Talk:Salafi movement/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Claim not obviously backed by citation

The article says:

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

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

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

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

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.[1] --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. [2] [3] [4] 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)

Salafism in Syria

I swear to God that this Salafism in Syria are all things that I have written. Wikipedia 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 [5] and [6] 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)

2 different things under one name

I quite disagree to the confusion in the lead of this article between the XIXth and early XXth centuries movement of Muhammad Abduh, Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and Rashid Rida and what's NOW called "Salafism", some offshoot of Wahhabism. I believe there should be 2 different articles as these are totally opposite currents in Islam. --Minorities observer (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Please could you explain this. It would help if you could provide references to reliable sources that support your belief that these are different things.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I think if you just read the articles on Muhammad Abduh and Jamal al-Din al-Afghani you won't need any further reference. But there is e.g. Abdullah Saeed, "Salafiya, Modernism and Revival", in The Oxford Handbook of Islam and Politics, Oxford University Press. --Minorities observer (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Like most movements / groups, Salafism isn't a monolithic blob and has a number of strands. Jillian Schwedler states that "Salafism is not a single phenomenon, although it is often treated as a unified movement with branches emerging in many countries."

There is no doubt, for example, that the views held by Muhammad Abduh are quite different to those held by Ibn Baz. However, the current article alludes to these strands in the section entitled "Trends Loosely Associated with Salafism". In might be an idea to rename this heading to "Salafi Strands" and to add a subsection on the Salafism of Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida. I'm not sure however, that Jamal al-Din al-Afghani ever referred to himself or his movement as Salafi.86.163.52.147 (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

New section on Taqlid (scholarly authority)

Currently the article contains the following:

Salafism should not be confused with the ahl i-hadith sect of the Indian subcontinent. Salafis submit to scholarly authority (taqlid), for example those of the Arabian countries are generally bound by Hanbali jurisprudence. All Salafi scholars of Saudi Arabia, including Sheikh bin Baz, Sheikh Salih al-Uthaymeen, al Albanee, Sheikh Salih al-Fawzaan, Sheikh Saud bin Shuraim and Sheikh al-Sudais, advocate following an Imam rather than understanding scripture oneself. Sheikh al-Albanee stated "blind following of the earlier scholars is far better than this free-for-all; rather for the ordinary Muslim, following a scholar is obligatory and this free-for-all is haraam" ( i.e. forbidden, un-Islamic).

I believe this is rather one dimensional (please see above). We should create a new section entitled Views on Taqlid (scholarly authority). I think the text in this new section should contain something like the following:

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 salafi scholars from Saudi Arabia are generally bound by Hanbali jurisprudence and advocate following an Imam rather than understanding scripture oneself.. These include Bin Baz, Salih al-Uthaymeen, Salih al-Fawzaan, Saud bin Shuraim and al-Sudais . Other Salafi scholars however hold that taqlid is unlawful since from their perspective, following a madhab without searching for direct evidence leads Muslims astray. These scholars include Rashid Rida , al-Khajnadee, Muhammad Abduh, Saleem al-Hilali and Nasir al-Din al-Albani.

At the very end of the spectrum some salafis hold taqlid to be an act of polytheism

I removed the line "Salafism should not be confused with the ahl i-hadith sect of the Indian subcontinent." as I have never heard of the ahl i-hadith group being considered a sect and no reliable reference has been supplied. I removed al-Albani from the list of Saudi scholars as he was Albanian and lived much of his latter life in Jordan / Syria. I also removed the reference to http://islamqa.info/en/113687. I'm not sure that this is considered a reliable source - better ones exist. I also removed all honorific "Sheikh" titles in this section as per the discussion above.86.163.52.147 (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

For some reason the references above don't seem to be readable so I have added them below:

[3] The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought, p 484
[4] Stephane Lacroix, George Holoch, Awakening Islam, p 84
[5] Miriam Cooke, Bruce B. Lawrence, Muslim Networks from Hajj to Hip Hop, p 213
[6] Thus he [Rida] opposed Taqlid and called for and practiced absolute ijtihad. Clinton Bennett, The Bloomsbury Companion to Islamic Studies, p.174. See also, Richard Gauvain, Salafi Ritual Purity: In the Presence of God, Introduction, p9
[7] Abduh's statement of purpose was: To liberate thought from the shackles of Taqlid and understand religion as it was understood by the Salaf. Clinton Bennett, The Bloomsbury Companion to Islamic Studies, p.168
[8] From there he [Albani] learned to oppose taqlid in a madhab. Clinton Bennett, The Bloomsbury Companion to Islamic Studies, p.174. Al-Albani had denounced Wahhabi attachment to the Hanbali school. Stephane Lacroix, George Holoch, Awakening Islam, p 85.
[9] For many Salafis, both modernist and conservative, "worship" of created beings includes practicing taqlid within a madhab of fiqh. Clinton Bennett, The Bloomsbury Companion to Islamic Studies, p.165
86.163.52.147 (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It has been a almost 2 weeks since I added the above and I have not had a response. I will wait a few more days and if I do not see any opposition I will add the new section to the article. RookTaker (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I have added a new section based on the above. RookTaker (talk) 01:28, 8 December 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)

