Talk:Salafi movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Salafi)
Jump to: navigation, search

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)

That's good advice in general, but there do not seem to be any special conditions regarding the editing of this page. Normal wikipedia guidlines apply here and unregistered users may edit the article and expect their contributions to follow the wp:BRD guidelines. Edaham (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Splitting proposal[edit]

Wiley's The Muslim World journal has a special issue on Salafism this month. From their "Introduction" article:
"Academic literature generally divides Salafis into Puritanical and Modernist Salafis. Modernist Salafism started in the late nineteenth century and was led by individuals such as Jamal al-Dı¯n al-Afgha¯nı¯ (d. 1897), Muhammad : bAbduh (d. 1905) and Rashı¯d Rida: ¯(d. 1935)...Although Modernist Salafis eventually demised as a group, they paved the way for Puritanical Salafism which is the more popular form of Salafism today. What they have most in common with Modernist Salafis is their criticism of taqlı¯d and call to return to the ways of the earliest Muslim generations."
"Henri Lauziere provides an excellent overview of the historical usage and origin of the term Salafism in Western academia, see H. Lauziere, The Making of Salafism: Islamic Reform in the Twentieth Century (New York: Columbia University Press, 2015)."
Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Yep, I'm reading Lauzière's book right now. I have a slightly different proposal, though. I think we need this article to provide an overview of the different versions of Salafism discussed in RSs, and the various theories about their relationship. These are:
1) The pre-modern Salafi current, which is essentially synonymous with Traditionalist Theology (Islam). Lauzière argues that using the terms Salafism and Salafiyya for it is anachronistic, but this usage is found in some standard references (see Traditionalist Theology (Islam)#Terminology) and we need to reflect it.
2) Modernist Salafism, which seems to be the predominant term in the RSs that discuss it together with the "other Salafism".
3) Traditionalist/purist/etc Salafism. In the RSs I've seen so far, "traditionalist" seems to be the more common term, though Lauzière prefers "purist". I haven't come across a source that prefers "puritanical". We can estimate the relative prevalence of these alternatives more systematically later.
I'm planning to expand this article in the next week or two with sections on the two missing currents. Then I think we'll want to spin off detailed articles for each of them. Traditionalist Theology (Islam) already exist, "Traditionalist/etc Salafism" needs to be created, and "Modernist Salafism" needs to be either created or adapted from Islamic Modernism. These two terms are identified in the lead there as synonymous, but that's not right. I've seen "Islamic modernism" being used as a gloss for "modernist Salafism" in running text, but if you look at encyclopedic entires like Modernism (The Oxford Dictionary of Islam) and Modernism (The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World), and Islamic Modernism and Islamic Revival (Oxford Bibliographies), you see it treated as a much broader (and vaguer) category that may include anyone from Ataturk to Iqbal to Mawdudi. So, "Islamic modernism" and "Modernist Salafism" should be two different articles.
What do you think? Eperoton (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
To my mind the work by Henri Lauziere is by far the most detailed on the subject. He devotes about 50 pages in a chapter entitled "origins, history and meanings of the Salafiyya" and explains clearly that the word "Salafiyya" and its derivatives are not commonplace in medieval and pre-modern literature and that "[Salafi apologists] have yet to produce a medieval primary source in which the noun “Salafiyya” is used". That being the case, I'm not entirely sure what the so-called "Traditionalist/etc Salafism" article should include other than a discussion regarding whether the term was used in the first place. Can you clarify?
Regarding "modernist" and "purist" Salafism, Lauziere seems to suggest that the former evolved into the latter. He states that, "One of the arguments underlying this dissertation is that the evolution of the modernist Salafiyya into a puristic form of Islam was concomitant with the development of a transnational and generic Islamic identity" and regarding the Salafi Rashid Rida he states that "In the end, however, his (Rida's) efforts favored the transformation of the Salafiyya from a movement of Islamic modernism into a more puristic understanding of Islam." Should we therefore have separate articles for "modernist" and "purist" salafism when they seem to be strongly interlinked? Saheeh Info 11:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
@Saheehinfo: The term "traditionalist/purist/puritanical Salafism" is normally used for the contemporary Salafi movement, not the pre-modern one, so that a new article on the former would be used to offload some of the details currently contained in this one. Just the usual process of spinning off articles for sub-topics when their coverage becomes too detailed for the original article. This is looking a bit into the future, though. This article currently treats the subject as if "salafi" is essentially synonymous with contemporary traditionalist Salafism, so it's not ready for spin-offs yet. Eperoton (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
In theory, splits could be done if substantial more material specific to the different branches/forms/mutations of the movement is added. It would be a lot of work, but by this point, I suspect that there might be enough secondary sources to eventually beef up different sections of the existing, especially history on historical ties among the geographic manifestations (i.e. influence of Yemeni muhaddiths on Indian muhaddiths in the 1800s, opposition of the Yemenis to the Wahhabist movement, etc.). That could actually make for more than one rather robust article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
We should make one article about actual Salafism representing most Salafists then at the bottom of the Article, we can mention the "puritanical" or "deviated" part of it that people twisted and ended up following. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammooly (talkcontribs) 04:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Not possible. This is an encyclopedia; the information we present here needs to be impartial. Terms such as "actual," "deviated" and "twisted" are value judges which we as editors can't make. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I apologize for my word usage, what I mean is that instead of making two articles, speak about general Salafism in the article (the denotation) then mention the extra information as its own subsection in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammooly (talkcontribs) 22:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • oppose split, I am not seeing enough sources making this distinction to warrant a split.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • oppose split I don't think the article is too long. AadaamS (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I think we can call this a no-consensus for split. To my embarrassment, I still haven't gotten around to fleshing out the various senses of Salafism in this article as I promised a few months ago. I've collected the sources, but keep getting sidetracked by other priorities. Eperoton (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

