Talk:Salafi movement

IMPORTANT

Message to those who want to have influence on the shape of this article Follow these simple instructions:

1. Please get a Wikipedia account and log in before you perform your edits.
2. If you plan on making major edits, please discuss them here first BEFORE you make your changes.

AnonMoos 03:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

4.7 Persecution of Salafis

Content seems to be mostly unrelated to the main article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.13.220 (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2011‎ (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: Salafi moved to Salafi movement and Wahhabi moved to Wahhabi movement. No consensus on whether Ibadi should be moved and I'd recommend a new RM that focuses solely on that article. Jenks24 (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

---

• Salafi → Salafism
• Wahhabi → Wahhabism
• Ibadi → Ibadism

– Article titles should be nouns, not adjectives. Even if the current titles are taken as nouns, they refer to individuals, not each sect. Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Article editor (talk) 07:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support Long overdue correction, gramatically correct and conforms the article title to WP:COMMONNAME, as used in English. DeCausa (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as "Salafiyya" is the more common term used in scholarly publications. Compared to "Salafism", it also gets more hits on Google Books. The title of the Encyclopedia of Islam's article (2nd ed., vol.8) also happens to be "Salafiyya". If a rename is necessary, then I'd suggest it should be Salafiyya, Ibadiyya, etc. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 08:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

That's probably ok for Salafiyya and Ibadiyya (and I would support), but "Wahhabiya" is significantly less used that "Wahhabism" per Google books. DeCausa (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose "Salafi" and "Wahhabi" are real words; whilst "Salafism" and "Wahhabism" are not correct English - any more than "Christianism". "Salafiyya" is a real word, but is much less commonly understood in English than "Salafi".--Toddy1 (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

What's the evidence for it being "incorrect English" or not a "real word". "Christianity" is an unusual construct in the world of "isms" and not analogous. Per WP:Commonname it's all about usage isn't it? DeCausa (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The terms appear in the articles themselves, and they are used. --Article editor (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I would also dispute the notion that "Salafism", etc., aren't "real" words. In the case of Christianity, Wikipedia has both "Christianity" (system) and "Christian" (individual). There are also "Islam" (system) and "Muslim" (individual). --Article editor (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support, as I have seen all three terms used with the -ism suffix in scholarly publications. The current titles could still be redirects, of course. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose salafi/wahabi/ibadi are already well known so adding ism's wont help..when these groups are mentioned its usually referred as salafi/wahabi movement. Baboon43 (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2013
  • Would it be better for the articles to be moved to Salafi movement/Wahhabi movement? --Article editor (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• yes that would be better Baboon43 (talk) 09:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

yes, I agree. It needs a noun to follow it. DeCausa (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. Salafi and Wahhabi are adjectives, it's weird to have an article about a group of people but the title is just an adjective. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose-No need.They are known by these names already.Msoamu (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support for a move to a noun form. I agree with the idea of Salafi movement, et.c. This noun phrase would have the advantage of keeping the original Arabic word intact. Imc (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• It seems that the vote count is:
  • 3 support, 4 oppose for Salafi → Salafism, Wahhabi → Wahhabism, Ibadi → Ibadism (not sure about Imc.)
  • 5 support, 3 oppose for Salafi → Salafi movement, Wahhabi → Wahhabi movement (leaving out Ibadi).
    • Could some admin close this? --Article editor (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• I support both the original proposed moves and the proposed moves to "__ movement". Srnec (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2013 (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.

Blatant POV

The Article is full of blatant POv.Most of the statements are directed to biased Salafi websites,Publications even some are sourced to dead links and some to forums.I have found some sources directly promoting Salafi view point and that too not in English language but in Arabic. For example-

• www.muttaqun.com/salafiyyah.html - Is Salafi site which was sourced to etymology section.
• http://www.alsaha.com/- A Non English Salafi source.
• http://www.salihaydin.net/Salafismus.pdf -Non English source seems to be Salafi.
• http://www.turntoislam.com/- A Salafi forum
• http://www.salafipublication- A Salafi site
• http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/- Non Functional
• www.ibaanah.com/ -A Salafi Arabic Research site
• http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/- A highly partisan and Non neutral site
• http://islameye.com/- A non functional blog
• http://www.isim.nl/files/review_21/review_21-6.pdf- Dead Link
• http://alagidah.com/vb/showthread.php?p=27549- A Salafi Forum

The article must be directed to third party neutral sources to present a neutral and objective picture of the movement.I have also removed un sourced blatant POV,unnecessary praising and promotion of the movement. Shabiha (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You're being bold and 99% of what you've removed deserved to be removed. Still, it's better to wait for comments from other editors when removing such large amounts of content. There are two things I would like to point out as well:

• Your deletion here also removed half of a sourced paragraph, and now the section starts in the middle of a sentence. I'm sure this was an oversight, but all the more reason to engage in such large-scale edits collaboratively.
• Your deletion of the material sourced by Lacroix's article here was due to the link being dead, but there is a new link which is cited as a source on Wikipedia already, I believe on the article for the Salafi scholar Albani. A quick Wikipedia search might have turned that up, and again, being bold is good but large-scale edits like these ones do warrant a measure of caution.

