Template talk:Salafi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Cute[edit]

It's clear to someone familiar with Muslim sects that this, template, in its current form, was designed solely to malign the Salafist movement. The fact that the creator of the template is a member of the Barelvi movement as clear by their name - and these two movements have an intense, acrimonious rivalry - says a lot, as does the creator's new category, "Wahhabi." This template can be salvaged as other Muslim movements also have templates, but it needs serious work before being moved into the relevant article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Some points of note already. Under "central figures," Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul-Wahhab are mentioned but Rashid Rida, the first person to use the word "salafiya" as a noun instead of an adjective as far as I know, is mentioned under "notable individuals." I would suggest moving him up, though this is obviously a point for discussion.
Lashkar-e-Taiba and Egyptian Islamic Jihad are both mentioned under "organizations," yet as is clear from their respective articles, these are not Salafi organizations.
The entire section on "organizations" - or the section other than these two incorrectly included groups - consists solely of Salafi Jihadi groups, yet the majority of Salafists worldwide don't participate in violence. It seems almost like an attempt to paint the entire movement as violent.
Osama bin Laden is mentioned under "notable individuals," yet his article doesn't mention him being Salafi; it does mention him as being Qutbi, a movement which is sometimes referred to as Salafi and sometimes as a rival to Salafis.
The "ideology" section seems a bit odd. Wahhabism and Salafism are at times used synonymously or, with academic discussions, as one being a branch or trend within the other. The below section could be changed to "related terms" instead and that would be clear, but I hardly think that the Puritans, a Christian group, are related.
This template was a good start but it really needs to be neutralized. I also suggest removing it from relevant articles until it can benefit from a wider discussion regarding its contents. After that, this could be a great template. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
It is an attempt to categorize entire Salafi movement into a Template.The Articles in the template subscribe to the Salafi ideology and there is no point to Potray this movement as violent.Some of the groups may be doing this not all Salafis are involved in violence.Salafis traces their history to first generation of Islam.The nomenclature Sunni was developed and came to be known in later stages and was accepted by Muslims who started following four school of thought.

Where as Salafi movement opposes this tradition of Taqlid and focused on relying directly on the basic sources of Islam.I came to know through various sources that Osama bin Laden and Lashkar-e-Taiba subscribe to Salafi movement.Correct me ,if I am wrong.Rashid Rida may be moved to moved up.Sunnibarelvi (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a good attempt and it can be done. Obviously input from more than just the two of us would help as well. What you're saying about the formation of Sunni Islam is true. And in regard to Salafis opposing taqlid, then yes most of them do, but we should also be careful not to step on anyone's toes. I don't know of any Salafi editors here on Wikipedia but we should be able to guess what they might find offensive. That isn't to say that we bend to the will of a certain POV, but for example, most Salafis seem to reject traditional fiqh madhhabs. Obviously they won't state it this way and might bring sources from their sheikhs which state otherwise. So a big concern here - especially when there aren't any editors here to represent the movement - is writing things in a one-sided way but we don't even know it.
As for Osama bin Laden, then as far as I know he has been described as both Qutbism and Salafist in the news, but his article only seems to mention him being Qutbist. Can you bring some good sources about this? I'm just playing devil's advocate here, as I imagine most of the Salafi movement might be bothered by an association with him, so unless there's a source which can't be denied, it might be best to remove him. I don't know. You might benefit more from other people's input on this one.
Anyway, you're taking good initiative per Wikipedia:Be bold so I hope my comments didn't discourage you in any way. I'm here to help, and remember that as an editor you are free to edit. Perhaps we can get some more feedback on here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Can we again start it.Sunnibarelvi (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
As editors, we and others are free to moderate the template as we see fit. Are you sure starting it from scratch is a good use of time, though? If we just change it instead of starting it again, maybe we can work faster. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Why not then ,I have removed Egyptian Islamic Jehad and Osama bin Laden.Added Nour Party and others.What do you think now.Sunnibarelvi (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
It's good overall. There are some issues of taste I might do differently, but it's still a good template.
Here's a suggestion: since Salafism is an ideology, I would change the bottom part of the template from "Ideology" to "Related Ideologies." Islamic fundamentalism also includes non Salafis, as does Takfir, and Wahhabism is sometimes used to mean the same as Salafi and sometimes not. The same is true for Ahl al-Hadith, who emerged before Salafism did. Personally, I would move Ahl al-Hadith to the bottom with Wahhabism, Takfir and Islamic fundamentalism.
Other than that, it's probably ready to be put up on relevant articles. Perhaps we can start a new section for discussing where it should be. MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Where should it go?[edit]

I think we can all agree that this template should be placed in all articles under the Central figures, Organizations, Trends and Notable individuals sections. Surely, it can be put on other articles as well. Any suggestions, Sunnibarelvi? Or from anyone else? MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Your suggestions are fine and you should change them and insert it in relevant articles.Sunnibarelvi (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Central figures?[edit]

The template currently has listed the following "Central Figures":

  • Ibn Taymiyyah
  • Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya
  • Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab
  • Muhammad ibn al Uthaymeen

Whilst Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim might be highly respected by the Salafi movement, neither of them should be defined as Salafi given that they died about 700 years before the Salafi movement came into existence.

