - language = English, separate searches for country = United Kingdom (GB) and country = United States (US). Similar results not included. All searches have been gone through to the last page of results.

• Salafi - 212 (GB), 319 (US) [1][2]
• Salafism (though some of the hits are actually for Salafist not Salafism) - 275 (GB), 335 (US) [3][4]

Google advanced book search - language = English, books only

• Salafi 772 [5]
• Salafism 798 [6]

The above search results show that "Salafi" and "Salafism" are about equally common in current English.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Article name history

• The first version of the article created on 3 November 2003 was called "Salafi".
• Talk:Salafi movement/Archive 3#Merger proposal. On 31 October 2006, an editor proposed "merging Wahhabism into this article and redirecting. I also suggest that the name be moved to Salafism, since Salafi is an adjective and shouldn't be used as an article title if possible." The consensus opposed this proposal.
• Talk:Salafi movement/Archive 3#Requested move. On 3 March 2013, it was proposed that the article be moved from "Salafi" to "Salafism", on the grounds that "article titles should be nouns, not adjectives." (The proposer gave his/her opinion that "Salafi" was not a noun.) After discussion it was decided on 25 March 2013 to move this article to "Salafi movement".

-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Word salafism is used to denote two different movements

Here in article we need to distinguish the two different movements ,

(1). Salafi movement of Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida (also called Islamic Modernism that was the brought to Saudi Arabia) and

(2). The Salafism (or Salafi Movement) of Native Saudi Arabaia which is manifested in Wahhabi Movement and The hybridation of wahhabism and other thoughts since 1960s. As, according to Stéphane Lacroix, a fellow and lecturer at Sciences Po in Paris , also affirmed a distinction between the two: "As opposed to Wahhabism, Salafism refers here to all the hybridations that have taken place since the 1960s between the teachings of Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab and other Islamic schools of thought. Al- Albani’s discourse can therefore be a form of Salafism, while being critical of Wahhabism." [5]

(3)But the topic disscussed in this page should be salafi movement as below:

According to American scholar Christopher M. Blanchard, [66] Wahhabism refers to "a conservative Islamic creed centered in and emanating from Saudi Arabia," while Salafiyya is "a more general puritanical Islamic movement that has developed independently at various times and in various places in the Islamic world." [30] Others call Wahhabism a more strict, Saudi form of Salafi.[67][68] Wahhabism is the Saudi version of Salafism, according to Mark Durie, who states Saudi leaders "are active and diligent" using their considerable financial resources "in funding and promoting Salafism all around the world." [69] Ahmad Moussalli tends to agree Wahhabism is a subset of Salafism, saying "As a rule, all Wahhabis are salafists, but not all salafists are Wahhabis". [47]

See Wahhabis and Salafis section in Wahhabism for references.

Ejaz92 (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

What I'm more concerned about - and the reason for my revert - was the mass shifting of details across subsections as well as the outright deletion of the Bennet source talking about Rida. The issue isn't simply etymology. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, you are right but we should think about it.We should distinguish the salafism of modernists(i.e., Islamic modernism) and mainstream Salafism that should actually be discussed here.Kindly refer to my above comment for the proofs.

Ejaz92 (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

According to what sources are we denoting a split between modernists Salafists and mainstream Salafists? Which sources use those two terms as opposing trends within the same movement? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If you do research you would find all the siurce. Ejaz92 (talk) 06:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

No, sir. If you do research, you will find the sources that you need in order to support the claim that you made. That's how it works. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Confusion b/w wahhabism and Salafism

Many people dont understand this and become confused so much that they start deleting the sources provided for Salafism, which originally speakes of wahhabism, thinking that the sources supports wahhabism not salafism

While Wahhabism is a synonyms of Salafism (The term is mostly used for the Saudi form of salafism).

Even those who distinguished Wahhabism from salafism called it a type of salafism.Even they did not say that wahhabism is not salafism.They meant that the Wahhabism, that was the old conservative movement in Saudi Arabia, was different from modern Salafism, influenced by the 19th Century Islamic modernists' movement, Qutbism etc.

Ejaz92 (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy of Wikipedia:No original research. "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

It is synthesis to take a source about the proportion of the population who are Wahhabis, and claim that this supports statements about the proportion of the population who are Salafis. Removing that was the right thing to do.[7]

It is either original research (or dishonest) to take a citation from a source about scholars who the source claims are anti-Wahhabi, and delete all mention of Wahhabis from the statement being supported by the citation.[8]

Maybe you should read Wikipedia:Core content policies. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is there is no such thing as 'Wahhabi' and never has been Ibn wahhab was a Salafi, and salafism is just pure orthodox islam :) 87.244.94.46 (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

To the above user, please leave brainwashed, fanatical attitudes out of serious discussions. It contributes absolutely nothing to the encyclopedia and only destroys your credibility. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Claims about the Saudi Government funding Salfism

There is a paragraph that currently reads as follows:

The Saudi government is providing funding to increase Salafi Islam throughout the world. Estimates of Saudi spending on religious causes abroad include "upward of $100 billion", between $2 and 3 billion per year since 1975 (compared to the annual Soviet propaganda budget of $1 billion/year), and "at least $87 billion" from 1987–2007.