Yes, really, it is incomplete. Presumably it was composed with the assumption that '[al]though' and 'however' are perfectly synonymous. On the contrary: when '[al]though' is the first word of a sentence (as distinct from immediately following a comma or ellipsis), then whatever comes directly after it is not the subject of the "[al]though"; the sentence rather requires a counterpoint to which the "[al]though" will refer.

Thus: "Though Salafis (when told about this) were as opposed to it as other Muslims, their opposition has been ignored by subsequent reports of Salafi opinion."

or

"Although Salafi individuals, when told about this, were as opposed to it as other Muslims, no representative of Salafi leadership is known to have lodged a protest against [such-and-such]."

(Note that if "however" were used in place of "[al]though" in either of these examples, it would belong not at the beginning of the sentence but between the two points. (i.e. "...Muslims; however, ...") Oddly enough, all three words would fit comfortably in the 'center' of either sentence, but preceding 'however' with a comma (or conversely, preceding a 'central' [al]though with a semicolon rather than a comma) is considered improper usage. (For additional confusion, consider that certain dialogue may seem to violate these standards but would be justified as implying an ellipsis or otherwise 'finishing' someone else's statement.)

I may have gone on a bit there! As originally quoted by G.R.S. it would become functionally coherent if "Though" were simply removed (or replaced with "However,"), but it would still be quite a vague assertion; your rewording (minus the "Although") is a partial improvement, but it is still an imprecise reference to "Salafi individuals...told about this" (unless a subsequent footnote cites e.g. a poll or collection of interviews), and cluttered by the additional (probably extraneous) "were". TheNuszAbides (talk) 04:35, 17 December 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 Wikipedia's guidelines on copyright. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view

- Removing honorific titles as per Wikipedia guidelines. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 Wikipedia 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/wiki/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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia's guidelines on copyright. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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

In your edits you removed the following:[7]

1. 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."[35]
2. 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."[51]
3. 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. [He] refrained from falling into common pitfalls, believed in Allah and in what Allah has informed us of from His names and description."[52]
4. 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.[53]
5. 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."[54]
6. 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."[55]
7. 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.[56] In commenting upon as-Sama'ni, Ibn al-Athir wrote: "And a group were known by this epithet."[57]

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 Wikipedia article. The article suggests that the source is the same as for (2), but does not cite the page number, which Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia article quotes sources in considerably more detail than the website.

So I thought the answer was that it was possible that either the Wikipedia article copies from the website, or the website copied from Wikipedia. Now the website is a blog, and the archives go back to 5 October 2010.[8] So I looked at the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, before the website.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok. It seems as though the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

I have created a new section below with my recommendations on Taqlid.86.163.52.147 (talk) 02:44, 24 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 Wikipedia recommendations. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies.

"Sheikh" has specifically been referred to as an honorific title here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

I have removed all instances of the honorific title "Sheikh"RookTaker (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be lots of Imam (or Imaam) titles in this page. Are you happy for me to remove these?RookTaker (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. I have removed all but two of the "Iman"s from the article. In the cases I have left, one was using Imam as a noun (not an honorific); the other was using the word in a construction "wo is known among Salafis as Imam...".

I am a bit puzzled about your claim that "Imaam" is used. It only appears once - in citation 53, where it is used in a book title. I have made it clearer that Manaqib al-Imam Ahmad is a book title, and given the author of the book.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - If "Imaam" is only in the book title then that is fine.RookTaker (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2014 (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 wikipedia 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)

Salafi vs Wahaabi

I think a section explaining the differences and overlaps would be good. I am sure it has been integrated into the article but it would serve the reader (including me) to have it in clear terms. Tariq Ramadan I think made some detailed anyalsis of the movement/ideology. Also the lead needs some cleaning up, things are repeated and talking about a website's about page in a lead is just poor quality. --Inayity (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

External Links

We should add external links, and I would say some from YouTube might not hurt if we present both sides. See [What is a Wahabi]

While there is no blanket ban on Youtube per WP:YOUTUBE, the issue of what should or shouldn't be used has nothing to do with presenting both sides; it has to do with whether or not the material in the video itself passes the WP:LINKSTOAVOID test. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Changes to the section on Extremism

As per the discussion above, I have attempted to rewrite the section "Opposition to Extremism".

My first suggestion is to change the title from "Opposition to Extremism" to "Views on Extremism". This, I believe fits in better with Wikipedia's guidance on using an impartial tone. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Impartial_tone.

