Misplaced Pages

Talk:Salafi movement: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:38, 13 April 2021 editKrakatoaKatie (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators34,324 edits ALERT: page under constant vandalism: answered← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:49, 16 November 2024 edit undo2a0e:cb01:ca:2800:a181:49f0:752d:e804 (talk) Undid revision 1256981630 by VenusFeuerFalle (talk
(49 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header }}
{{Vital article|class=B|level=5|link=Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion|anchor=Schools (30 articles)}}
{{WikiProject Islam |class=B |importance=Top |Salaf=yes}}
{{WikiProject Saudi Arabia |class=B |importance=Top}}
{{controversial}} {{controversial}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Islam |importance=Top |Salaf=yes}}
{{WikiProject Saudi Arabia |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=top|Social movements=yes}}
}}
{{Old moves
| list =
* RM, Salafi → Salafism, '''Moved to Salafi movement''', 3 March 2013, {{section link|Talk:Salafi movement/Archive 3|Requested move}}
* RM, Salafi movement → Salafism, '''No consensus''', 19 November 2014, {{section link|Talk:Salafi movement/Archive 5|Requested move 19 November 2014}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
Line 8: Line 17:
|counter = 7 |counter = 7
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(92d)
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Salafi movement/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Salafi movement/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Archives}}


== Persistent undoing of edits in the Sweden section ==
<h2> IMPORTANT </h2>

'''Message to those who want to have influence on the shape of this article'''
I have better things to do with my time than creating a Misplaced Pages account and becoming an "editor". The user 1Kwords has persistently and spitefully undone a legitimate edit of the section on Sweden, hiding behind Misplaced Pages policies of one form or another. The claim "Salafists in Sweden are supported financially by Saudi Arabia and Qatar" is utterly devoid of evidence. Nothing! "It was said in a newspaper article so it must be true because a newspaper article is the source in this case" is the sum of the position evident from 1Kwords' persistent, petty undoing of edits. First of all 1Kwords claimed that "Magnus Ranstorp said it" - NOT TRUE. Next, 1Kwords attempted to protest that Magnus Ranstorp is an "expert" (irrelevant). If anyone anywhere in the world wants to make the claim that Saudi Arabia or Qatar financially supports any Salafis anywhere, let them bring one of two things: either a verified document proving the transfer of money, or a person who would swear in court on oath 'yes we received money from so-and-so'. Failing that, "a newspaper said it" is a pathetic, untenable position. This whole farce serves to underline Misplaced Pages's junk status, and that Wiki editors are pretentious pedants who hide behind absurd policies and use said policies to pursue an Islam-hating agenda.
Follow these simple instructions:

#Please get a Misplaced Pages account and log in before you perform your edits.
An article by some crazy "NewageIslam" website states: "Saudi Arabia has funded the construction of some mosques in Sweden . There had also been rising number of Salafists in the country." Yet again, the claim of "financial support" is made and....there is no evidence for it. None, nothing, nil.
#If you plan on making major edits, please discuss them here first '''BEFORE''' you make your changes.
] 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[REDACTED] guidlines apply here and unregistered users may edit the article and expect their contributions to follow the ] guidelines. ] (]) 05:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
::You can archive this if you want -- it refers to there being a high number of "drive-by" editors at the time (many with limited English skills)... ] (]) 07:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


== Revert discussion ==
== Salafi Wahabism is From Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahab ==


Since the edit summary is not for discussion, here the summary in case someone has an urge to discuss this:
Nowadays, this group which claimed themselves as "Salafi" is from the Wahabi doctrine from Najd. It has nothing to do with the Salaf-as-Saleh.
<blockquote>religious blogpages do not fall under the category of ] and an explanation of the Salafs is ] except you want to suggest that there is a relation between Salafs and Salafis, but this directly contradicts the Misplaced Pages guidlines and the ]</blockquote> ] (]) 13:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


== "Salafi Muslims oppose bid'a (religious innovation) and support the implementation of sharia (Islamic law)." ==
== On Salafi identity @VenusFeuerFalle ==