1. Source 1 says "Unfortunately, however, it is smothered by a belligerent, patriarchal form of Islam, called Wahabism, which has the formidable support of Saudi Arabian petro-dollars. This programme suggested that over the past few decades, upwards of $100 billion has been spent promoting Wahabism". It does not say that the Saudi government is funding Salafi Islam.
2. Source 2 says "King Abdullah's Saudi regime spends billions of pounds each year promoting Wahhabism". It does mention that "Stephen Schwartz, author of The Two Faces of Islam, dismiss salafism as a mere synonym for Wahhabism", and names a few other people who possibly agree with him to some extent. Source 2, does say: "Yahya Birt, an academic who is director of The City Circle, a networking body of young Muslim professionals, estimates 'Saudi spending on religious causes abroad as between $2bn [£960m] and $3bn per year since 1975 (comparing favourably with what was the annual Soviet propaganda budget of $1bn), which has been spent on 1,500 mosques, 210 Islamic centres and dozens of Muslim academies and schools'. More than that they have flooded the Islamic book market with cheap well-produced Wahhabi literature whose print runs, Birt says, "can be five to 10 times that of any other British-based sectarian publication, aggressively targeted for a global English-speaking audience." This has had the effect of forcing non-Wahhabi publishers across the Muslim world to close. It has put out of business smaller bookshops catering for a more mainstream Muslim market."
3. Source 3 is a dead link. The title "Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism and the Spread of Sunni Theofascism" makes it clear that it was discussing Wahhabism.

Wikipedia:No original research says "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented".

Sources 1 and 2 clearly support the case that the Saudi Government is providing funding to increase Wahhabi Islam throughout the world. The inference from that the Saudis are supporting Salafis is indirect - it depends on accepting Mr Stephen Schwartz's claims and combining them with other statements to draw a conclusion not directly stated. i.e. the claim that the Saudi Government is funding the spread of Salafi Islam is original research.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Minor Edits

The following end note,

^ Jump up to: a b Wahhabism, Salafismm and Islamism Who Is The Enemy? By Pfr. Ahmad Mousali | Ameriacan University of Beirut | Page-11

which was #140 the last time I checked the page, has a typo in it -- "Ameriacan" instead of "American." Tried to change it myself, but the editing section for references, a Reflist, doesn't appear to enable editing of it. Emerald Evergreen 03:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Fixed! The references are actually included in the body of the article's text, the Reflist is only an "anchor" that groups them all down there, so to speak --CopperKettle 06:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

should the terrorist attack in france be added

according to news the terrorist was a part of the movement. should that b84.213.45.196 (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)e mentioned in the article.

No mention of aqeedah as being a reason of differing views

In Islam, there are three major schools of thought on the aqeedah, or the attributes of God. A prominent school is the Ashari, primarily deriving from Sufi's. There is also "Athari" or "Atharee" which the "Salafi's" follow. In many cases, this is the only major belief that makes one considered "Salafi." Generally with regard to biddah or innovation, many many scholars from all viewpoints are against it. When it comes to madhabs, many Muslims accept them but believe if something is discovered that is more authentic than the view of the madhab, they will hold the differing view, and therefore use ijtjihad. Taqleed is denied by most Islamic scholars because if you find a Hadith that says different and you are studied in the Islamic sciences, you don't have to agree with your madhab. So 1. aqeedah 2. biddah and 3. taqleed/ijtjihad are the three major characteristics. However, the aqeedah is the biggest. Many Muslims hold aqeedah views of the Athari, do not believe in biddah, and support ijtjihad but do not call themselves Salafi because they want no labels. But they fit the definition. Wikipedia's lack to mention that is sad. See Yasir Qadhi's view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.203.153.242 (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Revert by Toddy1

I have added the following statements:

"Some Sunni leaders, however, consider Salafism to be outside of the fold of Sunni Islam and rather to be a modern version of Kharjism"

This is justified by the sources indicated.

The first source clearly states: "The most extremist pseudo-Sunni movement today is Wahhabism (also known as Salafism)." As we can see they refer to Salafism as a pseudo-Sunni movement, which according to them delegitimizes the claim that Salafis are Sunnis. According to this source it states the following:

"...and this is typical of the Khawarij or Separatists who went against the authority of the Imam of Muslims and the Shari'a of Allah, the latest example of whom being those who followed Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab in his repellion against the Khalifa. We have no doubt that the present attack is the work of those who follow the Wahhabi tenets rather than the tenets of Ahl al-Sunna, and who are known today as "Salafis."