For the content of this section, I have referred to the following sources:

• The Week magazine
• The Daily Telegraph
• The Observer
• The BBC
• Reuters
• Time Magazine
• Richard Gauvain, Salafi Ritual Purity: In the Presence of God
• Gabriel G. Tabarani, Jihad's New Heartlands: Why the West Has Failed to Contain Islamic Fundamentalism
• Quintan Wiktorowicz, Anatomy of the Salafi Movement

I have removed all references from the websites

• http://IslamAgainstExtremism.com
• http://FaithInAllaah.com

as these seem to be nothing more than promotional material. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_sources

Anyhow, the initial text of my rewrite is as follows:

In recent years Salafism has come to be associated with extremism and acts of violence. Such associations have been made by certain media outlets such as the British news magazine The Week,, the Daily Telegraph, the Observer and the BBC

Most leading Salafi scholars however have consistently rejected the legitimacy of acts of violence. The Saudi scholar, Muhammad ibn al Uthaymeen considered suicide bombing to be unlawful and the scholar Abdul Muhsin al-Abbad wrote a treatise entitled "According to which intellect and Religion is Suicide bombings and destruction considered Jihad?" . Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani stated that "History repeats itself. Everybody claims that the Prophet is their role model. Our Prophet spent the first half of his message making da’wa, and he did not start it with jihad.”

Nevertheless a few Salafi scholars appear to support extremism and acts of violence. 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."

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."

It has been noted by some observers that the Western association of Salafi ideology with violence stems from writings done "through the prism of security studies" that were published in the late 20th century, having persisted well into contemporary literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RookTaker (talk • contribs) 21:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

For some reason the references above don't seem to be readable so I have added them below:

[10] A large body of research has been authored which seeks to claim that the salafi way is indeed an extremist radical belief system which eventually manifests itself with violence and terrorism Robert Lambert, Countering Al-Qaeda in London: Police and Muslims in Partnership, p214
[11] http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/6073/what-salafism-and-should-we-be-worried
[12] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1405868/Salafi-Islam-has-many-links-to-bin-Laden-group.html
[13] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/09/violent-salafists-threaten-arab-spring-democracies
[14] 'Salafists have also formed militant groups aiming to establish an Islamic state by force' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19914763
[15] Gabriel G. Tabarani, Jihad's New Heartlands: Why the West Has Failed to Contain Islamic Fundamentalism, p 26
[16] Richard Gauvain, Salafi Ritual Purity: In the Presence of God, p 331
[17] Gabriel G. Tabarani, Jihad's New Heartlands: Why the West Has Failed to Contain Islamic Fundamentalism, p 26.
[18] Quintan Wiktorowicz, Anatomy of the Salafi Movement, p217
[19] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/09/violent-salafists-threaten-arab-spring-democracies
[20] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/11/us-egypt-elbaradei-cleric-idUSBRE91A0UZ20130211
[21] Von Drehle, David; Ghosh, Bobby: "An Enemy Within: The Making of Najibullah Zazi". Time. p. 2. 1 October 2009. Retrieved 16 April 2011.
[22] Meijer, Roel (2009). "Introduction". In Meijer, Roel. Global Salafism: Islam's New Religious Movement. Columbia University Presss. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-231-15420-8.
RookTaker (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered Russia Today as a source?--Toddy1 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the Russia Today website but couldn't find anything useful. The reason I added the newspaper / television sites above was to illustrate that certain media outlets have associated Salafism with violence. I don't think it is necessary to add more media links to emphasise this point.RookTaker (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Of the media outlets you say have this POV, all are British. The BBC is British-taxpayer funded organisation, run by government appointees. The Observer is part of the Guardian organisation - the Guardian is discretely subsidised by the state sector (they put their job adverts there) - this is an old trick, a hundred years ago the British Admiralty (Navy Ministry) did the same thing. Never heard of a magazine called "The Week" before. It would be a good thing to have a broader spectrum of sources (i.e. ones more independent of the British government).--Toddy1 (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The intent of adding the references from the Daily Telegraph, the Observer, the BBC and the The Week magazine was not to prove that Salafists supports violence and extremism but rather to show that such an association (rightly or wrongly) has been made by some media outlets. From a personal point of view I do not believe that salafism supports violence and extremism but others (i.e. the outlets stated above) clearly disagree and we should certainly state that in a wikipedia article.

Anyhow, I agree that all the media outlets listed are British based. However, none of the sources are supporters / part of the British government.

* The Daily Telegraph is an independently financed newspaper and have been critical of all parties within parliament. As an example they were responsible for exposing the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal which related to members of all 3 major UK parties. Clearly, they are not part of the government.