Aside from that, your boldness has yielded almost wholly positive results. The next step is building the article back up with valid secondary sources. And again, Shabiha, I strongly suggest that you withdraw your requests for comment below; those are only for dispute resolution, yet nobody has disputed your edits on the whole and most likely nobody will. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Just because statements are supported by dead links does not in itself justify removal. Please read Wikipedia:Link rot.

WP:NOENG says: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones". It does not say that sources can be deleted just because they are not in English.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Would you (Toddy) suggest reinserting the material supported by some of the sources in question? MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear,Toddy1,I would appreciate if you could clear,What if the content/material supported by dead link contains POV and the Non English sources are not neutral sources,as written above? Shabiha (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Shabiha, any source which contains POV and lack of neutrality, regardless of the medium, is still subject to WP:RS. There's no need to ask a question like that; it's not like Toddy or any other half-decent editor will say, "well, a non-reliable source can still be used!" MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, NPOV is a requirement for Wikipedia editors' editing, not for WP:RS. The policy says: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." DeCausa (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Let us go through the deletions, and break them into sections.[1] If the editor who made the deletions still feels that individual deletions were merited, please could he/she explain why in each case. It is likely that some of the deletions, once explained, will be accepted by all. But maybe others were mistakes. We need to judge them on their individual merits. I hope that you do not feel that it is too burdensome to explain them individually.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You certainly put your money where your mouth is! I hope the discussion resolves the issues. I, and I am sure other editors, will keep watch, though I think the onus is on the editor who performed the deletions at this point. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for coming forward to discuss the things here.As far as I got the understanding from WP:RS is that Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.Most of the sources I removed were not third party sources ,they were just party to the Article.Salafi sites promoting the subject.I will explain below.Much obliged for you taking pain to discuss them. Shabiha (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Toddy1

Dear ,I am much thankful that you have been really helpful in spending your time on these Articles to guide me and making an atmosphere of discussion.My most of the concerns are related to difference between Salaf and Salafi.The bias I complained in most of the sources is that Salafi bias through which they praise salaf in order to deceive or to give an impression to readers that they are from them.This is most biased and non neutral, POV found on Salafi sites.Where as, there is clear history available of this movement on various neutral sites I am objecting Salafi Publications and few other Salafi sites due to this blatant POV.The salafi movement must have information and headings on this 19th century Salafi movement only.The article must start from its own history not by taking the name of old Salaf.I hope u understands.Thanks Read here and here Shabiha (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That is your point of view. You are entitled to put this point of view into the article, provided that you provide citations to reliable sources (which can be biased). However, Salafi authors have a different point of view. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. So both your point of view and Salafi points of view can be put into the article. As this article is about the Salafi faith, it is more important that the Salafi point of view is explained in the article, than your point of view.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Just who or what groups and movements qualify as Salafi remains in dispute

The following was deleted:

...while Ahl as-Sunnah is overwhelmingly used by Muslim scholars, including Salafis as well as others, such as the Ash'ari sect, leading to a narrower use of the term "Salafi".

Please could you explain this change?--Toddy1 (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The content was not not supported by the source and the source was a blog site that too non working.The wiki Policy says,Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made.Shaikh Albani is a Salafi scholar and his ruling is not valid opinion when there is a dispute as to Who Salafi is?Here the third party opinion will be valid. Shabiha (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you able to access [2]? I think it is a dead link.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC) that

I meant that it is not working. Shabiha (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

So is this another dead link issue? P.S. Shabiha where are you? MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

2. Etymology

This was changed from:

The first generations of Muslims are collectively referred to as the "Pious Predecessors" (as-Salaf as-Saleh), and include the "Companions" (Sahabah), the "Followers" (Tabi‘un) and the "Followers of the Followers" (Tabi‘ al-Tabi‘in). These are revered in Sunni Islamic orthodoxy and their example has been used to understand the texts and tenets of Islam by Sunni theologians since the fifth Muslim generation or earlier, sometimes to differentiate the creed of the first Muslims from subsequent variations in creed and methodology (see Madhab), to oppose religious innovation (bid‘ah) and, conversely, to defend particular views and practices.

Bernard Haykel, professor of Near Eastern Studies, states that among Sunnis is "a strongly held view that temporal proximity to the Prophet Muhammad is associated with the truest form of Islam." This veneration is based on a number of records of the sayings of Muhammad who said, "I am the best Salaf for you" and, as narrated in the Sahih al-Bukhari of `Abd Allah ibn `Umar, a companion of Muhammad; "The best people are those of my generation, and then those who will come after them and then those who will come after them..."|Sahih al-Bukhari collected by Muhammad al-Bukhari. Other narrations indicate that there will follow people who will bear false witness of Islam.

Into:

Bernard Haykel, professor of Near Eastern Studies, states that among Sunnis is "a strongly held view that temporal proximity to the Prophet Muhammad is associated with the truest form of Islam."