I added cited content to the lead and a user keeps removing it without explaining. It has been sourced from Harvard University Press, Routledge etc... Explain why you don't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MontyKind (talkcontribs) 11:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I neither like or dislike it. What I regret is that an editor consensus emerged on this page, and that you have not even tried to seek the views of other editors before making rather substantial changes. That's why I recommended you bring your proposed changes here for discussion. Even now I respectfully ask you please to explain what it is you're trying to do. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Anybody is allowed to edit on Wikipedia. If you read this introduction you will note that it states that Don't be afraid to edit – anyone can edit almost every page, and we are encouraged to be bold!

I therefore don't need your permission to edit thank you very much.

The changes I added are not "substantial" as you claim, they consist of the addition of 2 words ("or sect") and are sourced from Harvard University Press, Routledge etc...

Given that you reversed my changes 4 times in one day I am directly asking YOU why you disagree with it. What policy reasons do you have? If you have none then there is absolutely no reason to remove my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MontyKind (talkcontribs) 13:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

There's a big ("substantial") difference betwwen sect and movement. Other editors may have an opinion. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

So, to clarify, your reason for undoing my changes is that the word "sect" is different to the word "movement". And which Wikipedia policy does this come from? I have provided sources for the use of the word "sect" from Harvard University Press, Routledge etc... What policy reasons do you have for rejecting this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MontyKind (talkcontribs) 14:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Sign your posts please. As I have explained many times, the consensus was hard to establish. You aren't interested in that, apparently. See WP:CON. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Desist from making personal attacks please. It is unnecessary. There is nothing in WP:CON which states that articles can't be edited. You need to provide specific reasons for reversing my change or at least provide an alternative. So far you have simply stated that the word "sect" has a different meaning to the word "movement". This is not a policy reason. I have provided sources for the use of the word "sect" from Harvard University Press, Routledge etc... What policy reasons do you have for rejecting this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MontyKind (talkcontribs) 14:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Please, familiarize yourself with the 3RR rule to avoid further violation. A qualitative description, for the movement reflect an opinion, and should be avoided, especially in the lead. Furthermore the supporting literature is issued of either newspaper articles or books which subject is neither salafism neither religion studies, so could note be considered as strong enough - the vocable "sect" also infers a legal meaning in many European countries and Canada: salafism is not legally considered as one by any known government - see also section 4. It doesn't mean an opinion shouldn't be mentioned in the article, and the addition of MontyKind is preserved in a note, thought the "criticism" should be the natural receptacle to reflect such a opinion. Thanks to try to reach consensus on this page and not stubbornly try to impose your viewpoint. Vivepat (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense. What policy reasons do you have for rejecting the sources I provided? Harvard University Press is completely acceptable. MontyKind (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, how is the book Legal Integration of Islam by Harvard University Press not about "religion studies"? And how is it that you have no problem with the phrase "ultra-conservative" in the lead when this is not sourced to a book about "religion studies". Also, how is this an opinion? None of the sources I provided are opinion pieces. They are scholarly works from academic institutes. Also, how is the phrase "sect" a criticism? You seem to suggest that the word "sect" is bad. MontyKind (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