I'm confused about this statement. Islam as a whole is opposed to religious innovation; this is not unique to the Salafi movement. Neither is the implementation of shari'ah. This sentence gives no useful information whatsoever. ] (]) 13:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
@VenusFeuerFalle Merzdad Izady is a Kurdologist. His occupation is that of an ethnographer and his main focus is on Kurdish studies. He creates blunders in his religious and sect view which is biased by his Orientalist Outlook. His area of expertise is only on language, culture and ethnicities. Religion isn't his area of jurisdiction and makes simple mistakes on his "statistics" on religions all across West Asia. Another practical reason is, Salafism isn't a "sect" rather a manhaj/Way. Many adherents to this Path/Methodology don't use it as an "identity" , although some do make it as an identity in certain scenarios. All Salafis identify as "Sunnis" or "Muslims" and most of them emphasize only these two identities. So I hope I clarified why I deleted this earlier, I am deleting it again. If you have a doubt/confusion do reply. ] (]) 18:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
:: About the identity of Sunnism and whether or not Salafis are Sunnis or a seperate branch is something up to the Muslims themselves. Others also refer to Salafis as something seperate. Look for example at "Richard Gauvain" and his work "Salafi purity ritual". Especially since the Salafis are way too different from pre-Salafi Sunnism, it is necessary for reseach purpose to distinguish them from other strants within Islam or Sunnism. Differentiating between "a way of interpretation" or putting it in simple words of English language "sect" is ungrounded. (Also it is also referred to as a '''Movement within Sunnism'''. So the article already acknowledges your point) There is no dubt or confusion. I totally understand, that the self-identification of Salafis is, that they are Sunnis and that Sunnis are merely following Muhammad and the his closest companies. You don't have to "clarify" me about that. I udnertand, I just object it. But this is far from reality and not backed up by any serious study. If you need a closer look on what Sunnism is from the point of research, you can also just check ]. The same issue we have here, is discussed overhere. I just translated this from German Misplaced Pages about a week ago. It was written by a researcher on Islamic studies. And Merzdad Izady seems to be totally in line with the rest of Researchers among Orientalists, Islamic studies and so on. Further, even if Salafism is "just a way of life" or "method", it does not chance the fact, that this "method" (we say "sect" ore "Movement" despite the negative connotation in everyday language, since it has no negative connotation in academic language) spreads through other contries. And Merzad is just making clear, taht Salafism "identity" (including their teachings) are spreading through the Muslim world. I do not see how this is wrong. Or even how your point makes this claim invalid. I mean, lets say Salafism is "a path". When, the "path" is spreading instead of "the sect" or "the movement". So what is your point about this? I also noticed you removed even more stuff and I misclicked. Of course I will restore the rest removed content too, as long as there is no grounded objection about this.--] (]) 00:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


== Article Short Summary ==
If you are affirming the existence of a "Salafi" sub-identity within the Sunni Denomination, even then the statistics are totally wrong. The statistics say there are "50 million Salafis" across the world. This is simply untrue. There are about 1.6 billion Sunnis and out of that, just 0.05 billion "Salafis"???? This is hilarious. This is misrepresenting the statistics of those who adhere to the Salafi methodology. As I stated earlier, those who adhere to the Salafi methodology, most of them identify as ''Sunnis" or "Muslims", not explicitly as a "Salafi". So this is inaccurate. Also ,Izady thinks Wahhabism is synonymous with Salafism, another blunder. He writes in his statistics Salafi/Wahhabi. Incorrect. Majority of Sunnis view "Wahhabi" as a Sunniphobic slur. And, not every Salafi may be influenced by Ibn Abdul Wahhab. This statistic is just a blunder, totally out of touch with reality ] (]) 05:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*{{u|VenusFeuerFalle}} and {{u|Shadowwarrior8}} do we know come from exactly? Were there surveys conducted in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, or does this come from a census? Secondly, the source seems to believe that Salafis and Wahhabis are exactly the same, but there are that say that {{tq|Wahhabism is a particular orientation within Salafism}}.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 16:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
:: I see, this is a good point. When he equates Salafism with Wahhabism when the statistics are too low. We should elaborate the source further and maybe adjust the terminology (hanging Salafis to Wahhabis?).--] (]) 17:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