As we can see in this source the Salafis are referred to as modern day Khawarij as well as NOT a part of Ahl al-Sunna (Sunnis). This point of view by mainstream Sunni leaders should NOT be ignored.

According to this source it states the following: The self-proclaimed righteous clergyman of Arabia followed the foot steps of Khawarij and revived the Khawarijism.

As for the history section it is very clear and conside. The Salafi Movement was started by Ibn Abdul Wahhab of Najd. The usage of the term "Salaf as Salih" or its variants has nothing to do with the actual Salafi Movement. This is well documented and the sources are clear and accurate. Xtremedood (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Thanks for updating the article Xtremedood, I put this on my watchlist when I noticed that how heavily it downplayed the fact that Salafis are a recent phenomenon. Thanks for fixing things. Nonetheless I dont believe "Some Sunni leaders, however, consider Salafism to be outside of the fold of Sunni Islam and rather to be a modern version of Kharjism." should be the second sentence of the lede. It should be much lower down in the lede, because it's important to first describe what Salafis believe themselves to be. Brustopher (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually a little bit shocked by how poor these edits were, and I'd really like more editors to be involved in trying to correct this. I generally avoid this article like the plague, but the blatant anti-salafi/pro-sufi bias seems to have returned after having been tamed by consensus for so long.

Sunnah.org is as clear an example of a hate site if I ever did see one. It's run by a group of sufis even considered outlandish in the world of Sufism, namely G.F. Haddad, Faraz Rabbani, Nuh Keller, et al. They flourish in the west but have little to no following in the actual Muslim world. That doesn't make them wrong, but they do represent a fringe view - a non-academic fringe view with no proper oversight or editorial board policies.

Hisham Kabbani in particular is considered a fraud among many in his own tariqa, has few academic qualifications to be writing (or used as a Wikipedia citation) and mostly just spews dogmatic hate about the salafists - much of which is demonstrably false. That isn't to say that the salafist movement hasn't been criticized or that it's free from the numerous problems with extremism pointed out; rather, what needs to be said here is that basing material - in the lead no less! - on "sources" including junk from Sunnah.org and its associated authors would be about as reasonable as including material from, say, SalafiPublications.com or other blatantly pro-salafi sites (which are also included in the article, strangely enough).

Suffice to say that these recent edits did not conform to the long held consensus nor generally understood scholarly criticism of the movement. Something more mainstream would either be stuff by non-Muslim academic stuff (McGill, Univ. of Chicago, etc.) or Muslim academics who actually have credibility outside of entirely self-published sources; better examples would the the Khaled Aboul Fadl types. But the whole "wahhabi alert" page not only ignores the actual cited reliable sources here by conflating salafism with wahhabism; it also simply promotes rather ignorant and often empirically false claims. Let's just try sticking to academic sources instead of going on a warpath against User:Toddy1 or whoever and making massive changes to the lead, one of the most important parts of the article, without any discussion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The sources look doubtful but in any event WP:UNDUE applies: it is entirely fringe to say that Salafis/Wahhabis are considered to be not Sunnis. DeCausa (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The source cited as "Wahhabism: Understanding The Roots And Role Models Of Islamic Extremism by Zubair Qamar" is not Zubair Qamar's work. It is "condensed and edited by ASFA staff". It is unfair and misleading to pass this off as Zubair Qamar's work.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a version of the article that was actually written by Zubair Qamar. It is therefore a fairer representation of what he says. I am not sure why Sunnah Foundation of America staff condensed and edited the original 2006 article by Zubair Qamar.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC) You can read Zubair Qamar's autobiography on Linkedin.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The revert that Xtremedood is complaining about is this one.

• Under history it says that "The actual modern day Salafi movement was started by a man named Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab who disagreed with a variety of beliefs and practices common throughout the Muslim world, such as veneration of Muslim saints (Awliya Allah), celebration of the birth of Muhammad (Mawlid), belief in intercessors, and prayer to God at the tombs of holy Muslim figures (i.e. Prophets, Saints, etc.)" and cites Saudi Arabia in Transition, Cambridge University Press, p. 163 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) I checked page 163 of the book and it does not support the statement.
• Under Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab it says "Salafists consider Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab as the first figure in the modern era to push for a return to the religious practices of the salaf as-salih." It cites "The Principles of Salafiyyah". Salafipublications.com. Retrieved 2010-04-18.. It does not support the statement.