Please could you explain this change?--Toddy1 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all this heading talks about History of the movement supported by Salafi scholar through Salafi sites like muttaqun.com/salafiyyah.html and www.alsaha.com and contains POV sentences like, The first generations of Muslims are collectively referred to as the "Pious Predecessors.....,linking this new Salafi Movement to earlier one.This Article is not about first three generation commonly known as Salaf.

Etymology/History section should have third party Neutral,Reliable and Verifiable sources.

The source alsaha.com is in Arabic and should satisfy these conditions first neutrality,verifiability and confirmation of this wiki policy, When quoting a source in a different language, provide the original text and an English translation, either in the body of the article or in a footnote..

[Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source See Also]Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy .

Will also fall under exception No.5 of this Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves that the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The sentences like,Compilation of Verdicts, Sheikh ul-Islam Ahmad ibn Taimiyyah to oppose religious innovation (bid‘ah) is POV.

The Para saying ,The way of the Sufis is the way of the Salaf is a sentence about first three generation.As have been said earlier, this is blatant POV to cite about Salaf here to promote a later movement Salafi.The sentence does not at all talk or discuss new Salafi Movement originated in Saudi Arabia.

Relying on primary source citing a Hadith and that too in support of earlier Salaf is again POV. Shabiha (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• The statement that "The first generations of Muslims are collectively referred to as the 'Pious Predecessors'", is backed by Citation 1. If the words "by Salafis" were added, it would be acceptable. Jews, Christians and Communists do not refer to them as the "Pious Predecessors", but Salifis do. To back a statement that Salafis refer to them as the "Pious Predecessors", Citation 1 seems fine to me. You say that this is a POV statement - adding the words "by Salafis" would neutralise that.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding Citation 2, please note that the words "quoting" and "citing" have different meanings in English. If someone uses a foreign-language source for a quotation, they need to provide the quotation in English. If someone is citing a foreign-language source, they can do that just like they do with sources written in English. The URL is best regarded as a dead link - the page I get when I use that link is clearly not the page accessed by the editor on 19 October 2010.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Citation 3 is by Sheikh ul-Islam Ahmad ibn Taimiyyah, and is a religious primary source being used to back a conclusion. This is inappropriate.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• If you have an objection to Citations 4 and 5, it is not clear what it is.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• You clearly accept Citation 6, as you used it in what you left in the article.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Citation 7 appears to be to a useful source, which is being used badly in the article. It should have been cited as Why the word Salafee?, by Muhammad Naasir-ud-Deen Al-Albaanee, Al-Asaalah Magazine, Issue 9, 15 July 2004.. I think the sentence that Citation 7 is next to is awful. It is hard to see its relevance to anything - which is a pity because the source attempts to explain the Salifi name.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agree that Citations 8 and 9 to Sahih al-Bukhari, are to a religious primary source. Citation 8 is for a quotation - I think that should be allowed. I agree with the deletion of the sentence backed by Citation 9.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Actually the first Para irrelvantly talks about another Article Salaf which is a generation consider Pious by all Muslims.This is their POV that they try to show that they belong to Salaf but in actual this is POV.They are using this Salaf.The article should tell only about 20th century Saudi Arabian movement known as Salafi founded by Muhammad bin Abdul wahab.

• C-2 is POV and non neutral and unverifiable language.
• The sentence does not at all talk or discuss new Salafi Movement originated in Saudi Arabia.
• Citation 4 is about Sufism and Salaf,please understand difference between both the statement is irrelevant here and biased to insert.
• C-5 is about Non English source. Shabiha (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Argh, bullet points! Ok, there is something I want to ask. Why was citation six removed? That was absolutely a reliable, valid source. I also have a comment. Citation five is not in English, but as I learned when deleting non-English sources, they can actually be used in some cases per WP:NOENG. I don't know how it could be used here; I'm just mentioning that they can be used in some cases. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Citation six with its supportive content is very much in the Article.You can use them if you provide translation to them in English.You have good understanding of wiki policies and I appreciate it. Shabiha (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't speak German so I can't help with citation five. And citation six is already there, you're right. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

3. Tenets

The following was deleted:

This is not interpreted as an imitation of cultural norms or trends that are not part of the legislated worship of Islam but rather as an adherence to Islamic theology. Salafis reject speculative philosophy (kalam) that involves discourse and debate in the development of the Islamic creed. They consider this process a foreign import from Greek philosophy alien to the original practice of Islam. The Imam, Al-Dhahabi (d. 748H / 1348) said:

It is authentically related from ad-Daaraqutnee that he said: There is nothing more despised by me than kalam. I say: He never entered into kalam nor argumentation. Rather, he was a Salafi.