@] Greetings,
I have no idea from where Izady got his sources. Izady makes many basic mistakes in his religious surveys I can show many examples, such as in his surveys in Syria. I think he's just assuming what he knows and putting it into a map. Since government surveys as well as other international surveys contradict this as well. If he is referring to "Wahhabis", no supporter of Ibn Abdul Wahhab would identify himself as "Wahhabi" since Ibn Abdul Wahhab's core teachings involved not being attached to mortal personalities. If he's referring to other various Salafi grps such as Ahl I Hadeeth, or Salafiyya in general they too would shun the word "Wahhabi". And they use the word Salafi in so far as to distinguish their methodology from other General Sunni currents such as Deobandism, Barelwism, Maturidism,Asharism, etc. To suggest Salafis are opposed to Sufism/Science of spirituality is equally misleading. The other currents say they are the "true Sunnis" while Salafis would insist that they are the correct Sunnis upon "the way of the Predecessors". It is just an internal slogan, but in front of non-Muslims their first identity would be "Muslim" and "Sunni Denomination". These are very misleading surveys and to suggest "Salafi" trend is just 7000 in Morocco is hilarious. Out of 1.6 billion Sunni Muslims I would say a billion are Salafis whether they identify as such or not. In general it is confusing in laymen terms since most laymen listen to all scholars Asharis, Maturidis or Salafis. Most of them view this as a academic dispute not as a daily life/cultural difference such as Sunni/Shia or Christian/Muslim or religious/irreligious etc ] (]) 16:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
maybe it is better to discuss this here, as the limitations on the edit summary can easily lead to misunderstandings.


First of all, I want to let you know that I respect your great improvements and edits on the article.
@VenusFeuerFalle You stated on reaching an agreement ] (]) 17:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
:: Yes we should reach a consensus here. I am now inclined to agree with you. Let's try to find some sources which go into more details. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to do it myself. Let me further investigate that exactly the author did. When I come to the same conclusion, I agree to remove it.--] (]) 17:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
::: I see, some souces use polls from 2009. This is clearly outdated, since Salafism increased significantly over the last decade. You are free to remove them (in my opinnion).--] (]) 18:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


I do not insist on ading 'ultra' as a descriptor for 'conservative' in the short descriptions. However, if objected, I want to ensure it is rejected for good reasons. I see you point two points:
Thank you ] (]) 03:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
1) the term has a negative connotation 2) the term doesn't apply to all forms of the Salafi Movement.


I am inclined to reject the first reason as valid, because authors cannot consider misitnerpretations of terminology by laymen. 'Ultra conservate' are not to be understood as "transgressing" the conservative values, but rather sticking to a more conservative interpretations than other conservative parties. This seems to apply to at least some Salafi Movements.
== ALERT: page under constant Vandalism ==


The second arguement seems much better and Western academia might oversimplify the Salafism Movement, which has developed further in the last decades. However, do you think, if we understand 'ultra conservative' not in a bad manner but simply as analogous to other extrem forms of conservativism (for example ]), is not applicable to all forms of Salafism? For example, there are conservative movements in Turkey who are not as conservative as Salafism, yet conservative. Or would such movements already fall under the umbrella term "Salafism"?
The page is under constant vandalism for the past few days by various IP addresses and trolls.
I had to undo many of them. ] (]) 12:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


I would give you the last word on taht matter. Since you greatly improved the article and shown a decent expertise on that matter, I think it is just reasonable to assume you know better than most editors. My dispute is merely with the possible misudnerstanding on 'ultra'. If you still say it is misleading, i won't edit war further on that.
:Hi ], page has been Protected for a period of one month. ] (]) 21:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


👌 Okay, ] ] (]) 08:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC) with best regards ] (]) 20:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)