* The Guardian newspaper is not state funded. They too have come to blows with the UK government of all parties. In particular, the Guardian was responsible for revealing the claims made by Edward Snowden and were vehemently anti war during Tony Blair's government. The mere fact that they advertise public sector jobs does not mean that they are part of the government.

* The Week is an independent news magazine. Please visit there site http://www.theweek.co.uk/. The fact that you have not heard of it does not mean that it is part of the government!

* The principle funding for the BBC does not come from the tax payer, but the license fee payer. Further, the BBC is not "run by government appointees". Please see the following http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/managementstructure/seniormanagement/ and http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/. A core principle of the BBC is impartiality. Please read the following http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-impartiality-introduction. One may validly hold that the BBC is partial, but to believe that the BBC is not independent of the government is far from accurate.

In Britain, we have a free press. Editors of all persuasions are allowed to commentate and express there views. The Daily Telegraph for example is considered to have a right wing bias while the Guardian is considered to have a left wing bias. I believe that the above set of references (from the Telegraph, The Guardian, The BBC and The Week) cover all main political leanings.

That said, I have found a number of additional references from media outlets in other countries to support the view that some media outlets have associated salafism with violence and extremism. The German publication Der Spiegel has an article here: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/islamist-murder-plot-and-raid-put-salafists-under-pressure-a-888949.html. Likewise, the German edition of the newspaper The Local has also provided this association here: http://www.thelocal.de/20130612/50249.

The Middle Eastern publication al-Ahram has also accused Salafists of espousing violence here: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/News/160/19/Salafi-violence-in-Tunisia.aspx

The American magazine The Atlantic likewise makes the same association here: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/10/egypts-anti-christian-violence-how-things-got-so-bad/246466/.

The above I believe suffices to justify the statement that "In recent years Salafism has come to be associated with extremism and acts of violence. Such associations have been made by certain media outlets" RookTaker (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

There's an NPOV issue with this IMHO. The impression you are giving is that it's only "media" perspective (i.e. a sensationalist/lacking in intellectual rigour) that Salafism and terrorism are linked. It isn't just media but also the academic world. I suggest deleting the reference to Media and using citations such as thisas well as media outlets. DeCausa (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I found an additional reference here which states that:

"However, the non-violent mainstream Salafism has shown an increasing divergence in recent years with a substantial growth of what may be termed its "right wing" where supporters of violence is gaining ground". Steinberg, Guido W., German Jihad: On the Internationalisation of Islamist Terrorism.

As such, it might be better to rephrase the beginning of this section as:

In recent years Salafism has come to be associated with extremism and acts of violence. Such associations have been made by both academics and media outlets.... RookTaker (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The approach being proposed above is a synthetic approach. You are drawing conclusions from patterns in the media and works by academics. I think that it would be better to have fact-based approach using a broader range of sources, without implying conclusions not explicitly stated by the sources.

As bigotry against Salafists is not a purely British phenomenon, it would probably be better to use from other parts of the world, such as India, as well as UK/USA. I have seen articles in both the Guardian, and Indian newspaper websites that talk about the prejudice against Salafists in a rational way.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with you here for a number of reasons:

Firstly, I don't think that there is any evidence to suggest that "bigotry against Salafists is a British phenomenon". That's a rather sweeping statement and renders any British source regarding Salafism as being invalid! I don't think this is a position that we can hold.

Secondly, the sources above are not purely British. I provided links to 2 German newspapers, 1 Arabic newspaper and 1 American magazine. Additionally, I provided a reference to an academic source (below).

"However, the non-violent mainstream Salafism has shown an increasing divergence in recent years with a substantial growth of what may be termed its "right wing" where supporters of violence is gaining ground". Steinberg, Guido W., German Jihad: On the Internationalisation of Islamist Terrorism.

Thirdly, the statement that I am proposing at the start of the section is as follows:

"In recent years Salafism has come to be associated with extremism and acts of violence. Such associations have been made by both academics and media outlets."

All of the articles listed above have (rightly or wrongly) associated Salafism with extremism and acts of violence. For example

Contemporary Saudi (Wahhabi) scholars have provided the religious legitimacy for many of the arguments promoted by the jihadists. The New York City Police Department, p 17. http://www.aina.org/reports/nypdritw.pdf

In Jordan, recent protests in Zarqa saw around 350 hardline Salafis take to the streets to demand the imposition of Sharia law. Violent clashes led to 83 police offers being injured. http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/6073/what-salafism-and-should-we-be-worried#ixzz2mvekxj8n

Since September 11, schools teaching Salafiya have been criticised in Saudi Arabia as breeding grounds of terrorism. Websites such as salafi.net are among some 100 sites described by Info Prod, an American research team, as communicators of radical Islam. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1405868/Salafi-Islam-has-many-links-to-bin-Laden-group.html