Salafism holds that the Qur'an, the Hadith and the consensus (ijma) of approved scholarship (ulama) along with the understanding of the Salaf us-salih as being sufficient guidance for the Muslim. As the Salafi da'wa is a methodology and not a madh'hab in fiqh as commonly misunderstood, Salafis can come from the Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali or the Hanafi schools of Sunni jurisprudence and accept teaching of all four if supported by clear and authenticated evidence from the Sunnah. They support qualified scholars to engage in ijtihad in the face of a clear evidence be it from Qur'an of Hadeeth as opposed to total blind imitation (taqlid) if he is qualified. Their views in theology are based on the Athari creed as opposed to engaging in kalam, dialectics or any form of speculative philosophy.

This was replaced by:

Salafism holds that the Qur'an, the Hadith and the consensus (ijma) of approved scholarship (ulama) along with the understanding of the Salaf us-salih as being sufficient guidance for the Muslim. As the Salafi da'wa is a methodology and not a madh'hab in fiqh as commonly misunderstood, Salafis can come from the Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali or the Hanafi schools of Sunni jurisprudence

Please could you explain this change?--Toddy1 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The source Alagidah is a forum site that too in Arabic and does not comes under the category of reliable source.The wiki policy says that Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.

Next the Salafi publication.com is sectarian Salafi POV site is not valid,neutral and verifiable site to cite a statement about Al-Dhahabi and ad-Daaraqutnee.More over the quote is not at all about Salafi Movement. Shabiha (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Citation 2 is for a quotation. I think the citation is good enough for that purpose. Your objections seem based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. It is the work of editors that must be neutral, not sources. However, the quotation conveys no meaning to a normal reader. So I think you were right to delete the quotation - but not for the reasons you gave.

Regarding the rest - let's delete Citation 1, for the reason you give, and add some Fact tags.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I meant in citation 2 they have linked this movement to Salaf to present biased picture. Shabiha (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Toddy understood what you meant Shabiha, but I don't think you understood what he meant. I'll restate it with different words. WP:NPOV is in regard to editor behavior, not sources. WP:RS is about the veracity of a source, not whether it is biased. I can quote Chairman Mao's Red Book in an article about capitalism as long as my edit clarifies that the quote is only Chairman Mao's view and not objective fact. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

With regard to Salafi Publication and other Salafi sources website-I would like to quote it Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as The material is neither unduly self-serving.There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;the article is not based primarily on such sources.I have all the three objections. Shabiha (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that www.salafipublications.com is a self-published website?--Toddy1 (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I know about Salafi Publications; I've angered them multiple times with some of my edits, haha. It's a Salafist organization in Birmingham, UK though they have some centers on the East Coast of the United States. They're biased as hell and absolutely bigoted to all non-Salafist Muslims, but I don't think it counts as self-published - it's an international organization which includes mosques, bookshops and a publication company in addition to a buttload of websites. I'm not arguing for or against their inclusion as a source, I'm just sharing what I know. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

4. Tenets

The following uncited text was deleted:

Salafism condemns many common practices as polytheism (shirk) and tawassul of religious figures, such as venerating the graves of Islamic prophets and saints or using amulets to seek protection. They maintain that practices which are understood to be bid‘ah or heretical innovations are not permissible and should not be taught or practiced. Salafis believe that Islam's decline after the early generations results from religious innovations and from an abandoning of pure Islamic teachings; that an Islamic revival will only result through emulation of early generations of Muslims and purging of foreign influences.

Please could you explain this change? Would it not have been better to have tried to find sources for it? Or to attach "fact" tags? It does not seem to be a controversial statement.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The language was not neutral and was full of Unsourced POV.The wording is an attempt to portray other movements in bad light.The para criticize other major Islamic Movements that too with out valid reference.Wikipedia should reflect neutral point of view.What Salafis think Shirk or Biddah may be very valid Islamic practices for others and it must be supported by neutral sources.The sentence like,heretical innovations are not permissible is blatant POV.Pure Islamic teachings and religious innovations are POV wordings. Shabiha (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

So let us add Fact tags.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Controversial language and allegations on other movements ,unsourced POV since a long should be deleted. Shabiha (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted too Shabiha, but we have another editor asking that fact tags be inserted. That would mean that the text is waiting for sources, and if it sits unsourced too long then we have a stronger case for deletion because we gave the community a chance to add sources. A better compromise in this case might be to add the fact tags and let the text sit for some time, and if no sources are brought then delete. Again, I agree that it should have been deleted but if another editor has a different view, then simply restating your own view isn't going to get us or this article anywhere; Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Blatant POV and not sourced bias content should be removed.WP is all about keeping NPOV. Shabiha (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2013(UTC)

Why is it blatant POV precisely? I'm not seeing any major issue there, although i can see a couple of tweaks would be warranted. As Toddy1 says above, it doesn't look particularly controversial. DeCausa (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to add, the tweaks I would suggest would result in the following:

Salafism condemns certain common practices as polytheism (shirk) and tawassul of religious figures, such as venerating the graves of Islamic prophets and saints or using amulets to seek protection. They maintain that such practices are bid‘ah or heretical innovations are not permissible and should not be taught or practiced. Salafis believe that Islam declined after the early generations because of religious innovations and an abandoning of what they consider to be pure Islamic teachings; and that an Islamic revival will only result through emulation of early generations of Muslims and purging of foreign influences. DeCausa (talk) 10:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So will we implement said tweaks? MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Anybody? MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The current version reads:

"Salafis condemn certain common practices as polytheism (shirk) and tawassul of religious figures, such as venerating the graves of Islamic prophets and saints or using amulets to seek protection. They maintain that such practices are bid‘ah or heretical innovations are not permissible and should not be taught or practiced. Salafis believe that Islam declined after the early generations because of religious innovations and an abandoning of what they consider to be pure Islamic teachings; and that an Islamic revival will only result through emulation of early generations of Muslims and purging of foreign influences."

