User talk:RiskAficionado/Mediation

Mediation page

as there are multiple disputes occuring across a few articles, i think that we require a centralised forum for discussion so that all comments and responses can be posted in one place. just to ensure everything is clear, i have listed the articles upon which dispute is occuring:

Scope of dispute

• Salafism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Qutbism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Users involved

• Arawiki (talk · contribs)
• MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs)

if there are any articles requiring mediation that haven't been listed, please do mention them. i would first like you to start by giving an opening statement/overview of each dispute. please be as specific as possible, referring to the content added/removed and why it should or shouldn't remain. this allows us to understand where the other editor is coming from. after the initial statements have been posted, i will make note of some ground rules which need observing in order for this mediation to be successful. regards, ITAQALLAH 13:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Overview of the dispute by User:MezzoMezzo

First and foremost, thank you for this offer to help and the opportunity to finally sort this out. To proceed: In regard to Salafism, this revolves around several issues I would like to address briefly here. An example of the general consensus of this article may be found here; the insertions in question may be found here.

1. The insertion of an end blockquote in the paragraph about 'Abduh. It seems rather inappropriate since there is no initial blockquote started and the line in question (line 39) has a reference, but not a large piece of quoted text.
2. The insertion of capitalization and grammatical errors into the spread and effect section. I don't really know what purpose that serves, it seems as though my edits are just being reverted for the sake of reverting there.
3. The reference to Qutb and his influence in regard to line 70 and the information about how some Salafis have been influenced by that. This is known and is marked in the articles for Qutb and Qutbism, I don't understand why it's being removed.
4. The removal of Ibn al-Sa'di, Abdul-Azeez ibn Abdullaah Aal ash-Shaikh, Rabee Al-Madkhali, Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, and Muhammad ash-Shawkani from the article. As is noted in the Wiki articles for all of these individuals, they are well known amongst the Salafi movement of today. I would normally assume that their removal is POV, however since it is known that these men are held in high regard by Salafis today this seems more like an issue of factual accuracy to me.
5. The addition of Abdullah Azzam and Sayyid Qutb/Muhammed Zidann. While the first two men are well known, they are not recognized as scholars by people of the Salafi movement today. Azzam in his own words followed the Ikhwaani manhaj and not the Salafi manhaj; on top of this, a reference is provided from Time magazine calling him the reviver of jihad in the 20th centry, which would be relevant to the article on jihad but has no bearing here. As for Qutb, he is not only not recognized as a scholar by modern day Salafis but also has a separate article for his movement at Qutbism. It wouldn't make sense that if Wikipedia recognizes the ideology he created as its own to then put him here as well, especially considering that across the board the rest of the people on this list such as Bin Baaz, Albani, Muqbil, and others not only don't consider him Salafi but have passed fatawa against reading his books. In regard to Zidann, that was a later addition by a third party that changed Qutb's name to his but using the same reference, an Arabic-language interview unaccessible to readers of English language Wikipedia; not only is that obviously a poor reference in more ways than one, but it also doesn't make sense as to why it's been changed.
6. The addition of excessive bullet points under each scholar as to which books he was known for, where he studied, etc. If readers want to find that information, they may read the scholars' own articles. As for the placing of their birth and death dates, that's usually standard however I can live without those as well.
7. The removal of Calgary Islam, Salaf.com, al Ibaanah, and Salaf Manhaj from the external links section. Per the consensus reached on talk here, these sites are comprehensive but not too "missionary" in nature and thus are quite helpful to the reader, especially when compared to the huge mess of external links held before.
8. The addition of Islam Life, Salafiyyah Jadeedah, and Salafi Publications Refuted. None of these sites were reviewed and agreed upon during the building of the latest consensus on external links; this is something newly put in. On top of that, the second two links are khariji sites made in refutation of Salafi sites. Regardless of which side is right or wrong, how is this relevant to explaining to readers of Wikipedia what Salafism is? Those sites are just pettiness, not information relevant to people trying to learn about Salafism. The second two aren't about Salafism, they're about other web sites. These should be removed immediately.

This is, for the most part, a summary of the issues I find with the Salafism article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

In regard to the article on Qutbism, then that issue is a bit less exhaustive. The issues are as follows:

1. Under the issue of Qutb's description as Moses as a man of excitable nature, the reference to Bin Baaz's comment that this can be construed as apostasy has been removed. This is not only well referenced but from a well known fatwa regarding Qutb's works, from (for better or for worse) one of the most well known Islamic scholars of the 20th century. To remove it is whitewashing and censorship of the criticism available.
2. Removal of a comment in line 42 regarding some differences between Qutb's methods and those of his critics via the Gems of Islam reference. This is being removed with no explanation despite it being well referenced.
3. The blatant insertion of POV with this line: "If the heart of Qutbism is cleansing the Islamic world of jahili Western ideas and concepts, then Wahhabi and traditionalist critics may simply be taking this idea one step further, cleansing more thoroughly." First and foremost, this is an encyclopedic article; ideologies don't have 'hearts' and to speak of it is silly. Secondly, Wahhabi is a derogatory term as has been established multiple times. Thirdly, who says that traditionalist critics may be taking this idea one step further? Where is the proof? Who are these traditionalists and what do they have to say about that claim? If that's not a clear breach of WP:NPOV and WP:OR, then I don't know what is.
4. The replacement of "There are, however, some commentators who display..." with "Despite these attacks on Qutbism, at least commentator believes there is...". What is this, the Sayyid Qutb defense page now? If there is critical commentary, then display the critical commentary. There is no reason to be using peacock words here.

This is a rough summary of the issues I find with the article on Qutbism. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to briefly mention some of the issues with the article on Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz. Recently, the following line has been continuously inserted: "Ibn Baz admitted that he does not memorize any of the classical Islamic books, and he did not read all of The Sunan or all of Musnad Ahmad." The reference given is: Mijalla magazine issue # 1006 dated 29/5/1999. This is from a link on the Arabic language version of the article. First and foremost, this is a reference that is not accessible to readers of English Wikipedia and that alone is enough to strike it down. But what's more, the reference doesn't even say what the above insertion does. This is not simply an opinion; this has been proven multiple times by users on that article's talk page. That may be seen here, here, and here. Also for this I will call forth User:Bu Seif and User:Chubeat8, as in addition to myself they also reviewed the Arabic text and reached the conclusion that it does not say what the edit does. Responses to our concerns on talk now go unanswered however, with the reverts simply taking place without so much as an explanation. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)