In May last year, armed Salafists attacked a police station and bars selling alcohol in the El Kef region. A month later, a trade union office was firebombed. In September, a Salafist mob stormed the US embassy in Tunis and an American school. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/09/violent-salafists-threaten-arab-spring-democracies

Salafists have also formed militant groups aiming to establish an Islamic state by force http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19914763

Islamist extremist in Germany are under scrutiny once again after raids on members of Salafist groups coincided on Wednesday with the foiling of a suspected murder plot by individuals linked to the movement. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/islamist-murder-plot-and-raid-put-salafists-under-pressure-a-888949.html

But the country’s battle against a new type of threat, that represented by violence by ultraconservative Salafis, is still underway. http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/News/160/19/Salafi-violence-in-Tunisia.aspx

"However, the non-violent mainstream Salafism has shown an increasing divergence in recent years with a substantial growth of what may be termed its "right wing" where supporters of violence is gaining ground". Steinberg, Guido W., German Jihad: On the Internationalisation of Islamist Terrorism.

There are many additional example of how media agencies and academics have associated Salafism with extremism or violence. As such, I don't see how there can be any doubt about the statement ""In recent years Salafism has come to be associated with extremism and acts of violence. Such associations have been made by both academics and media outlets.".

Fourthly, (and perhaps most importantly) I am not debating that the claims made by the media / academics are necessarily correct. I am merely stating that claims have been made. RookTaker (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Can you give me an update on the above please? RookTaker (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

1. As worded, your proposed new section has elements that seem like synthesis. This has been pointed out before. The situation has not changed.

2. You have successfully found (and posted above) more examples of bigotry against Salafists. Perhaps you ought to see if there is a useful way of incorporating some of this stuff into your section. But please be careful to write neutral text, even though you are finding bigoted sources. Modern bigotry against Salafists is pretty much the same a 1920s/30s bigotry against Jews. Whereas modern bigots point to the few Salafists who are/were terrorists, 1920s/30s anti-Semites pointed to the Jews who were communist revolutionaries in Russia and Germany. Wikipedia has no objection to bigoted sources, particularly for statements on what the bigots themselves believe, but Wikipedia articles are meant to be neutral.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure I understand what is meant by "Synthesis" in the context of this discussion. Can you explain which part(s) of the amended text you feel falls under this category?

I actually think the new version is very balanced. There are clear quotations from Salafi scholars such as al-Albani, Ibn Uthaymeen etc.. that condemn terrorism and extremism. These are sourced from reliable texts (as opposed to what we currently see). The quotes are put after the sentence "Most leading Salafi scholars however have consistently rejected the legitimacy of acts of violence." Therefore, I don't think it is anti-Salafi.

Further, I don't agree with your view that all (or even most) of the sources mentioned above hold bigotry against Salafis. It's a rather sweeping statement and I think we should avoid making such a judgement (especially if we start comparing Salafis as victims like the Jews in the 1930's!).RookTaker (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Are you still interested in this discussion? Its been almost 2 weeks again and I have not heard anything. If I don't hear anything soon I will make the changes suggested above. Thanks. RookTaker (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You have heard my objections. You do not seem to be interested in improving your proposed new version to take account of the objections. This is a pity. But I cannot force you to do it.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't understood your objection - that's why I asked you to clarify on the 15th December.... I will restate my question again in the hope that you will respond this time.

I'm not sure I understand what is meant by "Synthesis" in the context of this discussion. Can you explain which part(s) of the amended text you feel falls under this category? RookTaker (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

RookTaker, wikipeda guidelines encourages WP:BOLD thereafter discussions can take place. Vizier loki (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Synthesis is where you draw your own conclusions from what is said in the sources - conclusions that are not actually in the sources. The first paragraph appears to be synthesis.

It is also interesting that you use Robert Lambert's book Countering Al Qaeda in London as a source. Have you read Lambert's book? You seem to have cherry-picked a bit that fits in with your anti-Salafist POV. He talks about bigotry towards Salafis spread by rival Muslim groups in many places in his book. He also talks about "Lambertism", which apparently was "a label that describes the appeasement of Muslims known as Islamists and salfis" (p39).--Toddy1 (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I think you are referring to the following line (please correct me if I am wrong):

"In recent years Salafism has come to be associated with extremism and acts of violence."

At the moment we have the following (unsourced line) instead:

"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."

I believe that the amended line is a more neutral statement. The existing sentence has the phrase "wrongly" which is a jugdgment on the validity of the claims. I don't think that we as editors should decide who is right or wrong in an article - this is for the readers to decide themselves.

Also, if the amended line is considered a "synthesis" then surely the existing line is aswell given that it is almost identical - What do you think?

Regarding the book "Countering Al Qaeda in London", the quote I provided was as follows:

"A large body of research has been authored which seeks to claim that the salafi way is indeed an extremist radical belief system which eventually manifests itself with violence and terrorism."

