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 01:18, 18 November 2013 edit86.163.52.147 (talk) Neutral Sources and Toddy1← 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
(618 intermediate revisions by 96 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header }}
{{WikiProject Islam|class=C|importance=High|Salaf=yes}}
{{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}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 4 |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}}

<h2> IMPORTANT </h2>
'''Message to those who want to have influence on the shape of this article'''
Follow these simple instructions:
#Please get a Misplaced Pages account and log in before you perform your edits.
#If you plan on making major edits, please discuss them here first '''BEFORE''' you make your changes.
] 03:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

== Request for a review ==

Please could someone else review what I have done to the paragraph by ]. I have "truthified" it as best I can: making the text such that the citations really back it up, fixed problems with citations, etc. --] (]) 11:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
:it says wahabi movement and salafi movement are "allegedly" the same, when its confirmed that they are already see ] etymology & there's other RS that describes these two words as synonym especially when saudis adopted it in the 70's. saudi wahabis also backed the demolition of islamic heritage sites now there's many different types of groups out there..the so called salafi groups have split into several breakaway sects but obviously the saudi wahabis have backed and supported the demolition as a religious duty & this cant be denied. ] (]) 02:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
::It's not exactly confirmed; in the section you linked to, the prince is denying Wahhabism even exists. Given that Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab never used Salafism as a noun or talked about a movement - he called his movement muwahhidun and the first people to talk about Salafism were the predecessors of the Muslim Brotherhood - it really isn't accurate to say that Wahhabism and Salafism are the same thing. Some people do say that, and many differentiate between the two. This difference is reflected in reliable sources. We have to make sure not to give undue weight to any one view. ] (]) 04:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
:::it doesnt matter what the prince says..people call them wahabis as does academics..there's no independent movement thats called salafi and not refered as wahabi by others..broad range of sources confirm this. ] (]) 04:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
::::A broad range of sources also differentiates between the two. Other editors have pointed this out to you enough times across the talk pages of enough articles to render link wars back and forth pointless. Thus, the word "allegedly" is more neutral. ] (]) 04:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
:::::stop making things up no other editors pointed anything out to me its only you who have argued against this..list the broad range of sources that differentiate the two or this will be labeled undue weight...& its not "a claim" that saudi wahabis believe its a religious duty to demolish buildings its a fact...lets say the two are differentiated if thats the case then it should be noted saudi wahabis want to demolish islamic sites and other so called salafi groups dont. ] (]) 04:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
::::::Check the lead of this article for the fact that some analysts differentiate between the two. As for the demolotion, then I wasn't discussing that; I was responding to the usage of the word "allegedly." ] (]) 05:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
:::::::since you didnt post any RS its Undue Weight. & the lead should be removed it looks like OR ] (]) 18:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
::::::::The second paragraph of the introduction claiming that the "the movement is often" would be supportable with reliable sources if it were changed to "the movement is sometimes". If you think that the Salafists and Wahhabis are undoubtedly the same thing, you should us ] to propose that one of the articles be turned into a redirect to the other.--] (]) 23:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::@]: I don't need to post a source because there are already reliable sources in the lead for this article and the article on the Wahhabi movement noting the distinction between the two and you know that because it's been explained to you before. As is suggested, if you think they're the same then go through the proper avenues for addressing that. ] (]) 04:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

== Salafism in Syria ==

I swear to God that this Salafism in Syria are all things that I have written. Misplaced Pages about the hero Mahdi Army in Iraq terrorist calls but not everyone knows that they are the Salafists, so crimes Surrey Mknnd <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:But the edits you made to the article and consisted of deleting a large amount of useful cited comment, and replacing it with the following uncited and irrelevant statement:
::"Who are the Salafists, the wild ass of them selves and their heads are the people Khvrannd Syria Syrian girls, they are fighting not to exceed intruders, they are killers and they destroy the world."
:So you got reverted both times.--] (]) 14:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I have accepted your words. I've removed some of the useful but you Mahdi Army hero, you're a terrorist, but as Jihadi Salafis're called. You've seen repeatedly in Syria crimes Salafists I even got angry if I did not remove the beneficial parts of their own revolution in Syria and Syria called Liberator. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Editor needed ==

"Though Salafis when told about this were as opposed to it as other Muslims."