I thought this incorporated the tweaks.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It does, but when was this put in? I missed it entirely. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This edit. DeCausa (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

5. Tenets

The following uncited text was deleted:

and make sure their jellabiya or other garment worn by them does not extend below the ankle so as to follow the example of Muhammad and his companions.

Please could you explain this change? Would it not have been better to have tried to find sources for it? Or to attach "fact" tags? It does not seem to be a controversial statement.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Obvious POV claim with out reference,can be used by neutralizing and giving it valid source to it. Shabiha (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

All it needs is a Fact tag.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is it POV? It's explaining the views of a movement, and as far as I know the statement is accurate. Shabiha, do you mean to insinuate that explaining the POV of Salafis in the Salafi article is POV? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Some of Shabiha's objections seem ok, but often he seems to object to statements on Salafi belief just because there is no source or because the source is a Salafi one. It's quite within policy to use Salafi sources as sources for what Salafists believe and deleting an unsourced statement should only happen if the statement is "challenged or likely to be challenged". In this case, does Shabiha think the statement is untrue? (I haven't checked to see if it is true or not, although I have some vague recollection that that it is correct.) He's just said it's "POV", which frankly doesn't make any sense. DeCausa (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The statement is 100% true actually. While Salafists aren't the only ones who object to men wearing long garments which extend below their ankles, it is a known view of theirs. I know certain Sufi groups agree with the Salafis on this, but the majority of Sunnis don't as far as I know, making this belief of Salafists both true and distinguishing. Hope that sheds some light. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

6. History

The following text was deleted:

From the perspective of Salafis the history of the Salafi dawah starts with Muhammad himself. They consider themselves direct followers of his teachings as outlined in the Qur'an and Sunnah (prophetic traditions), and wish to emulate the piety of the first three generations of Islam (the Salaf). All later scholars are merely revivers (not 'founders') of the original practices. Modern scholars may only come to teach (or remind) Muslims of the instructions of the original followers of Islam, who based their beliefs and actions on the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Landmarks claimed in the history of Salafi da'wah are Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d.240 AH / 855 AD) who is known among Salafis as Imam Ahl al-Sunnah, and one of the three scholars commonly titled with the honorific Sheikh ul-Islam, namely, Taqi ad-Deen Ibn Taymiyyah (d.728 AH / 1328 AD) and Ibn al-Qayyim (d.751 AH / 1350).

Please could you explain this change? The first paragraph is uncited, but does not seem to be a controversial statement. Surely adding "fact tags" would have been better? What is wrong with the second paragraph?--Toddy1 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

What is a good source for the history of the movement? Salafi source for Salafi Article or third party neutral source?Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani Shaikh Muhammad Amaan al-Jaamee,are a salafi scholar and their views can't be authentic in case of history section.First Para is also POV Para which starts the history of this new Salafi movement to Prophet Muhammad neither the Article of Muhammad supports this claim and nor this big claim is validly sourced. Shabiha (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

So by your logic, I can delete any source written by an American concerning American history? This is not how we work on Wikipedia.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I requested third party and neutral sources.The wording is also POV. Shabiha (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Again Shabiha, neutral point-of-view is about editor behavior, not the sources. I'm not arguing about the deletion here, but in general you really seem to have some serious misunderstandings about site policies and guidelines. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Toddy,the Article can't be based on questionable self sources which are Salafi sources in this case.Best sources are third Party reliable and neutral sources. Shabiha (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the specific sources and looking at the general principles, why can't we use Salafi sources for the Salafi article? Of course they aren't neutral, but they can still serve a purpose. We wouldn't delete Shi'ite sources from the Shi'a article, right? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

7. Early examples of usage

The following text was deleted:

• Some scholars, such as Ibn Taymiyyah, have noted: "There is no criticism for the one who proclaims the madh'hab of the Salaf, who attaches himself to it and refers to it. Rather, it is obligatory to accept that from him by unanimous agreement because the way of the Salaf is nothing but the truth."

Please could you explain this change?--Toddy1 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This heading is biased and not neutral.The attempt to make a linkage to Salaf by modern Salafi is blatant POV and personal opinion.Statement is about Salaf and not about Salafi Movement and by this sentence there is an attempt to guide readers towards modern Salafi movement by using the name of Salaf,the pious predecessors,who are authority for all Muslims.