:I didnt notice this comment at first, but I shall soon give a response. ] (]) 23:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
== ALERT: page under constant vandalism ==
:1) "Ultra" certainly is a ] with negative connotations. These are some of the dictionary entries on the term "ultra":
:- :
:{{talkquote|"a person who has extreme political or religious opinions"}}
:- :
:{{talkquote|"a person who holds extreme views.."}}
:- :
:{{talkquote|"extremist"}}
:2) As such, it is ] at all to sweepingly describe Salafism (or any mainstream Islamic school of thought) with such ] in the ] or ].
:Look at '']'''s : {{talkquote|"Salafi movement, broad set of Islamic movements that strive to emulate the practices of ''al-salaf al-ṣāliḥ'' (“the pious predecessors”).."}}
:Nowhere does it simplistically describe it as "ultra-conservative", or other ].
:3) Furthermore, it is not accurate to think that Salafism is a homogenously literalist or ultra-conservative school. There are several movements within Salafism, with each movement having diverse strands.
:* ISBN: 9780190942441, Publisher: ], "Salafism in the Maghreb: Politics, Piety, and Militancy", :
:{{talkquote|"'''Salafism is a diverse and dynamic current within Islam''' that promotes itself as the purest, most authentic form of Islam, marked by an emulation of the prophet Muhammad’s contemporary companions, their followers, and the next two generations. Despite its pretentions to literalism and universalism, '''Salafism as a lived reality often incorporates local social contexts and customs'''."}}
:You claimed that Hanbalis are a "conservative movement" and Salafis should be described as "ultra" to be distinguished from such movements. Firstly, ] is not a movement; it is one of the four main schools of Sunni jurisprudence. Secondly, distinguishing in ] is only for similarly named page titles across different topics. It does not require a distinguishing between two differently named page titles in the same topic. Thirdly, Salafis may adopt more lenient positions than Hanbali school. For example, Hanbalis and many Shafi'is (and Hanafis in some situations) view that wearing niqab is obligatory for Muslim women. However, many Salafi scholars view that it is not obligatory for Muslim women to cover her face and hands.
:As you said earlier, there are several conservative movements (or strands within those movements) which are more hardcore than Salafis on several social issues. Founder of Barelvi movement, Ahmed Riza Khan, forbade women from reading and writing. Some Deobandi strands also forbid women from getting advanced education in sciences and mathematics. If they are not labelled "ultra", how can Salafis be then labelled "ultra"? (No Salafi scholar has banned women from pursuing scientific education.)
:Fact of the matter is that opinions of Salafi ulema on various social issues are diverse, and vary from lenient to ultra-conservative. It would be misleading to put them in varying boxes like "ultra-conservative", "hardline", "lenient", etc. That would be a category error.
:4) Regarding ],[REDACTED] page on this fundamentalist Jewish movement do not label it as "ultra-conservative". "Ultra-orthodox" is a ] in the English-language for the group and it is not used to describe Haredim without attribution. The page's body and lede clearly elaborates that the term is viewed as offensive by many Jews.
:Christian fundamentalist sects like ] and ] have not been labelled as "ultra-conservative" or "extremist" by wikipedia. Why then are Muslim religious movements being labelled with "ultra", "extremist", and other ]? This is more of a demonstration of a ] within wikipedia, due to which ] political agendas and ] propaganda are proliferating across this encyclopaedia.
:Furthermore, Salafism is very broad and is not analogous to Haredi or Calvanist movements. However many Anglosphere readers of the Western corporate press do not care about these nuances and are influenced by the stupid and hateful stereotypes of U.S. government war-propaganda. (which are designed to spread scaremongering amongst the Anglosphere public)
:5) For more on how ] and U.S. corporate media have deployed boogeymen narratives against various Islamic schools and movements like Salafism, I shall quote some excerpts from an academic book:
:QUOTE