This is not even a sentence in English.

G. Robert Shiplett 23:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

:Really? "Although Salafi individuals, when told about this matter/policy/..., were as opposed to it as were other Muslims." ] (]) 00:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

== Neutral Sources and Toddy1 ==

I spent a considerable amount of time adding information from reliable sources such as the Guardian newspaper on this subject and removing fairy tale like and copyrighted statements from impartial websites such as salafipublications.com. Despite this, my edits have been repeatedly undone for no good reason by Toddy1.

Please explain why sources such as the Guardian newspaper are considered invalid and salafipublications.com is considered to be valid? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:It's obvious to several of us that you're editing across a few articles in order to push a certain POV. If you want to make a point, bring up specific individual sources and specific individual pieces of content and ask about those. You're being reverted in more than one article by more than one user now, which is a good sign that the onus is on you to explain your position here. ] (]) 04:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it is unacceptable to accuse me of pushing a certain POV. My edits were done in good faith and consisted of the following:

- Removing portions of the article that were copied and pasted word for word from the website http://ahlusunnahwaljamaah.com/qa-on-salafiyyiah/. This was removed because it violated Misplaced Pages's guidelines on copyright. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Copy-paste. Additionally, this website is very pro Salafi. For a more balanced view it would be better to quote from established experts on Salafism such as the book "Global Salafism: Islam's New Religious Movement" by Roel Meijer or "Salafi Ritual Purity: In the Presence of God" by Richard Gauvain. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view

- Removing honorific titles as per Misplaced Pages guidelines. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies

- Adding quotes to the extremism section. I wanted to show that whilst the majority of Salafi scholars reject violence and terrorism a few do not. My quotes were from Time magazine and the Guardian newspaper.

- Adding to the discussion on Taqlid. Again my intent was to show that there are different views regarding Taqlid within the Salafi school.

I understand that you might have a strong attachment to the Salafi movement. This should not however mean that views that you are not happy with are simply removed and undone. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I am not a Salafist; however, there has been a lot of POV pushing on this article and to be hoenst, I am still seeing that here.
:*You have deleted a number of reliable sources from modern publishing houses, especially in the "examples of early usage" section.
:*You added quotes from Salafi scholars to the lead and gave the books of those very scholars as sources, which thus makes them a primary source. For such a controversial article and topic, things like that should be discussed one-by-one.
:*Salafi Publications is absolutely not a neutral source, but sources don't need to be neutral. For certain topics - mainly quotes from their own scholars - they are a reliable source in general, and I think this has been discussed here previously.
:*You're mentioning a number of sources which such as that of Meijer which, as far as I know, were totally unused on Misplaced Pages before I added them to a number of articles. You haven't added them here yourself, though.
:What you've done essentially is edit warred (even after you posted the above comments) in order to defend highly contentious edits on an article with a long history of discussions about which you seem unaware. This sort of editing is frowned upon for new users and I will call on you again to please discuss each issue one at a time and to not insert any more of these edits until you've discussed it adequately with the users concerned. ] (]) 03:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

::Please read ], where we discussed similar deletions.--] (]) 08:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

:::I find it poor form for you to continue to accuse me of being a POV pusher. As mentioned many times before, my edits were made in good faith. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith.

:::Anyhow, I have discussed each subject in the following sections. Please see below.

== Copyright violation? ==

The reason I removed much of the content from the section "Early examples of usage" is because it had been copied word for word from the website http://ahlusunnahwaljamaah.com/qa-on-salafiyyiah/. This violates Misplaced Pages's guidelines on copyright. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Copy-paste


== Persistent undoing of edits in the Sweden section ==
Further, the website is a self published salafi missionary site with what seems like little academic credibility. Who exactly wrote the article? What research was performed? What are the credentials of the author(s)? How accurate are the translations / sources? As mentioned above, it would be better to make reference to works that have been written by authoritative scholars.