Ibn Taymiyyah was the primary scholar of this movement and his opinion cant be a valid one in terms of history.

The Salafi Publication can't be a valid source in history section as it is sectarian biased Salafi source. Shabiha (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Again you have misunderstood policy. Editors should be neutral. Sources need not be.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The language is biased as I claimed.A new movement is trying to use the similar name of another Pious generation. Shabiha (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who inserted that text Shabiha, but you really shouldn't talk about what the editor wanted to guide readers toward; focus on the article, not the editors.

Now if the language was neutral, then neutralize it. That's a general statement. In this case, I am still inclined toward Shabiha's deletion because Ibn Taymiyyah lived and died a few hundred years before the Salafi movement existed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

8. *In the book Al-Ansaab by Abu Sa'd Abd al-Kareem as-Sama'ni

The following text was deleted:

In commenting upon as-Sama'ni, Ibn al-Athir noted; "And a group were known by this epithet."

Please could you explain this change?--Toddy1 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This also comes under heading usage of the term, a point of history.Salafi Publication is not valid source to be cited in history section.Further sentence ,And a group were known by this epithet is about Salaf not this new Salafi movement. Shabiha (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You have misunderstood policy. Editors should be neutral. Sources need not be.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The language is biased as I claimed.A new movement is trying to use the similar name of another Pious generation. Shabiha (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Shabiha, you need to stop right there. You're copy pasting your old comments. If they didn't convince Toddy or any other editor before, then simply repeating them could be seen as a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please understand, Shabiha, that even if you're right you still have to give full explanation to other editors. None of us are above the other, and the opinion of no editor is decisive; this is a collaborative effort, and I would highly encourage you to elaborate on your position so that it can be understood in full.

And again, I'm not disagreeing with your point Shabiha. I'm just saying that you need to give more details to your positions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear MezzoMezzo,It is about an old group Salaf and Ibn al-Athir lived much before this new Salafi movement took birth or developed.This is bias.I also disagree with the source. Shabiha (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, it is Shabiha's opinion that Salafi are dishonest about their own movement. That does not seem a valid reason for the article to not mention what the Salafi claim to be the history of their movement. However, it might a be good reason to have a section explaining which aspects of Salafi history are disputed, and by whom. Such a section would need to be cited.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh Toddy, you're opening a door which I was eager to open after all this was done. I think Shabiha is right about Salafis being uninformed (not really dishonest) about their own movement's history...but maybe we ought to resolve these issues before tackling that one. I don't like to talk, but I've experienced this with other movements before...if we start posting information contrary to how they view themselves - no matter how fair our edits are - we will be dealing with a number of IP addresses and brand new accounts with no understanding of policy trying to blank sections out. I've seen it so many times with Muslim movements on here. Your suggestion is great, and what Shabiha is getting at is mostly accurate...but can we focus on the source for this Al-Ansaab comment before we poke the bear with a stick? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that we have an editor who is saying that we cannot use Salafi sources for what Salafis believe in, because in his opinion the Salafi sources are wrong.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

DeCause pointed that out too, and I get what you guys are saying. Shabiha's edits were in good faith but I think he just didn't get that NPOV is for editors, not sources. It's been mentioned enough that he probably gets what we mean by now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

9. Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab

The following text was deleted:

Many today 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. His evangelizing in 18th century Arabian Peninsula was a call to return to the practices of the early Muslims. His works, especially Kitab at-Tawhid, are still widely read by Salafis around the world today, and the majority of Salafi scholars still reference his works frequently. After his death, his views flourished under his descendants, the Al ash-Sheikh, and the generous financing of the House of Saud and initiated the current worldwide Salafi movement.

The vast majority of Salafis reject the Wahhabi label because they consider it unfounded, an object of controversy, holding that Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab did not establish a new school of thought but restored the Islam practiced by the earliest generations of Muslims. Followers of Salafiyyah consider it wrong to be called "Wahhabis" as the 17th Name of God is al-Wahhab ("the Bestower") and to be called a "Wahhabi" denotes the following of a person other than what in actuality is the believed following of the Qur'an and Sunnah. Wahhabism has been called a "belittling" and derogatory term for Salafi, while another source defines it as "a particular orientation within Salafism," an orientation some consider strongly apolitical, and yet another describes it as a formerly separate current of Islamic thought that appropriated "language and symbolism of Salafism" until the two became "practically indistinguishable" in the 1970s.

Trevor Stanley states that, while the origins of the terms Wahhabism and Salafism "were quite distinct" – "Wahhabism was a pared-down Islam that rejected modern influences, while Salafism sought to reconcile Islam with modernism" – they both shared a rejection of "traditional" teachings on Islam in favor of a direct, more puritan interpretation. Stéphane Lacroix, a postdoctoral 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."

and replaced with:

while another source defines it as "a particular orientation within Salafism," an orientation some consider strongly apolitical, and yet another describes it as a formerly separate current of Islamic thought that appropriated "language and symbolism of Salafism" until the two became "practically indistinguishable" in the 1970s.