:{{talkquote|"Then, through the 1980s and 1990s the word “fundamentalism” underwent a major connotative shift... journalists, politicians, and religion scholars began labeling any global religious movement that they saw as '''too political, too literalist, too opposed to Western hegemony, too outside the norms defined by liberal Christianity as “fundamentalist.”'''' ... the '''narratives that have taken hold about Islam and Salafism before and after 9/11''' – from “Judeo-Christian America” to the “Clash of Civilizations,” from “Islamic fundamentalism” to the securitization of Salafism and “Radical Islam” – '''have created neuralgic responses that lead to general ignorance of Salafism and caricatured imaginings of the threat of the Salafi strand of Islam in America.''' ... Today, Salafism – whether it calls itself that or not, and it often does not – '''is an accessible and vibrant strand of Islam in America.'''"<ref>{{Cite book |last=D. Taylor |first=Matthew |title=Scripture People |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2023 |isbn=978-1-009-35276-5 |location=Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8EA, UK | chapter= Introduction | pages= 13, 14, 21, 24 }}</ref>}}
:END QUOTE
:QUOTE
:{{talkquote|"Reading these descriptions, you are left with the firm impression that to use the terms Salafism and Evangelicalism is to speak about coherent theological and behavioral communities of religious believers marching, more or less, in lock step in accordance with their interpretation of their sacred texts. On the other hand, just to dip your toes into the discussions among Salafis and among Evangelicals, even in a fairly delimited cultural space like America, is to discover a raging ferment of dispute and disagreement and '''manifest heterogeneity'''. Salafis who are ostensibly reading and citing the same texts and '''professedly using the same methods and interpretive assumptions reach radically different conclusions'''."<ref>{{Cite book |last=D. Taylor |first=Matthew |title=Scripture People |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2023 |isbn=978-1-009-35276-5 |location=Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8EA, UK | pages= 222 }}</ref>}}
:END QUOTE
:QUOTE
:{{talkquote|As Yasir Qadhi, wearing his academic hat, puts it, “What you find, actually, is very, very diverse, contradictory, and competing claims of truth within the movement, to the extent that, at times, what separates these strands within Salafism is more significant than what unites them.”<ref>{{Cite book |last=D. Taylor |first=Matthew |title=Scripture People |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2023 |isbn=978-1-009-35276-5 |location=Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8EA, UK | pages= 222 }}</ref>}}
:END QUOTE
:QUOTE
:{{talkquote|"Attempts to comprehensively taxonomize all of the different sub-groupings of Salafis and Evangelicals result in a '''sort of reductio ad absurdum'''... Think of all of the different flavors of Salafism we have seen in the preceding chapters: the paramosque devotional education of AlMaghrib; the African American Salafism that can have a polemical Madkhali mood or not; ... All of these people are ostensibly in the Salafi discourse, interpreting and applying the Qurʾan and Hadith and living within the bounds of American culture, '''but their inhabitations and interpretations of Salafism vary staggeringly.'''<ref>{{Cite book |last=D. Taylor |first=Matthew |title=Scripture People |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2023 |isbn=978-1-009-35276-5 |location=Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8EA, UK | pages= 223 }}</ref>}}
:END QUOTE
:QUOTE
:{{talkquote|"The vast, vast majority that has been written about Salafism in the USA since 9/11 comes from this Security Studies genre of threat assessment, counterterrorism strategy, political analysis... Additionally, there is an ever-growing body of excellent scholarship on global Salafism, and even Salafism in Europe ... has begun to receive more careful, ethnographic, and nuanced academic analysis. Yet, in the USA, Security Studies remains the dominant paradigm for understanding and analyzing Salafism. ...<br> There are two core deficiencies in this Security Studies mode of analysis that, instead of just offering solid analysis and interpretation, '''transmuted it into another stereotyped American narrative about Islam and Salafism.''' .... In short, the securitization of studies of Salafism in the USA has contributed directly to the securitization of Salafism itself, '''framing the entire movement''' around questions of violence, terrorism, political ideology, and foreignness to '''Western sensibilities, instead of asking the questions about Salafi identity that Salafis themselves ask.'''"<ref>{{Cite book |last=D. Taylor |first=Matthew |title=Scripture People |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2023 |isbn=978-1-009-35276-5 |location=Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8EA, UK | chapter= Introduction | pages= 19-21 }}</ref>}}
:END QUOTE ] (]) 05:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)