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.
== Taqlid ==


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.
I made some edits on the subject of Taqlid. I added some references to show that the salafi group holds different opinions on this issue. The Saudi salafis generally adhere to the Hanbali school whereas other salafi scholars prohibit following a school entirely.


== Revert discussion ==
Currently, the article states that all Salafis "submit to scholarly authority". We have no proof for this and I don't believe a single academic scholar has ever stated this. If I am wrong then please provide a reference to the contrary.


Since the edit summary is not for discussion, here the summary in case someone has an urge to discuss this:
On the other hand, I added a couple of quotes which I felt were appropriate in showing that there is a difference of opinion within the salafi group. It isn't clear to me why these were considered unacceptable especially as there is already a quote of the same elk a few lines earlier in the article.
<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)." ==
I have however found a number of quotes from secondary sources which should suffice:


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)
''"In legal matters, Salafis are divided between those who, in the name of independent legal judgement (ijtihad), reject strict adherence (taqlid) to the four schools of law (madhahib) and others who remain faithful to these."''
The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought, p 484


== Article Short Summary ==
and


@] Greetings,
''"From a Salafi perspective, following a madhab without searching for direct evidence constitutes blind adherence (taqlid), which leads Muslims astray."''
maybe it is better to discuss this here, as the limitations on the edit summary can easily lead to misunderstandings.
Miriam Cooke, Bruce B. Lawrence, Muslim Networks from Hajj to Hip Hop, p 213


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


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:
''"Prime objectives were to rid the Muslim ummah of the centuries long mentality of Taqlid"''
1) the term has a negative connotation 2) the term doesn't apply to all forms of the Salafi Movement.
John L. Esposito, The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, 275


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.
I believe that this is sufficient in showing that there are more than one opinion within the Salafi school when it comes to taqlid.
In my mind it would be better to have a separate section entitled "Taqlid" where the different views could be expanded.


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"?
== Honorific Titles ==
The next set of changes I made were the removal of the honorific title "Sheikh" from the article. This is in line with Misplaced Pages recommendations. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies.


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.
"Sheikh" has specifically been referred to as an honorific title here http://en.wikipedia.org/Index_of_religious_honorifics_and_titles#Islam


with best regards ] (]) 20:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
At present there are about 20 references to "Sheikh" in this article.


:I didnt notice this comment at first, but I shall soon give a response. ] (]) 23:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
== Extremism ==
:1) "Ultra" certainly is a ] with negative connotations. These are some of the dictionary entries on the term "ultra":
I added to this section to show that whilst the majority of Salafi scholars reject violence and terrorism a few do not. My quotes were from Time magazine and the Guardian newspaper.
:- :
:{{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 ==
The quotes are as follows:


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.
''The Egyptian Salafi cleric Mahmoud Shaaban "appeared on a religious television channel calling for the deaths of main opposition figures Mohammed ElBaradei – a Nobel peace prize laureate – and former presidential candidate Hamdeen Sabahy."'' from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/09/violent-salafists-threaten-arab-spring-democracies


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.
The popular salafi preacher ] speaking of Osama bin Laden, said that he would not criticise bin Laden because he had not met him and did not know him personally. He added that, ''"If bin Laden is fighting enemies of Islam, I am for him," and that "If he is terrorizing America – the terrorist, biggest terrorist – I am with him. Every Muslim should be a terrorist. The thing is that if he is terrorizing the terrorist, he is following Islam. Whether he is or not, I don’t know, but you as Muslims know that, without checking up, laying allegations is also wrong." Von Drehle, David; Ghosh, Bobby: "An Enemy Within: The Making of Najibullah Zazi".'' Time. p. 2. 1 October 2009. Retrieved 16 April 2011.


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)
I believe that this would more accurately reflect the overall views of the salafi group.
At present the article gives a very rosy picture of the salafi movement when is comes to extremism / terrorism.

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