I think the best thing to do would be to revert to the version before Xtremedood's edits.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The article needs to be careful not to take sources on Wahhabis and write them up as if the sources said Salafis. It is a point of view that Wahhabis are Salafis. Even if the point of view is correct, that Wahhabis are allegedly Salafis, does not mean that Salafis are Wahhabis. After all bats are mammals, but not all mammals are bats.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: It is possible to provide at least one proper source for the statement that some Sunnis have tried to claim that Wahhabis are not Sunnis (Wahhabi Islam by Natana J Delong-Bas). However it is difficult to see its relevance to an article on the Salafi movement. It belongs on the article on Wahhabis, and would need to provide context to the claim.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

To claim that it is fring to refer to "Salafis as not Sunnis" is incorrect. This is due to the fact that during the Ottoman conflict with the Salafis (or Wahhabis) the Ottomans clearly referred to them as Khawarij (outsiders), which are a distinct group different from Sunnis and Shias. Barelvi leaders (a movement of 200+ Million Sunnis in South Asia) have also said the same or similar things. These sources are clear.

user:Toddy1, you are incorrect in your accusations against me. I did not add the following statement: "Under Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab it says "Salafists consider Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab as the first figure in the modern era to push for a return to the religious practices of the salaf as-salih." It cites "The Principles of Salafiyyah". Salafipublications.com. Retrieved 2010-04-18.. It does not support the statement." - This statement was there before I edited it.

For your first quotation, you are not stating the full passage. The full passage states: "If we treat Salafism as synonymous with Wahhabism, then the actual modern day Salafi or Wahhabi movement was started by a man named Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab who disagreed with a variety of beliefs and practices common throughout the Muslim world, such as veneration of Muslim saints (Awliya Allah), celebration of the birth of Muhammad (Mawlid), belief in intercessors, and prayer to God at the tombs of holy Muslim figures (i.e. Prophets, Saints, etc.)"

This is justified if we treat Wahhabism and Salafism as synonymous. The source refers to it as Wahhabism, however there seems to be two definitions of Salafism, as indicated in the lede. See the following passage (which was not added by me): "The Salafi movement is often described as being synonymous with Wahhabism, but Salafists consider the term "Wahhabi" derogatory.[12] At other times, Salafism has been described as a hybrid of Wahhabism and other post-1960s movements"

My sources are clear and they justify the materials in the article. Xtremedood (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

user:Toddy1, Also, the source published by the As-Sunnah Foundation of America is endorsed by Zubair Qamar. This is clear in the link provided by you. "This is a revised/modified article I wrote about eight years ago that was published by the Sunnah Foundation of America. I hope it proves useful and stimulates intellectual debate. Further revisions are being made." Clearly the one published by the As Sunnah Foundation is better as it is a major organization, verses one on his personal website. Xtremedood (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: thanks for the contribution and yes, Salafism is a sub-branch of Sunnism, just like Sufism is; both movements often have people coming onto Wikipedia to attempt to claim the other is deviant/heretical/non-Sunni in order to poke at each other. There are other fringe views expressed there and the lead is definitely not designed for that.

@Toddy1: conflating Salafism and Wahhabism is a major issue people unfamiliar with both sects/movements/whatever. Additionally, Xtremedood's edits not only conflate this issue and rely on fringe views but also target the lead, yet the lead is supposed to be the last part of an article that's changed, after the body has been adjusted properly. I also advocate returning to the consensus version before Xtremedood began editing but then giving him the chance, line by line, to propose changes here on the talk page just as was done with the Barelvi article around two and a half years ago or so. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, for anybody wondering about the edits of Special:Contributions/216.177.129.105: it's an IP stalker whose been randomly reverting all my edits for a few months. It's a minor annoyance but I've requested semi-protection of the page. Until that takes effect, it's best to wait before anybody edits again as this kid kind of doesn't have a life. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Changes by MezzoMezzo

The changes on August 10th,2015 by user:MezzoMezzo, reflect clear bias and are a hindrance to an impartial understanding of the topic at hand. He has removed a variety of legitimate sourced materials and is referring to the official website of As-Sunnah Foundation of America as a hate site in an attempt to seemingly diver the issue. His reference of figures like Nuh Keller and Faraz Rabbani (which are not at all referenced) seem to indicate he has a biased agenda. I would urge other users to keep watch of this user. Clearly, Sunnah.org is not a hate site and Hisham Kabbani, a leader of the As-Sunnah Foundation of America has been declared by the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre as one of the 500 most influential Muslims. Clearly this is not fringe in any sense of the matter. To say this is fringe is to say that the Ottoman Empire, the Barelvi Movement (200+ million strong), and many Sunni groups all over the world are fringe.

I am very much concerned at his recent changes. He states for example:

"Some Sunni leaders rival to the movement" - Labeling those who have a differing intellectual perspective as a "rival" without any proper evidences or sources displays clear bias which violates WP:NPOV.