== This article is a joke ==
Page under constant vandalism by various trolls and users, at present one named Tun9966 . Constant disruptive edits.


The "salafi movement" was patently NOT formed "in the late 19th century" and any attempt to claim otherwise is futile because it is simply not true.
] ]


And no I am not going to bother cleaning up all this crap unless I get paid for it. It doesn't matter how many times you undo this - people who have the intelligence to look further will know that you wasters just lie, lie, lie.
{{Admin help|answered=yes}} ] (]) 09:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


This is another example of how Misplaced Pages is utter trash when it comes to religion, history, and politics. Don't give them your money! ] (]) 22:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
* The page is semi-protected. Removing the admin help template as there's nothing more for an admin to do. In the future, please report vandalism to ]. <span style="color: #9932CC">]<sup>]</sup></span> 16:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:49, 16 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Salafi movement article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconIslam: Salaf Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Salaf task force.
WikiProject iconSaudi Arabia Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSociology: Social Movements Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
[REDACTED]
This article is supported by the social movements task force.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Persistent undoing of edits in the Sweden section

I have better things to do with my time than creating a Misplaced Pages account and becoming an "editor". The user 1Kwords has persistently and spitefully undone a legitimate edit of the section on Sweden, hiding behind Misplaced Pages policies of one form or another. The claim "Salafists in Sweden are supported financially by Saudi Arabia and Qatar" is utterly devoid of evidence. Nothing! "It was said in a newspaper article so it must be true because a newspaper article is the source in this case" is the sum of the position evident from 1Kwords' persistent, petty undoing of edits. First of all 1Kwords claimed that "Magnus Ranstorp said it" - NOT TRUE. Next, 1Kwords attempted to protest that Magnus Ranstorp is an "expert" (irrelevant). If anyone anywhere in the world wants to make the claim that Saudi Arabia or Qatar financially supports any Salafis anywhere, let them bring one of two things: either a verified document proving the transfer of money, or a person who would swear in court on oath 'yes we received money from so-and-so'. Failing that, "a newspaper said it" is a pathetic, untenable position. This whole farce serves to underline Misplaced Pages's junk status, and that Wiki editors are pretentious pedants who hide behind absurd policies and use said policies to pursue an Islam-hating agenda.

An article by some crazy "NewageIslam" website states: "Saudi Arabia has funded the construction of some mosques in Sweden . There had also been rising number of Salafists in the country." Yet again, the claim of "financial support" is made and....there is no evidence for it. None, nothing, nil.

Revert discussion

Since the edit summary is not for discussion, here the summary in case someone has an urge to discuss this:

religious blogpages do not fall under the category of WP:RS and an explanation of the Salafs is Template:Off topic except you want to suggest that there is a relation between Salafs and Salafis, but this directly contradicts the Misplaced Pages guidlines and the purpose of an encyclopedia

VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

"Salafi Muslims oppose bid'a (religious innovation) and support the implementation of sharia (Islamic law)."

I'm confused about this statement. Islam as a whole is opposed to religious innovation; this is not unique to the Salafi movement. Neither is the implementation of shari'ah. This sentence gives no useful information whatsoever. 21fafs (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Article Short Summary

@Shadowwarrior8 Greetings, maybe it is better to discuss this here, as the limitations on the edit summary can easily lead to misunderstandings.

First of all, I want to let you know that I respect your great improvements and edits on the article.

I do not insist on ading 'ultra' as a descriptor for 'conservative' in the short descriptions. However, if objected, I want to ensure it is rejected for good reasons. I see you point two points: 1) the term has a negative connotation 2) the term doesn't apply to all forms of the Salafi Movement.

I am inclined to reject the first reason as valid, because authors cannot consider misitnerpretations of terminology by laymen. 'Ultra conservate' are not to be understood as "transgressing" the conservative values, but rather sticking to a more conservative interpretations than other conservative parties. This seems to apply to at least some Salafi Movements.

The second arguement seems much better and Western academia might oversimplify the Salafism Movement, which has developed further in the last decades. However, do you think, if we understand 'ultra conservative' not in a bad manner but simply as analogous to other extrem forms of conservativism (for example Haredi Judaism), is not applicable to all forms of Salafism? For example, there are conservative movements in Turkey who are not as conservative as Salafism, yet conservative. Or would such movements already fall under the umbrella term "Salafism"?

