This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.163.52.147 (talk) at 08:42, 20 November 2013 (→Extremism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:42, 20 November 2013 by 86.163.52.147 (talk) (→Extremism)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Islam: Salaf C‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | 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. |
 Archives | |||||||
Index
|
|||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
IMPORTANT
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.
AnonMoos 03:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Request for a review
Please could someone else review what I have done to the paragraph by User:MohaddesTop. I have "truthified" it as best I can: making the text such that the citations really back it up, fixed problems with citations, etc. --Toddy1 (talk) 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 Wahhabi movement 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. Baboon43 (talk) 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. MezzoMezzo (talk) 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. Baboon43 (talk) 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. MezzoMezzo (talk) 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. Baboon43 (talk) 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." MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- since you didnt post any RS its Undue Weight. & the lead should be removed it looks like OR Baboon43 (talk) 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 WP:AFD to propose that one of the articles be turned into a redirect to the other.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- @User:Baboon43: 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. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 24 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 WP:AFD to propose that one of the articles be turned into a redirect to the other.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- since you didnt post any RS its Undue Weight. & the lead should be removed it looks like OR Baboon43 (talk) 18:49, 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." MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:11, 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. Baboon43 (talk) 04:44, 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. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:26, 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. Baboon43 (talk) 04:24, 23 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. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:08, 23 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.186.163.80 (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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.--Toddy1 (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.186.177.186 (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
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." P0M (talk) 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.245.13 (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- 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. MezzoMezzo (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.245.13 (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- 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. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Please read Talk:Salafi movement/Archive 3#Blatant POV, where we discussed similar deletions.--Toddy1 (talk) 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.--86.163.52.147 01:18, 18 November 2013
- It is going to take the rest of us a little while to check what you say. So you will just have to be patient. I have checked your claim of copyright violation - there is a problem - the words in Misplaced Pages were published before the website was.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
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
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.--86.163.52.147 01:18, 18 November 2013
- Ibn Taymiyyah wrote: "There is no criticism for the one who proclaims the madh'hab of the Salaf, who attaches himself to it and refers to it. Rather, it is obligatory to accept that from him by unanimous agreement because the way of the Salaf is nothing but the truth."
- The term salafi has been used to refer to the theological positions of particular scholars. Abo al-Hasan Ali ibn Umar al-Daraqutuni (d. 995 C.E., 385 A.H.) was described by al-Dhahabi as: "Never having entered into rhetoric or polemics, instead he was salafi."
- Also, al-Dhahabi described Ibn al-Salah, a prominent 12th century hadith specialist, as: "Firm in his religiosity, salafi in his generality and correct in his denomination. refrained from falling into common pitfalls, believed in Allah and in what Allah has informed us of from His names and description."
- In another of his works, Tadhkirat al-huffaz, al-Dhahabi said of Ibn al-Salah: "I say: He was salafi, of sound creed, abstaining from the interpretations of the scholars of rhetoric, believing in what has been textually established, without recourse to unjustified interpretation or elaboration.
- In his book, Tabsir al-Muntabih, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani mentioned the ascription al-Salafi and named Abd al-Rahman ibn Abdillah ibn Ahmad Al-Sarkhasi al-Salafi as an example of its usage. Ibn Hajar then said: "And, likewise, the one ascribing to the salaf."
- Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani also used the term, salafi in describing Muhammad ibn al-Qaasim ibn Sufyan al-Misri al-Maliki (d. 966 C.E., 355 A.H.) He said that al-Malaiki was: "Salafi al-madh'hab – salafi in his school of thought."
- In the book Al-Ansaab by Abu Sa'd Abd al-Kareem as-Sama'ni, who died in the year 1166 (562 of the Islamic calendar), under the entry for the ascription al-Salafi he mentions an example or more of people who were so described in his time. In commenting upon as-Sama'ni, Ibn al-Athir wrote: "And a group were known by this epithet."
- No 1, has a quotation. This quotation also appears as a quotation in the website you say it was copied from.
- No 2 is worded differently in the website you say it was copied from.
- No 3 is a quotation that appears in both the website and the Misplaced Pages article. The article suggests that the source is the same as for (2), but does not cite the page number, which Misplaced Pages does.
- No 4 is the same as the website, but unlike the website, quotes the source.
- No 5 is the same as the website, but unlike the website, quotes the source.
- No 6 is the same as the website, but unlike the website, quotes the source.
- No 7 is quite similar to the website, though not identical. The Misplaced Pages article quotes sources in considerably more detail than the website.
- So I thought the answer was that it was possible that either the Misplaced Pages article copies from the website, or the website copied from Misplaced Pages. Now the website is a blog, and the archives go back to 5 October 2010. So I looked at the Misplaced Pages article on 30 September 2010 (i.e. before the website started, which has a section pretty much like the one we have now, and that you want to delete. So these words appeared in Misplaced Pages, before the website.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Ok. It seems as though the Misplaced Pages article preceded the website link I gave and so we can assume that the quotes haven't been copied from there. However, there are quite a few other websites with the same quotes, so I will look to see if they have been used as a source for this article. I will also look at the Misplaced Pages guidelines for sourcing information. 86.163.52.147 (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Taqlid
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.