I would suggest removing both names and adding a new section entitled "Key Influences" where Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim can be listed.RookTaker (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

While you're correct that Salafism is recent, the movement does lean primarily on authors such as Ahmad ibn Hanbal as well as more recent ones like IT and Ibn al Qayyim when they reference sources in their polemics. While I agree on the division between central figures (members of the movement) and key influences (people who predate the movement but are admired by it), I would also advocate the reinsertion of Ibn Hanbal's name along under key influences as well - Salafist discourse almost universally contains some sort of mention of Ibn Hanbal's polemics.
In the future, discussion regarding Ibn Abdul-Wahhab on the relevant talk pages could lead to discussion here. The person never used the term "Salafism" or "Salafist" as it is understood today and was a muqallid of the Hanbali school, leading a minority of analysts to assert that even he predates Salafism, though I have a feeling that would cause controversy on the talk page to him and it could be left to another time for now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Tagging User:RookTaker in case he doesn't have this watchlisted. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
User:MezzoMezzo From what I have read, I'm not sure that all Salafis closely follow Ibn Hanbal. For example, Nasir al-Din al-Albani and Rashid Rida seemed to discourage following a particular imam including Ibn Hanbal. I think others (particularly those from Saudi Arabia) do indeed consider themselves to be Hanbali. Given that there seems to be a difference of opinion within the movement I would be hesitant in including Ibn Hanbal as a key influence for all Salafis.
As for, Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, it seems clear that he predates the Salafi movement given that he died a number of years before the movement came into existence. Or am I missing something. RookTaker (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
User:RookTaker, you're not missing anything. It's simple math and a review of Ibn Abdul Wahhab's work - he never talked about it. Historically, if I am not mistaken, the first to use Salafist for himself as part of something new was Rida and the first to talk about Salafism as a thing was Sayyed Qutb. Salafists sometime make mention of Dhahabi, IT and others mentioning the word but they only used it in the linguistic sense, not as an idea.
You're right, Salafists are confused among themselves about fiqh but I was more thinking of aqida. Whether it's the Albanist Salafis in Jordan and Morocco or the more traditional ones in Saudi and Egypt, they all teach books of Ibn Hanbal like Usul al-Sunnah for aqida in the beginning stages. Granted, he doesn't have nearly the focus that IT and IAW do, but it's there. There's an honorable mention of it at Salafi_movement#History. Do you think that would warrant inclusion at least based on the movement's claim? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
User:MezzoMezzo Given that most Salafis claim to follow Ibn Hanbal it would probably be ok to list him in the influences section. The only thing to bear in mind is that Salafis such as Abduh and (to a lesser extent) Rida were very much inclined towards rationalism which Ibn Hanbal opposed. Please read for example Islam and Modernism in Egypt by Charles C. Adams where Rida and Abduh are shown to have opinions that are at polar opposites to Ibn Hanbal in creed (e.g. Darwinism etc, the reality of the Jinn etc...). This is clearly however a minority view within the movement. I will therefore leave it with you to add Ibn Hanbal if you think it is still appropriate given the above.
Lastly, if we are to add Ibn Hanbal to the Salafi template then it might also be worth considering adding Abu Hanifa to the Deobandi template given the schools strong attachment to him though this is a separate discussion. RookTaker (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
User:RookTaker, you know what...it doesn't make sense actually. Ha ha, sorry if I seem too fickle. But the Deobandi analogy makes sense...leaning that way in fiqh (and not even all Salafis do as you pointed out) wouldn't seem accurate. They do reference Ibn Hanbal's works despite the modernist leanings of their early figures like Rida, Abduh and Afghani but the internal dynamics and seeming paradoxes of any movement - Salafi, Deobandi, Barelvi, what have you - fits better in subsections of articles than on templates. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Assalamualeikum. Hi, these books may useful for refernces. Book 1, Book 2 from Oliver H James. 36.80.237.110 (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)