The point of this quote was to show that the claim of Salafism being associated with violence is being made, not that the claim is correct.

As mentioned previously, my personal view is that Salafism is not inherently violent.

The author (Robert Lambert) has actually done a good job in showing that the Salafi Brixton mosque in south London has worked hard against terrorism and that the chairman of the mosque (Abdul Haq Baker) has been at the centre of this campaign. I have attended this mosque on a number of occasions and have met Abdul-Haq Baker. He was on a recent BBC documentary and has written for the Guardian against terrorism (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/31/young-muslim-converts-support-prevent-woolwich).

However, there are clearly those who disagree. For example, we have the following:

"However, the non-violent mainstream Salafism has shown an increasing divergence in recent years with a substantial growth of what may be termed its "right wing" where supporters of violence is gaining ground". Steinberg, Guido W., German Jihad: On the Internationalisation of Islamist Terrorism, p 128.

That being the case it would be better to have a neutral tone and remove the word "wrongly" as this is a judgement. What is your view?

Finally, I don't have an anti-Salafi POV and I don't appreciate you making this statement against me.RookTaker (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia policy that articles should be based on what sources say. Your proposed wording needs to be amended accordingly.

If you "don't have an anti-Salafi POV" and have read Lambert's book, then it is astonishing that you did not use his book to provide statements about the kind of people who make the claims against Salafists, and their motives.

If you feel strongly about the word "wrongly" in the current version of the section, you could always add some citations from Lambert's book that justify the word.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, as mentioned I believe that the new version is very fair and better sourced than the current text. The objection you raised about synthesis seems also to apply to the existing text so I am not sure what should be done. Perhaps the entire line should be removed. Further, Lambert's view is not the only one. We have sources above (already mentioned) that differ from his views and this should be represented in a Wikipedia article. Ultimately, the reader should make a judgement about whether a particular view is wrong or right and not editors.

It might be an idea to get some assistance. There is a Wikipedia page with lists of people who can provide assistance here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance) and if you are ok with the idea I can choose somebody to help us. RookTaker (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Are you ok for me to request some support? It's been a while and I haven't heard from you. RookTaker (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have pasted in the paragraphs for which there was more or less consensus (i.e. all but the first). This does not mean that I endorse them - but I agree with you that they are a huge improvement on what was there previously. I also fixed formatting errors, and covered URLs as per WP:MOS.

As I said before, in my opinion you need to do more work on your proposed first paragraph. If you are not willing to do that, please could you try to merge it with the existing first paragraph.

Unfortunately I do not have time to do the revisions myself. I had hoped that you would make the changes - but maybe you are in the same position as me, and do not have time.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine for now - thanks. I still think it would be useful to get somebody to help us however with the first paragraph.RookTaker (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

An IP editor attempted to add the following to the article. I think it was more in the form of a talk page comment put in the wrong place.[9]--Toddy1 (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

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."

This has become one of the most famously misquoted words from his talk. Upon hearing the full talk, it was clarified that Zakir Naik states:"... A terrorist is a person who causes terror. The moment a robber sees a policeman he is terrified. A policeman is a terrorist for the robber. Similarly every Muslim should be a terrorist for the antisocial elements of society, such as thieves, dacoits and rapists. Whenever such an anti-social element sees a Muslim, he should be terrified. It is true that the word ‘terrorist’ is generally used for a person who causes terror among the common people. But a true Muslim should only be a terrorist to selective people i.e. anti-social elements, and not to the common innocent people. In fact a Muslim should be a source of peace for innocent people." Therefore, Dr. Zakir Naik's mentioning the word "terrorist" in his talk is merely a matter of semantics, and he further clarified that he rejected terrorist act, regardless of the perpetrator's faith, and denounced the London 7/7 bombings and the 9/11 incident.

Von Drehle, David; Ghosh, Bobby: "An Enemy Within: The Making of Najibullah Zazi". Time. p. 2. 1 October 2009. Retrieved 16 April 2011.

Special:Contributions/175.136.190.209 (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

New source from Carnegie Endowment for Peace

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace released this writeup on Salafism in the Persian Gulf region about two weeks ago. I think it would be an awesome source for some of the content here as well as expanding on the most recent activities of the movement and its various strains. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Is salafi a maddhab?