In the subsequent paragraph, he reverted the phrase from "Muslim Saint (Wali or Awliya Allah)" back to "Shrine veneration", when the source clearly states Awliya.

"Due to the nature of salafism, a large aspect involves active reformation of Islamic communities. With this comes challenging the status quo and traditions (considered heretical by salafis) which may be deeply embedded in society. A primary issue is the matter of Shrine veneration, a central theme in many sects of Islam including sufi and shia sects, which is considered as a route to polytheism and shirk by Salafis.[4][better source needed] Hence, they receive much criticism in from, including accusations of being Khawarij following the destruction of several tombs[5] in the Islamic world[6] and only following the teachings of Ibn Abdul Wahhab."

In this paragraph the user also has removed reference to Ottoman and Barelvi perspectives and their disagreement that Muslim saint veneration constitutes polytheism or shirk. He has also removed legitimate academic sources which indicate that the Sunni Caliph of the Ottomans (which had the largest Islamic institutions in the world during the 19th and 18th centuries) and the 200+ Million Sunnis of the Barelvi Movement opposes Salafism/Wahhabism and their interpretation of what constitutes shirk or polytheism. Xtremedood (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As of now I have changed it to this edit, [9] which is clearly much more fair and neutral. Xtremedood (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Very clever, Xtremedood. Well meaning as I can tell you think you're righting some great wrong here on the page, but the not-so-subtle attempt at power play is evident. Open a separate section when there was already one above...making the section title specifically about someone else's edits (as you did with Toddy) as if they're some sort of rogue editor...it's well done, but if your argument is well thought out then it shouldn't be necessary. Here's what we're going to do.

You're editing against a previously held consensus which had stood at this article for a while. You don't have to agree with it, but that's a fact. Now, consensus can change, but the onus is on you to prove that; it's not your right to edit the article, slander other users and then expect others to explain after the fact why it's wrong; please read the Wikipedia:Consensus policy. So, first bottom line: I'm reverting your edits and returning the article to the consensus version, and will continue doing so until you join the discussion like a mature adult and follow site policies.

Next thing: the materials you're adding have been rejected by multiple editors; not just myself in this case, and not even just during this specific case we have now. Let's not even worry about the talk page archives here and elsehwere yet, though; just look above. I'm not the only one opposed to you adding the fringe views of Kabbani and Sunnah.org into the lead of the article. The body? There's a discussion so feel free to suggest proposed changes here on talk. But, I'm very sorry, those aren't going in the lead. Oh, Kabbani is one of the 500 most influential Muslims? So is the top cleric of Saudi Arabia. Should we use sources from him in an article about Sufism? Didn't think so.

Next next thing: I never said the Ottomans or Barelvis are fringe. I never specifically targeted their views in the body of the article either; I simply removed your additions to the lead which were based on hate sites promoting fringe views. Again, nice try at a subtle coloring of my intentions, but that doesn't fool people over the age of twelve.

The word rival: I'm guessing you're not a native speaker of English, right? Rival means opponent. Are Sufis opposed to Salafism? Yes they are. Therefore they're rivals. But if you have a valid synonym acceptable in English, than go ahead and suggest it here.

Also - and this is important: you're being disingenuous in your regusal to acknowledge the fact that Wahhabism and Salafism are NOT the same. Reliable sources in both articles prove this. So, sorry, all your talk about the Ottoman war against Saudis or whatever is completely irrelevant. Reliable sources trump your rant here and above denying this simple truth.

In short: I'm reverting back to consensus. The burden of proof is on YOU to show why consensus can change. If you try to revert again, I'll report you for edit warring (if others don't beat me to it). Please take time to sit back, don't reply to this immediately, and get to know how the site works before coming in guns blazing without sufficient background in the long standing history of this mess of an article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Xtremedood: I just realized that you've only been editing for six months...and you're asking the community to keep an eye on the edits of another user? Seriously? Have you even checked the history of this article and its talk page? By the way, you were recently blocked for edit warring on other Islam-related articles and you've just been reported for edit warring again. Please take care, cool off and learn site policies. It isn't too late to turn things around. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Sunni Islam and rather to be a modern version of Khajirism...", "A primary issue is the matter of Muslim Saint..." "Conflicts between the Sunnis of the Ottoman Empire and the Salafi or Wahhabi followers of Ibn Abdul Wahhab have resulted in the.." ?? This is clearly not even supported by the provided sources and pretty non-mainstream. Most conflicting part was "These leaders also maintain that Salafis do not adhere to the fundamental tenets of Islam, do not emulate the..." Please avoid such soapboxing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.4.180 (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted to the version of 04:38, 23 July 2015, and have made one change to that version so as to ensure that it is consistent with what the source really says.