MontyKind: You seem to suggest that the word "sect" is bad: Well you just have to check a dictionary or just google "sect" to get confirmation the word convey a negative meaning in common English. It is possibly the word has a different meaning in the sociology field (the book you mention), and even there if you just read the page 26 of the book you mention, you will see that can infer a specific church-sect typology: I guess it is also what talk was inferring, so if that was not your intention, what was it? The word "sect" is not used by most of the literature having the salafism as subject, I could cite Henri Lauzière, (The Making of Salafism: Islamic Reform in the Twentieth Century, New York City, Columbia University Press, and many of its peer reviewed papers), Global Salafism: Islam's New Religious Movement, Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press edited by Roel Meijer, (notice the title)... numerous paper by Quintan Wiktorowicz, such as the frequently cited « Anatomy of the Salafi Movement » in peer reviewed publication...furthermore, the report to congress "The Islamic Traditions of Wahhabism and Salafiyya" explicitly states "Salafiyya is not a unified movement, and there exists no single Salafi “sect.” " (quotation mark surrounding the word "sect" as is in the original text). So your addition clearly doesn't reflect a consensus. You have not only added the word "sect", but also suppressed the word "sunni": The both actions dramatically change the characterization of the movement, and clearly some people are not comfortable with the new definition (which is less informative and more opinionated): As noted by GorgeCustersSabre, the exact terminology has been the result of a consensus equilibrium. For example the reason for the "sunni denomination" has been provided in 4. You have ignored the previous consensus and have not substantiated your motivation for your edit...furthermore, even after several warning you have continued to violate the wikipedia rules such as the 3RR rule and ignored others such as the WP:CON. You seem to not even read the offer of compromise (I have also placed the "ultra-conservative" denomination in footnote, thought that doesn't have the same negative connotation as the word "sect", however it is beyond the point, what is at stake is your edit, not the legacy). Again please refrain to impose your viewpoint in the article. I will revert the lead on the previous consensus with the offer of compromise. try to explain your view point here first before imposing for the n+1 time the same thing. thanks to try to participate constructively (Vivepat (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

Your command of the English language is poor so unfortunately I cannot understand all the points you are making. According to Wikipedia the definition of a sect is "a subgroup of a religious, political, or philosophical belief system, usually an offshoot of a larger group." How is this bad? Every religious person of some form belongs to a "sect". Also, the wikipedia article on sect actually confirms it's use for Salafism. According to this article The Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali Sunnis, the Twelver groups, the Ismā'īlī groups, the Zaydis, the Ibadis, and the Ẓāhirīs continue to exist. In addition, new sects like Ahmadiyya movement, Black Muslim movements, Quranists, Salafis, Wahhabis, and Zikris have been emerged independently.
Even if you did feel that this was bad, then it still doesn't justify it's removal given that numerous sources use this term. You still haven't given a reason why the book Legal Integration of Islam by Harvard University Press is unacceptable. There are many other sources aswell such as Routledge etc.. that also use the term "sect". I have found even more but didn't want to clutter the article.
The fact that certain sources haven't used the term "sect" doesn't mean that they consider it inappropriate. Certain sources haven't used the term "reform" or "ultra-conservative" so should we remove this also?
The "compromise" that you have suggested involves hiding relevant sourced material. This isn't compromise but censorship. Also, it's bizarre that you mention 3RR (something I was unaware of) when you have yourself reverted 3 times and your colleague has reverted 4 times in less than 24 hours. MontyKind (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
There's a history of discomfort among WP editors regarding the word "sect", because it has both a neutral and a derogatory meaning (see e.g., [1]). In academic literature generally, and particularly in Islamic studies, it is used synonymously with "branch" or "denomination", while in some popular usage it is a term of abuse, and some governments use it with connotations similiar to "cult" (see e.g., Governmental lists of cults and sects). So, even when it is formally used correctly, there's concern that it will be perceived as a WP:LABEL by some readers. I share this concern to some extent, though I perhaps don't feel as strongly about it as some others. There's some substantive distinction between the terms sect, branch, and denomination on one hand, and movement on the other, as vague as all these terms are. So, a compromise solution may be to replace the term "sect" with "branch", which is also used in many RSs in reference to Salafism. Eperoton (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reasoned suggestion. Based on your explanation I think "branch" might be better then and so will change the word in the lead. I will however keep the references and quotes from the sources. MontyKind (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, MontyKind. We should also cite a source for the term "branch", then. There's no need to cite more than one source for each term and excessive refs clutter the text. I'll keep the first one, which is a strong source and is enough to satisfy WP:V. Eperoton (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Issues with the Lede[edit]

The lede is over sourced and overly detailed. It enters into debates and contentious areas of the subject, detracting from a concise summary of the article's subject. It would be a good idea here to employ the convention of providing a basic summary in the lede without citations and move the citations and in-depth material to relevant areas of the article. As well as being in keeping with Wikipedia's stylistic conventions, this generally has the beneficial effect of dissuading flyby editors who want to add their thoughts or POV to contentious areas of the lede of the article. Edaham (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

incomplete first sentence in first paragraph[edit]

The first paragraph says "The Salafi movement or Salafist movement or Salafism is an ultra-conservative[1] reform[2] branch[3][4] or movement within Sunni Islam[5] that developed in [6][7][8][9] " and then ends with no period to begin a new sentence. Please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1313:4258:299A:FAC5:141B:2056 (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)