Is salafi a maddhab? Notable people as "medina's senior imam and dr zakir naik" follow salafi. So I think it is maddhab. If it is not, someone can explain me? Thanks. Salafisalafis (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Not on the same level as the recognized Sunni four. Some Salafists or Salafi-influenced types claim to be Hanbalis, while others may not have a whole lot of respect for the four-madhhab system in its traditional form... AnonMoos (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

thanks AnonMoos, but do you know what madhab dr zakir naik and sheikh hudafy follow? (i onlu konw that they are salafi) Salafisalafis (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

More blatant, bold-faced lies in the lead

As has been the general habit with articles on sub-branches of Sunni Islam, it seems that opponents and supporters of a movement are attempting to monopolize the article to subtly push a point - in this specific case, against the movement in question.
I already had to amend one claim - that most Salafis live in the Gulf region. The source was a generated image showing religious adherence in various regions of the Gulf, with the claim made in the article appearing nowhere in the source. It's also a ridiculous claim in and of itself - Salafism is one of the fastest growing Muslim movements in terms of number of adherents and their numbers in other places like Egypt and Morocco render the claim that most live in the Gulf to be patent nonsense.
I am not seeing sources in the lead linking to a number of non-scholarly, non-professional, non-academic websites published by followers of Sufism - and these two movements are arch-enemies, so to speak. Websites like Masud and Sunnah.org do not have true editorial boards because they're simply developed and published by Sufis and their followers without any formal outside input from real academic editors. In addition, Globalsecurity.org is being used to promote the common Sufi claim that Salafists are not a sub-branch of Sufism but rather in opposition to traditional Sunnism. The source does not say that at all and in fact it's a categorically false assertion. We recently had it the other way around, with a category being created for "Converts from Sufism to Sunnism" insinuating the other way around - that Sufism is outside of Sunnism while Salafists are orthodox.
Because most readers of English Wikipedia are non-Muslim, Muslim editors often take advantage of the fact that their fellow editors are often unfamiliar with inter-Muslim polemics and take that as a green light to promote all sort of fringe points of view, no matter how strongly they go against academic consensus. I will start amending the lead now based on what the sources actually say and removing any hate sites and/or non-academic polemics. I hope other editors will take notice of what is going on here and help to stop the general, very long-term trend of various Muslim sects using Wikipedia as a propaganda platform. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Its true you can get away with red murder b/c how many Muslims editors are they, how many understand, and how many edit these articles? Same with a lot of topics on Wikipedia, and then quality editors are left fighting ip agenda editors or gang of pro-Z editors with no support from the broader community b/c so few know the topic.--Inayity (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

To @Inayity: and other interested editors, I had an idea just now that I wanted to float by the community. The problem areas here were mostly to do with the lead, the opening section. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead is just supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article anyway - it isn't supposed to contain information not found elsewhere in the article. Since part of the issue here was the exact number of adherents of Salafism, why don't we just create a section on that within the body of the article? We can gather sources here, draft it as a group with anyone concerned and then put it in the article; the lead can then be adjusted accordingly.

I remember spending almost a year on the Barelvi article due to similar POV pushing and sectarian grandstanding, but the time spent made the article better - especially with pinpointing how many people follow that movement and who, exactly, does as opposed to simply holding similar views to the movement. Salafism - according to both a source here and others I have read - is supposed to be the fastest growing movement in the Muslim world. It's mainly confined to Arab countries and Indonesia as far as I know, but still, for such a significant movement there ought to be a section about this spread and number of adherents (and not simply POV pushing by an anti-Salafist pretending that Salafism only exists in the Persian Gulf). MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Also the lead needs to be thinned down. I think a separate section on Wahhabi vs Salafi would be in order. I do not think that detail belongs in lead. Plus I am still confused. They seem to say Salafi do not have Madhabs but I am sure Wahhabi do not also. I am not clear. --Inayity (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the lead should be simplified and we should also include a new section on "Adherents of Salafism" (or something like that). Some figures can be found here [10] for the Arabian Gulf and Egypt. In truth, there are other areas of this article that I found weird. We have a section on "Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab" which seems strange given that he predates the Salafi movement. We have a section on "Opposition to the use of kalam" where none of the references are from actual Salafi scholars. Bizarrely, this section is referenced from scholars such as Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (a Shafi'i scholar who died centuries before the Salafi movement emerged), Khwaja Abdullah Ansari (a Hanbali Sufi who predates the Salafi movement by almost 700 years), Dhahabi (who died about 600 years ago) etc... Surely we can find quotes from Salafi scholars to the same effect? RookTaker (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the reason for the section on Wahhab is that opponents of Salafis and Wahhabis claim that Salafis are the same as Wahhabis. -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Inayity - the current lead strives to be neutral-POV about claims that Salafis are the same as Wahhabis. The lead is a compromise.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@RookTaker:, you just made some incredible points which slipped by me entirely, I don't know about everybody else. There is a tendency on the part of the movement to speak as though they are older than they are, and even some of their opponents seem to take that incorrect point for granted. And while a section on the relation between Wahhabism and Salafism is warranted - there are enough media references to both that a discussion ought to be had - another self-propogated myth is the whole Ibn Abdul-Wahhab thing (he never used the term salafism or "salafiyyah" himself, he was a Hanbali muqallid). I think major improvements can be made to this article which will make it much more beneficial and informative for readers.