If people want to re-add disputed text, please can they show how the sources back the content. Maybe the problem is that they are using second-hand citations. (A second-hand citation is a citation borrowed from another article, or from an internet notice-board. Typically, editors using second-hand citations honestly believe that the citations back up their text, and do not see the need to actually check.)-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I have added the words "condensed and edited by ASFA staff" to the citation to the article "by Zubair Qamar". As mentioned above, the version of the article being cited has been changed by ASFA staff, and it is unfair to Zubair Qamar to represent it as solely his work.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

user:MezzoMezzo, The sources I use are sound and are not hate sites. Stick to the issues at hand, rather than delve into irrelevant matters. Statements like these "So is the top cleric of Saudi Arabia. Should we use sources from him in an article about Sufism? Didn't think so." and many others are a hindrance to effective discourse on the matter. Your ad-hominem attacks are also not helpful.

Before we should continue on this issue, it is important to first clarify what Salafism is. According to the article itself "The Salafi movement is often described as being synonymous with Wahhabism, but Salafists consider the term "Wahhabi" derogatory. At other times, Salafism has been described as a hybrid of Wahhabism and other post-1960s movements."

Based upon this definition, it is clear that there are two main definitions of Salafism. The first being that it is the same as Wahhabism, in this case any source which uses the term "Wahhabi" should therefore be seen as synonymous with "Salafi." The other definition given in this passage refers to it as a hybridization "of Wahhabism and other post-1960s movements".

From either of these definitions, it is clear that the origins of Salafism lies in Wahhabism. Wahhabism is therefore inseparable from Salafism, even if we take the second definition. The edit of the article by user:Tobby1 adds to this when he states "Modern Salafists consider the 18th Century scholar Muhammed bin 'Abd al-Wahhab and many of his students to have been Salafis.". Ibn Abdul Wahhab is no doubt the founder of the movement of Wahhabism (and as I have stated earlier, many consider it to be synonymous with Salafism).

With this in mind, it is therefore important to provide a well-rounded perspective of the Salafis or Wahhabis, based not only upon their interpretation of Islamic texts, but of other perspectives. The inclusion of the Ottoman perspective that the followers of Ibn Abdul Wahhab constitute Kharijis therefore should remain. Hisham Kabbani has written a book on Salafism, and I do not see any hate speech or fringe views stated by him, at least in what is being referenced in this article. He simply reiterates what the Ottomans and Barelvis have said about Salafis or Wahhabis. As we can see in this edit [10], the sources are sound, do not constitute hate, and give a more well rounded perspective of Salafism than what you are proposing. Xtremedood (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Wahhabis claim to follow the ways of the early Muslims (the Muslims of the Salaf), and hence call themselves Salafis.
2. Salafis also claim to follow the ways of early Muslims. Salafis claim that various figures from history as following their way - this includes Mohammad's companions, various figures from the Middle Ages, and the 18th Century (including ibn Abd al-Wahhab). Just because Salafis claim this, does not make it true.
3. Some people believe that Wahhabis are a type of Salafi. Maybe they are right. But even people who believe this, do not normally believe that the words are synonymous. Many Salafis are certainly not Wahhabis (even though they admire to some extent the writings of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab).

-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding sources - some of your sources are not relevant to the content you provided them as content for.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1: thanks for the save. The article isn't perfect, but multiple editors have worked hard to get it to where it is - the disruptions by this new person aren't helpful.

@Xtremedood: I'm sad to see that you're just trying to go on the offensive; it seems to be your tactic at other articles and it hasn't worked out well for you so far. Let's review.

1. I made a point that just as the Mufti of Saudi Arabia isn't a fair source on Sufism, Sufi figures (and ones considered extreme even by most Sufis, in fact, such as Kabbani) are also not fair sources on Salafism. You claimed it's irrelevant without explaining why, and therefore your comments will partially be ignored due to your refusal to engage.
2. You accused me of ad hominem attacks without providing proof.
3. You claim Kabbani is a reliable source and yet he has no proven qualifications, his leadership even inside his own tariqa is disputed, he makes blanket accusations of 80% of American mosques being extreme with no proof and was rejected by all major, mainstream Islamic organizations in the United States.
4. You claim that Sunnah.org isn't a hate site and yet any and all material it carries on sects other than Sufism declares them to be misguided, deviated and not true Sunnis - a textbook definition of subjective fanaticism. Additionally, their writers such as G.F. Haddad, Faraz Rabbani, Nuh Keller and Hisham Kabbani himself have no academic qualifications to be writing and the site has no proper editorial board to oversee what's published on the site. It's just a group of laymen who decided to make a website, pure and simple - it's neither objective nor scholarly.
5. You quote one line to show that some people claim Wahhabism and Salafism are the same and literally ignore entire paragraphs on this article and the one on Wahhabism that open with statements like "Wahhabism is a more strict, Saudi form of Salafism,[85][86]." Salafism and Wahhabism are two different things, period, and from here on out you will be reverted and ignored if you attempt to conflate the two again. Merge discussions were already held by other users promoting Sufi sources as objective ones on Salafism just like you are and their proposals were soundly rejected by the community. You're beating a dead horse.