I would give you the last word on taht matter. Since you greatly improved the article and shown a decent expertise on that matter, I think it is just reasonable to assume you know better than most editors. My dispute is merely with the possible misudnerstanding on 'ultra'. If you still say it is misleading, i won't edit war further on that.

with best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I didnt notice this comment at first, but I shall soon give a response. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
1) "Ultra" certainly is a loaded label with negative connotations. These are some of the dictionary entries on the term "ultra":
- Cambridge Dictionary entry on "ultra":

"a person who has extreme political or religious opinions"

- Oxford Learner's Dictionaries entry on "ultra":

"a person who holds extreme views.."

- Merriam Webster dictionary entry on "ultra":

"extremist"

2) As such, it is not encyclopaedic at all to sweepingly describe Salafism (or any mainstream Islamic school of thought) with such contentious labels in the lede or shortdescription.
Look at Britannica Encyclopaedia's entry on Salafi movement:

"Salafi movement, broad set of Islamic movements that strive to emulate the practices of al-salaf al-ṣāliḥ (“the pious predecessors”).."

Nowhere does it simplistically describe it as "ultra-conservative", or other contentious labels.
3) Furthermore, it is not accurate to think that Salafism is a homogenously literalist or ultra-conservative school. There are several movements within Salafism, with each movement having diverse strands.

"Salafism is a diverse and dynamic current within Islam that promotes itself as the purest, most authentic form of Islam, marked by an emulation of the prophet Muhammad’s contemporary companions, their followers, and the next two generations. Despite its pretentions to literalism and universalism, Salafism as a lived reality often incorporates local social contexts and customs."

You claimed that Hanbalis are a "conservative movement" and Salafis should be described as "ultra" to be distinguished from such movements. Firstly, Hanbali school is not a movement; it is one of the four main schools of Sunni jurisprudence. Secondly, distinguishing in short descriptions is only for similarly named page titles across different topics. It does not require a distinguishing between two differently named page titles in the same topic. Thirdly, Salafis may adopt more lenient positions than Hanbali school. For example, Hanbalis and many Shafi'is (and Hanafis in some situations) view that wearing niqab is obligatory for Muslim women. However, many Salafi scholars view that it is not obligatory for Muslim women to cover her face and hands.
As you said earlier, there are several conservative movements (or strands within those movements) which are more hardcore than Salafis on several social issues. Founder of Barelvi movement, Ahmed Riza Khan, forbade women from reading and writing. Some Deobandi strands also forbid women from getting advanced education in sciences and mathematics. If they are not labelled "ultra", how can Salafis be then labelled "ultra"? (No Salafi scholar has banned women from pursuing scientific education.)
Fact of the matter is that opinions of Salafi ulema on various social issues are diverse, and vary from lenient to ultra-conservative. It would be misleading to put them in varying boxes like "ultra-conservative", "hardline", "lenient", etc. That would be a category error.
4) Regarding Haredi Judaism,[REDACTED] page on this fundamentalist Jewish movement do not label it as "ultra-conservative". "Ultra-orthodox" is a common name in the English-language for the group and it is not used to describe Haredim without attribution. The page's body and lede clearly elaborates that the term is viewed as offensive by many Jews.
Christian fundamentalist sects like Puritans and Calvinists have not been labelled as "ultra-conservative" or "extremist" by wikipedia. Why then are Muslim religious movements being labelled with "ultra", "extremist", and other contentious terms? This is more of a demonstration of a white christian systemic bias within wikipedia, due to which Euro-centric political agendas and Islamophobic propaganda are proliferating across this encyclopaedia.
Furthermore, Salafism is very broad and is not analogous to Haredi or Calvanist movements. However many Anglosphere readers of the Western corporate press do not care about these nuances and are influenced by the stupid and hateful stereotypes of U.S. government war-propaganda. (which are designed to spread scaremongering amongst the Anglosphere public)
5) For more on how American war propaganda and U.S. corporate media have deployed boogeymen narratives against various Islamic schools and movements like Salafism, I shall quote some excerpts from an academic book:
QUOTE

"Then, through the 1980s and 1990s the word “fundamentalism” underwent a major connotative shift... journalists, politicians, and religion scholars began labeling any global religious movement that they saw as too political, too literalist, too opposed to Western hegemony, too outside the norms defined by liberal Christianity as “fundamentalist.”' ... the narratives that have taken hold about Islam and Salafism before and after 9/11 – from “Judeo-Christian America” to the “Clash of Civilizations,” from “Islamic fundamentalism” to the securitization of Salafism and “Radical Islam” – have created neuralgic responses that lead to general ignorance of Salafism and caricatured imaginings of the threat of the Salafi strand of Islam in America. ... Today, Salafism – whether it calls itself that or not, and it often does not – is an accessible and vibrant strand of Islam in America."