Please could you explain this change?--Toddy1 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The Salafi Publication is non neutral sectarian source and not valid, some blatant POV unsourced statements, Ad-Dar as-Salafiyyah Publication is not neutral source due to obvious POV and statements sourced to wahabimyth are not supported by its broken link,I added Laurent Bonnefoy, Salafism in Yemen. Transnationalism and Religious Identity, Columbia University Press/Hurst, 2011, ISBN 978-1-84904-131-7 - page 245, sourced content in to the Article.It was removed in mistake.Further the content sourced to www.isim.nl is removed due to broken link. Shabiha (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You have misunderstood policy. Editors should be neutral. Sources need not be.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

What about other sources like wahabimyth which is broken link and un sourced POV ?

I am assuming the insigned comment above was from Shabiha.

Shabiha, you still don't get it? Editors must be neutral; not the sources. Now, some of those deleted sources were bunk but the ones you deleted by accident (citations 2, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10) need to be put back in. I overlooked that part when I initially commended you (Shabiha) but upon review, those really need to be reinstated. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I have dealt with the dead link to Lacroix's article.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

10. Connections to extremism

The following text was deleted:

In recent years the Salafi methodology has mistakenly come to be associated with the jihad of extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and related groups that advocate the killing of innocent civilians. These acts have consistently been strongly opposed by Salafi scholars such as Sheikh Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani, Sheikh Muhammad ibn al Uthaymeen and Sheikh Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd Allah ibn Baaz who had all issued fatawa (religious verdicts) forbidding suicide bombing declaring the act as being totally haram (forbidden).

• Sheikh Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani who said;

"We say that suicide operations now, in the present times, all of them are without legislation and all of them are forbidden. It could be that the person who commits it could fall into the category of those who remain in the Hellfire forever, or it could be that he does not remain in the Hellfire forever..."

• Sheikh Muhammad ibn al Uthaymeen who said;

" ...as for what some people do regarding activities of suicide, tying explosives to themselves and then approaching Unbelievers and detonating them amongst them, then this is a case of suicide, and Allaah¹s refuge is sought. So whoever commits suicide then he will be consigned eternally to Hell-Fire, remaining there forever, as occurs in the hadeeth of the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam. (i.e., his, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, saying, " and whoever kills himself with an iron weapon, then the iron weapon will remain in his hand, and he will continuously stab himself in his belly with it in the Fire of Hell eternally, forever and ever." Reported by al-Bukhaaree, no. 5778 and Muslim, no. 109, in the Book of Eemaan). Because this person has killed himself and has not benefited Islam. So if he kills himself along with ten, or a hundred, or two hundred other people, then Islam will not benefit by that, since the people will not accept Islam... ... Rather it will probably just make the enemy more determined, and this action will provoke malice and bitterness in his heart to such an extent that he may seek to wreak havoc upon the Muslims. This is what is found from the practice of the Jews with the people of Palestine, so when one of the Palestinian blows himself up and kills six or seven people, then in retaliation they take sixty or more. So this does not produce any benefit for the Muslims, and does not benefit those amongst whose ranks explosives are detonated. So what we hold is that those people who perform these suicide (bombings) have wrongfully committed suicide, and that this necessitates entry into Hell-Fire, and Allah¹s refuge is sought and that this person is not a martyr (shaheed). However if a person has done this based upon misinterpretation, thinking that it is permissible, then we hope that he will be saved from sin, but as for martyrdom being written for him, then no, since he has not taken the path of martyrdom. But whoever performs ijtihaad and errs will receive a single reward (if he is a person qualified to make ijtihaad)."

• Sheikh Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd Allah ibn Baaz who said with regards to suicide bombings;

" ...such an act is never correct because it is a form of killing oneself and Allāh subhanahu wa ta'ala says: < And do not kill yourselves. [Sūrah al-Nisā 4:29] > And the prophet salAllahu 'aleihi wa selim said: < Whoever kills himself by any means, he will be punished by it on the Day of Resurrection.” [Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 670] > The person should rather strive and seek to guide them and if fighting is legalized and legislated, then he fights alongside the Muslims. If he’s then killed in this way, then Allāh is praised. But as for killing himself by booby-trapping his body with explosives, thereby killing others and himself, this is wrong and completely impermissible. Rather, he should fight with the Muslims only when fighting is legitimately legislated. As for the [suicidal] actions of (some of) the Palestinians, they are wrong and produce no benefit. Instead, it is compulsory upon them to call to Allāh by teaching, guiding, and advising and not by such actions as these."

The groups and individuals that carry out terrorist attacks are regarded as being out of the fold of the methodology of the Salaf, misguided and deviant; chiefly erroneous "Qutubi jihadism" groups.

Please could you explain this change?--Toddy1 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Lnaguage of full heading and content is blatant POV which does not find any thing related to Salafi extremism and all the three Salafi source (one of them is forum) presents a very Bright POV Picture of the Movement.This heading should have neutral and verifiable sourced content which may objectively discuss its connection with extremism.All the three Salafi sources are not valid being unverifiable and non neutral here. Shabiha (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Citation 1 is a video posted on a forum.
• Citation 2 is a forum.
• Citation 3 is a dead link.