Despite your stunning lack of evidence, you're continuing to post overly long comments as if it will make a difference. You've clearly not taken any of my advice, not reviewed the policy I suggested you review or any other policies for that matter and you're just trying to be argumentative in hope that you can win in some sort of battleground. News flash: Wikipedia is not a battleground! As I said before, take some time to go cool off. Your attempts to change the consensus version of the article have been thwarted and you won't get anything you want until you're willing to cooperate with other editors. You've tried edit warring on other articles and got blocked for it before; that should tell you something about your methods. Try to discuss things like an adult, based on reliable sources. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

A lots been said, so I'll start first with Toddy1

@user:Toddy1,

1. Your first point is correct. Salafis claim that, so it is therefore important in order to maintain neutrality for other claims regarding the matter to be mentioned. For example, Jehovah Witnesses claim to follow the early generations of Christians, however Catholics and Protestants will likely oppose such a subjective classification. Similarly, members of the Tea Party movement claim to follow the early generation of Americans that fought for liberty and freedom, however Democrats will likely have a different perspective. Wikipedia is not the place to promote Salafism dogma.

2. Your last sentence points it out clearly. Just because Salafis may claim it, it does not make it true. However, your most recent edit speaks in definitive terms, referring to Salafism as "The doctrine can be summed up as taking "a fundamentalist approach to Islam, emulating the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers—al-salaf al-salih, the 'pious forefathers'...They reject religious innovation, or bida, and support the implementation of sharia (Islamic law)."

This sentence is highly problematic, as it says in definitive terms that Salafis do indeed follow a fundamentalist Islam, emulate the Prophet (SAW/Blessings of Allah be upon him and peace be upon him), and definitively follow the al-salaf as-salih.

To avoid such definitive classifications (which in reality are very subjective), and rather to bring about a more well-rounded and more neutral view, it is therefore important to include sentences like the following, which give a differing perspective: Many Sunni leaders consider Salafism to be outside of the fold of Sunni Islam and rather to be a modern version of Kharjism. These leaders also maintain that Salafis do not adhere to the fundamental tenets of Islam, do not emulate the Prophet Muhammad, and do not properly follow the al-salaf al-salih but rather obey the teachings of Ibn Abdul Wahhab.

As I have stated in my previous edit, that there are differing definitions of what or whom a Salafi is. Therefore I added TWO major definitions in the history section here [11] (you are free to add more, but I would recommend not erasing what is sourced and referenced). It addressed the definition that 'Salafism is synonymous (meaning identical) to Wahhabism' and it also deals with another definition of Salafism that was given by Trevor Stanley.

3. What is clear from all of the definitions of Salafism is that the teachings of Ibn Abdul Wahhab compose a fundamental aspect of the modern Salafi movement and should not be ignored. Statements by the largest Islamic institution of the 19th century, the Ottoman Caliphate therefore should not be taken lightly or labelled as fringe. Similar statements opposing the beliefs of Ibn Abdul Wahhab (which are sourced) by other movements, such as the Barelvi Movement of Sunni Muslims should not be neglected. This is what is necessary for a more neutral position on a complex issue.

You keep on saying that the sources are not reflective of the content, but fail to properly give any direct examples. I have even quoted most of the sources and they do indeed support the statements that I have included. You have also falsely accused me of making a change on the Ibn Abdul Wahhab section, when that was there long before I edited here.

It's already been explained to you by me, and possibly others, why your edits to the lead were problematic for multiple reasons; you don't need to discuss it with Toddy since your points were already shot down by somebody else. The same goes for your factually incorrect claim that Wahhabism and Salafism are somehow one thing.

References

And, wow...you're actually denying that you posted content not supported in the cited sources? I'm seriously stunned...I've been at this site for almost nine years, and in that time it's extremely rare to see dishonesty reaching these levels. I detest using hyperbole but I'm literally shaking my head as I'm reading all this...it's almost too ridiculous to be worth responding to. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Now time for MezzoMezzo

@user:MezzoMezzo,

I will ignore your personal attacks as responding to them will probably take up too much space.

In regard to your points:

1.A Saudi Cleric, well known and respected amongst Salafis is indeed a legitimate source for discussing varying perspectives on a complex matter, even if it is a topic related to Sufis. For example, in the Sufism article, it includes the following statement in the lede: Some Muslim opponents of Sufism also consider it outside the sphere of Islam.