END QUOTE
QUOTE

"Reading these descriptions, you are left with the firm impression that to use the terms Salafism and Evangelicalism is to speak about coherent theological and behavioral communities of religious believers marching, more or less, in lock step in accordance with their interpretation of their sacred texts. On the other hand, just to dip your toes into the discussions among Salafis and among Evangelicals, even in a fairly delimited cultural space like America, is to discover a raging ferment of dispute and disagreement and manifest heterogeneity. Salafis who are ostensibly reading and citing the same texts and professedly using the same methods and interpretive assumptions reach radically different conclusions."

END QUOTE
QUOTE

As Yasir Qadhi, wearing his academic hat, puts it, “What you find, actually, is very, very diverse, contradictory, and competing claims of truth within the movement, to the extent that, at times, what separates these strands within Salafism is more significant than what unites them.”

END QUOTE
QUOTE

"Attempts to comprehensively taxonomize all of the different sub-groupings of Salafis and Evangelicals result in a sort of reductio ad absurdum... Think of all of the different flavors of Salafism we have seen in the preceding chapters: the paramosque devotional education of AlMaghrib; the African American Salafism that can have a polemical Madkhali mood or not; ... All of these people are ostensibly in the Salafi discourse, interpreting and applying the Qurʾan and Hadith and living within the bounds of American culture, but their inhabitations and interpretations of Salafism vary staggeringly.

END QUOTE
QUOTE

"The vast, vast majority that has been written about Salafism in the USA since 9/11 comes from this Security Studies genre of threat assessment, counterterrorism strategy, political analysis... Additionally, there is an ever-growing body of excellent scholarship on global Salafism, and even Salafism in Europe ... has begun to receive more careful, ethnographic, and nuanced academic analysis. Yet, in the USA, Security Studies remains the dominant paradigm for understanding and analyzing Salafism. ...
There are two core deficiencies in this Security Studies mode of analysis that, instead of just offering solid analysis and interpretation, transmuted it into another stereotyped American narrative about Islam and Salafism. .... In short, the securitization of studies of Salafism in the USA has contributed directly to the securitization of Salafism itself, framing the entire movement around questions of violence, terrorism, political ideology, and foreignness to Western sensibilities, instead of asking the questions about Salafi identity that Salafis themselves ask."

END QUOTE Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is a joke

The "salafi movement" was patently NOT formed "in the late 19th century" and any attempt to claim otherwise is futile because it is simply not true.

And no I am not going to bother cleaning up all this crap unless I get paid for it. It doesn't matter how many times you undo this - people who have the intelligence to look further will know that you wasters just lie, lie, lie.

This is another example of how Misplaced Pages is utter trash when it comes to religion, history, and politics. Don't give them your money! 2A0E:CB01:CA:2800:D495:3609:459F:E867 (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  1. D. Taylor, Matthew (2023). "Introduction". Scripture People. Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8EA, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 13, 14, 21, 24. ISBN 978-1-009-35276-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  2. D. Taylor, Matthew (2023). Scripture People. Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8EA, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 222. ISBN 978-1-009-35276-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  3. D. Taylor, Matthew (2023). Scripture People. Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8EA, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 222. ISBN 978-1-009-35276-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  4. D. Taylor, Matthew (2023). Scripture People. Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8EA, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 223. ISBN 978-1-009-35276-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  5. D. Taylor, Matthew (2023). "Introduction". Scripture People. Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8EA, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 19–21. ISBN 978-1-009-35276-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
Categories:
Talk:Salafi movement: Difference between revisions Add topic