It would have been better to have removed Citations 1 and 2, together with quotations from them. I think that the first paragraph should have been kept, but marked with a Fact tag. The content of the third quotation should have been left for the time being, with a dead link marker next to Citation 3.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I am of the view that heading and content is different and obvious defense of movement in POV with out presenting a neutral picture of extremism. Shabiha (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

So what's the solution, Shabiha? Another editor states their view and so you just state your own opposing view? What will the outcome be, then?

I'm trying to help you out, Shabiha. I have full confidence that your edits were in good faith and I still hold that in general, it was a good initiative (though discussing things here is definitely a positive). However, I don't have confidence in your efforts to communicate your reasoning; you need to put a little more time into explaining your positions here, and think ahead regarding what will happen if you just say to another editor: "well I disagree, so there." MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

If islamagainstextremism website is too biased, can we at least quote the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia condemning violence in this news article by Arabnews.com? http://www.arabnews.com/saudi-arabia/grand-mufti-denounces-violence-against-embassies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.9.148 (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

11.Comparison with other movements

The following uncited text was deleted:

Instead, it is thought that Muslims should stick to traditional activities, particularly Dawah. Nevertheless, Salafis do not preach willful ignorance of civil or state law. While preaching that the Sharia takes precedence, Salafi Muslims conform to civil or state law as far as they are required, for example in purchasing mandatory auto insurance.

Please could you explain this change? Would it not have been better to have tried to find sources for it? Or to attach "fact" tags? It does not seem to be a controversial statement.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed it due its bigger unsourced POV claims.Salafis do not preach willful ignorance of civil or state law (Any Neutral source here?). Shabiha (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding Fact tags would have been more appropriate.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Wiki prefers sourced content and POV that too unsourced must be removed. Shabiha (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Shabiha, you need to explain why removal instead of placing fact tags first. You just stating that doesn't really help your cause. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Responses needed from Shabiha

Shabiha hasn't edited this page for 3 days now and all of the above subsections (with the exception of the first one) has outstanding points made by others awaiting responses from Shabiha. Unless Shabiha re-engages and responds properly, I think consideration needs to be given to reverting some or all of the deletions (with whatever tweaks and fact tags that have been discussed added) DeCausa (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Shabiha doesn't seem to have edited at all for a few days. The reason why isn't our business, but given that he's been inactive for four days it's safe to estimate that he might not log in for another few days. If any of the edits are pressing, I don't think anyone would object to one of us undertaking necessary actions - I'm sure once Shabiha returns, he'll give the comments here a thorough review. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I have restored text in accordance with the discussions above.[3] I have included suggested rewording, added FACT and DEAD LINK tags, and made minor corrections to English (e.g. "Press" not "Presss" and "wrote" not "noted").--Toddy1 (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

He's currently blocked for 48 hours due to edit warring, so we'll have to wait for further responses. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

deletition of contents

i deleted some contents which were not refrenced.or refrenced to global security.org or poor sources which are reverted.can you tell me please what is the reason behind placing such type of contents in this article.as many contents are wrong among them.Dil e Muslim talk 19:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC) i also added citation template which is also reverted can you discribe please.Dil e Muslim talk 19:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the multiple issues template at your request.

What makes you think that the following sources are not fit for the purpose that they were used for in the article?

• SalafiPublications.com
• www.globalsecurity.org

--Toddy1 (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Am Not New a.k.a Dil e Muslim will not be replying to this question as he/she got blocked as a sock.[4] By a remarkable co-incidence, User:Shabiha, whose views just happened to be exactly the same also got blocked as s sock.[5] --Toddy1 (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

The Salafi "infobox" doesn't appear to be editable. Can someone make a proper infobox with the info there? David O. Johnson (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The Asalah and Shabab organzations in the "infobox" presumably are supposed to link to the pages for those political parties, but they link to the wrong pages. Once the format is cleaned up, that should be fixed. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I figured out how to get to the template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Salafi

It might be easier just to make it an infobox though. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should propose that the template be deleted and replaced by infoboxes at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary; I've figured out how to edit the template, so I will leave the template as it is. Thanks for the suggestion. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

nationalism

i believe this article has not highlighted the extreme nationalism behind the wahabi movement..libyan mufti wants to ban women from marrying foreigners. [6] Baboon43 (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

He is concerned that men from Iran and Syria are “taking advantage" of Libyan women in the present situation.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

sure he is. Baboon43 (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Claim not obviously backed by citation

The article says:

In recent years the Salafi methodology has come to be associated with the jihad of extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and related groups that advocate the killing of innocent civilians.

I do not see anything in the PBS article that justifies the statement in Wikipedia.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

i guess that source doesnt say that exactly but there's other sources that associate them with terrorism. Baboon43 (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I added a FACT tag.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)