Bringing stuff up like this is irrelevant and works to divert the issue. If you have any issues with Sufi related articles, feel free to discuss them there. This is an article on Salafism. If a Sufi related article states: "Sufism as a doctine can be summed up as taking "a fundamentalist approach to Islam, emulating the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers—al-salaf al-salih" You are free to include statements by Salafi leaders as to why they may disagree. It already exists. Dissenting views in this article, however, have been removed by user:Toddy1.

2. Your statements speak for themselves.

3. Do you have a source which has disproven Kabbani's claims? Do you also have a source for Kabbanis original statement. Kabbani is a major leader and you are free to disagree with him, however his perspective, the Ottoman Caliph's perspectives, the leaders of the 200+ Million Barelvi Movement of Sunnis perspectives should not be silenced.

4. Most of what you say here is irrelevant and works to divert the issue. However, you need proof as to why this source is a "hate site" when it represents a major religious organization.

5. According to all of the definitions that I have seen, the teachings of Ibn Adbul Wahhab (commonly referred to as Wahhabism), is either synonymous or composes a fundamental component of Salafi thought and practice. For example, we see in Iraq and Syria that the so called "ISIS" terrorist group is bombing and destroying tombs of Prophets (peace be upon them) and Muslim Saints (Awliya). The first person to do such acts was Ibn Abdul Wahhab, who is a major figure in Salafism and is considered the founder of Wahhabism (or Salafism according to definition that Salafism is synonymous with Wahhabism). The ideology of terrorist groups like the so called "ISIS" is Salafism, as you can see on its article page. Do you have a definition of Salafism which does not include the teachings of Ibn Abdul Wahhab in it? Xtremedood (talk) 05:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Xtremedood: once again, you've taken the route of intellectual dishonesty and petty tactics in your attempts at discussion. Nobody has attacked you personally, yet multiple witnesses here have seen you attack others personally. Do you seriously think that won't be attested to if you continue to escalate this? Instead, you should be leaving all that negativity behind and focusing on issues, not people. Now, regarding your "points":

1. I'm sorry, but to say a Salafist cleric would be a reliable source for the lead of the article. I never said it can't be used as a source at all; I made it clear that for the body, a critical personal opinion could be used after discussion, but not the lead. You're conflating it into using sources in general - which was NEVER the topic - and then go on some rant about other articles which is completely irrelevant. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt but given your tendency to edit war, treat every content dispite as a battleground and the dishonesty you've displayed here and at other talk pages I'm almost inclined to believe that you're actually trying to use a red herring, which doesn't work on grown adults.
2. Um...huh? I'm not even sure what you're responding to.
3. This is a BLATANT strawman argument. Kabbani's claims are the personal opinion of an unqualified non-scholar who sprews hatred of other sects; nobody needs to disprove anything he said because that was never part of the discussion. Additionally, the Ottomans fought a war with Wahhabis, not Salafists. As for the Barelvis, then you still have yet to explain the relevance of this to *Salafism* at all.
4. Most of what I say is...wow. Audacious considering that every single person reading this sees all the red herrings and strawmen you're throwing up in desperation instead of either backing down or pulling out of the discussion. I already explained why Sunnah.org is a hate site: it exists solely to promote a sectarian view and considers all others to be deviant/misguided. That is in addition to the fact that it's non-academic, unscholarly and has no proper editorial board.
5. Sorry, but I'm not going to entertain more of your academic dishonesty regarding the fact that Wahhabism and Salafism are different. Read this article and that article; the sources and text are literally sitting right there. And if you attempt to edit based on this bullheaded, dogmatic belief of yours again, I *will* report you immediately for edit warring in the face of reliable sources - assuming others don't beat me to it.

You've literally provided nothing, absolutely nothing, of value in your comments other than a stubborn refusal to refer to site policies and guidelines or even to simply read this article right here; many of your claims are already put to rest, and most of what you're responding to are things I didn't say. And to be honest, I think you know that you don't have a leg to stand on since you're no longer edit warring here or on the page where you were recently reported for edit warring but for some reason, you still argue baselessly. I don't know if this is some machismo thing or what, but you're achieving nothing by ranting and attempting silly debate "tactics." MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

user:MezzoMezzo, once again, I will ignore the personal attacks and irrelevant statements to avoid diverting the topic. See this edit here [12], it includes a lot of academic sources and gives far more neutral details on the matter. If you have any issues, feel free to discuss them here, however take not of Wikipedia's civility policy. Xtremedood (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Xtremedood, give it a rest. Nobody is attacking you personally or making irrelevant statements; every claim you've made has been blown out of the water and multiple users have explained to you why your suggestive edits aren't acceptable. Pretending that none of that happened won't fool anybody and only makes you look bad due to your resorting to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)