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.
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.
I have however found a number of quotes from secondary sources which should suffice:
"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
and
"From a Salafi perspective, following a madhab without searching for direct evidence constitutes blind adherence (taqlid), which leads Muslims astray." Miriam Cooke, Bruce B. Lawrence, Muslim Networks from Hajj to Hip Hop, p 213
and
"Prime objectives were to rid the Muslim ummah of the centuries long mentality of Taqlid" John L. Esposito, The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, 275
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.--86.163.52.147 01:18, 18 November 2013
- I have no objection to these being added to the article. They add to readers' understanding.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
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.
"Sheikh" has specifically been referred to as an honorific title here http://en.wikipedia.org/Index_of_religious_honorifics_and_titles#Islam
At present there are about 20 references to "Sheikh" in this article.--86.163.52.147 01:18, 18 November 2013
- I think you are right. There is excessive use of "Sheikh" in this article. It should be retained if it is in quotes, and in citations if the book/article was published with Sheikh" in the byline.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Extremism
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.
The quotes are as follows:
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
The popular salafi preacher Zakir Naik 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.
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.--86.163.52.147 01:18, 18 November 2013
- Most Roman Catholics are against murder, but if we added references to Al Capone and various former IRA terrorists to the article on the Roman Catholic Church we could do much the same thing as you are suggesting.
- If we wanted to use the article from the "Observer", we would have to do so in a fair and balanced balanced way, and not just cherry-pick from it. By the way, it was from "The Observer", not "The Guardian".
- In your posting about Zakir Naik, you described him as a "popular salafi preacher". The word "popular" is ambiguous. Did you mean light-weight and inconsequential, as in "popular psychology", "popular history" or "popular music"? In this sense "popular" is sometimes abbreviated as "pop". Or did you mean that a lot of people like him, in the same way as the English model and musician Samantha Fox was once very popular? Either way we would need citations from reliable sources to back up such a statement. In any case, if the article mentioned Zakir Naik, it would also need to be fair to him. My understanding is that Naik claims that what he said was deliberately misrepresented.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that the extremism section needs to be balanced which is why I stated that the majority of Salafi scholars reject violence. However, the point that I tried to make was that there are exceptions to this view.
- At present the text of the section states that "In recent years the Salafi methodology has wrongly come to be associated with the jihad of extremist groups and related groups that advocate the killing of innocent civilians"
- The phrase "wrongly" gives the impression that there is no doubt about this. I believe that there is sufficient reason to doubt the unequivocal nature of the statement based on the links I gave above.
- I think your analogy with Al Capone and the Roman Catholic church is wrong. Al Capone is not an authority on Catholicism and (as far as I am aware) knowbody in the Roman Catholic church has stated that murder is lawful. If this were the case however, then it would be correct to state that "Some Roman Catholic priests consider murder lawful...." because that would be stating a fact.
- The article in the observer does not state that all Salafis support violence. I am not making that case. It did however give an example of a salafi scholar who publicly called for the killing of Baradei. This I believe makes the phrase "wrongly" above invalid.
- Regarding Zakir Naik, by popular I mean that he has a large following. This statement has been made on the Zakir Naik[REDACTED] page and the reference given there is Thomas Blom Hansen (2001). Wages of Violence: Naming and Identity in Postcolonial Bombay. Princeton University Press. p. 177. ISBN 978-0-691-08840-2.
- There are numerous other references for this also (e.g. Torkel Brekke, Fundamentalism: Prophecy and Protest in an Age of Globalization, p97 where he is described as the "greatest televangelist" and has "millions of followers").
- I have seen Zakir Naik's response to the extremism claim and from a personal view believe that he is not an extremist. However, others clearly disagree. Theresa May, the Home Secretary, banned Naik from entering the UK for material which can “foment justify or glorify terrorist violence” or “seek to provoke others to terrorist acts”.
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7836557/Home-secretary-Theresa-May-bans-radical-preacher-Zakir-Naik-from-entering-UK.html
- Given the above, I think it would be better to change the title of the section to "Views on Extremism", and to amend the sentence "In recent years the Salafi methodology has wrongly come to be associated with the jihad of extremist groups and related groups that advocate the killing of innocent civilians" to "In recent years the Salafi methodology has come to be associated with the jihad of extremist groups and related groups that advocate the killing of innocent civilians. This view is rejected by the majority of Salafi scholars such as..... A few Salafi scholars however have been accused of supporting the use of violence such as...." 86.163.52.147 (talk) 07:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- I am very dubious about what you are suggesting, but it is possible that if we all work collaboratively we might together be able improve this section of the article.
- I suggest that instead of trying to amend that section of the article, you try to write a fresh version of that section in this talk page. We can then go through a number of revisions, until we get it right, if we can get it right. I am open-minded on the subject. It is possible that in a few weeks time we will have a better version. It is also possible, that you may change your mind and decide that the current version of that section is better.
- One thing is non-negotiable - all available reliable sources make it clear that most Salafists do not support terrorism. That has to be made clear.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Ok. I will look to write a fresh version. I agree that most Salafis do not support terrorism.I will also look to write a section on Taqlid as per the comments above. 86.163.52.147 (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)