@Inayity:, the lead is indeed a bit heavy; there shouldn't be anything there which isn't discussed in detail in the body of the article, and if something is discussed in the body without detail then it doesn't belond in the lead. Still though, over a year multiple editors including myself worked on Barelvi and as can be seen on the talk page archives for that article, things really are easier if editors focus on the body first and leave the lead for last - after all, it is a summary of the most recent version of the article. Really though, reliable secondary sources could be brought about madhhabs. One thing I know offhand is that Salafism is divided internally between the Moroccan, Yemeni, Indonesian and Indian/Pakistani branches (most likely the numerical majority) who seem to reject traditional madhhabs outright, and the Saudi and Egyptian branches which claim to not follow a madhhab but refuse to accept "the truth" as ever falling outside of a small circle of Hanbali jurists. It's a fascinating topic. @Toddy1:, would you consent to this being reopened? I know a lot of the "compromise" was with a non-permabanned user from a rival movement who cussed out an admin once, so we could argue that previous consensus is dated. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to this being reworked out - but I advise caution. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view suggests that it should aim to be "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ijtihad

I don't want to engage in edit wars, but Rhodes' claim contradicts the rest of the article: "In the face of clear evidence, be it from Qur'an or Hadeeth, they support scholars' engagement in ijtihad – if they are qualified – as opposed to total blind imitation (taqlid)." + "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."

To claim: "It analyzes the group's strict observance of tawhid and its rejection of shirk, taqlid, ijtihad, and bid'ah, while believing that jihad is the only way to advance the cause of Allah on the earth." is thus impossible. You cannot reject both taqlid and ijtihad at once. Gui le Roi (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Fastest Growing

"Salafism is the fastest-growing Islamic movement in the world." This term is meaningless and unverifiable. If there was only one adherent and another two joined the faith, that would be a 200% growth rate. NBeddoe (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@NBeddoe: according to Wikipedia:Verifiability, the claim here is verifiable as the four sources given for it are all easily accessible to readers. I assume that you mean to dispute what those sources are claiming. But on what basis? The encyclopeda is based on sources such as these. What is the proposed alternative in this case? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

All Salafi and Wahhabi are Sunni

I am confused it almost suggest that Salafi are not Sunni because of Madhabs. Self-described Salafis believe they are Sunni Muslims, while the movement's critics claim that Salafis are the same as Wahhabis.[8] The basis of this criticism is the claim that Salafis do not acknowledge or follow any of the four schools of thought (Madhhab) to which most Sunni Muslims adhere The definition of Sunni has nothing to do with following a Madhab. Wahabis are Sunni also. And this is why we say these are movements are schools of thought, they are not actually religious sects. In a Sunni mosque you will get Salafi and how is it a different sect, do they pray different, do they not fast in Ramadan, do they believe in Hidden Imams? How is Wahhabism a distinct sect, they are just more observant of the fundamentals of Islam. Some scholar in America again, with his little map. --Inayity (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Inayity, well if your statements are reflected and backed by sources, why don't you be "BOLD" and make improvements to the page. I doubt anyone will stop you if you have reliable sources from which you have derived those statements from. Mbcap (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I Think the article is in such a poor shape and needs a fundamental re-write. Cuz when You see sources like Global Security as authorities on the Salafi movement/school you just smile. Might as well use George Bush II to define Sunni And Shia. I just would not know where to start. I guess Saudi Arabia being is then not a Sunni Muslim country. 1 --Inayity (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Almost like proving a negative. I mean is Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz not a Sunni? It is beyond ridiculous to even argue this. --Inayity (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

There have been discussions about Global Security on the reliable source noticeboard in the past and I beliebe it is not considered reliable. The writers are not professionals or academics on the topic of global security and much of their content is copy pasted from web forums they searched.

As for saying Salafis aren't Sunni, then that is typical of Sufi polemics. The Salafis throw the same accusation right back at them. Neither claims are remotely true or even to be taken seriously, though editors of various persuasions often exploit the fact that most Wikipedia editors are not Muslim and don't know the intracacies of intra-Muslim polemics to push various fringe points of view via weasel and/or peacock words on the site. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight

Salafism is arguably a more prominent movement than Ahmadiyya and Ibadism, yet this map includes Ibadis and Ahmadis yet excludes Salafis. I presume the creators lumped Salafis with Sunnis, however that is far from conclusive in academic sources. I think the Nejd region of Saudi Arabia is majority Salafi according to this source] 92.25.95.249 (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Madhhab Map3.png is just one user adding Ahmadis to File:Madhhab Map2.png; if you don't like it, substitute back File:Madhhab Map2.png. Anyway, I doubt whether Ahmadis or Salafis have a geographical distribution which would allow them to show up clearly on a map of that type -- while Ibadis do... AnonMoos (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)