Talk:Salafi movement

IMPORTANT

Message to those who want to have influence on the shape of this article Follow these simple instructions:

1. Please get a Wikipedia account and log in before you perform your edits.
2. If you plan on making major edits, please discuss them here first BEFORE you make your changes.

AnonMoos 03:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Claims about the Saudi Government funding Salfism

There is a paragraph that currently reads as follows:

The Saudi government is providing funding to increase Salafi Islam throughout the world. Estimates of Saudi spending on religious causes abroad include "upward of $100 billion", between $2 and 3 billion per year since 1975 (compared to the annual Soviet propaganda budget of $1 billion/year), and "at least $87 billion" from 1987–2007.

1. Source 1 says "Unfortunately, however, it is smothered by a belligerent, patriarchal form of Islam, called Wahabism, which has the formidable support of Saudi Arabian petro-dollars. This programme suggested that over the past few decades, upwards of $100 billion has been spent promoting Wahabism". It does not say that the Saudi government is funding Salafi Islam.
2. Source 2 says "King Abdullah's Saudi regime spends billions of pounds each year promoting Wahhabism". It does mention that "Stephen Schwartz, author of The Two Faces of Islam, dismiss salafism as a mere synonym for Wahhabism", and names a few other people who possibly agree with him to some extent. Source 2, does say: "Yahya Birt, an academic who is director of The City Circle, a networking body of young Muslim professionals, estimates 'Saudi spending on religious causes abroad as between $2bn [£960m] and $3bn per year since 1975 (comparing favourably with what was the annual Soviet propaganda budget of $1bn), which has been spent on 1,500 mosques, 210 Islamic centres and dozens of Muslim academies and schools'. More than that they have flooded the Islamic book market with cheap well-produced Wahhabi literature whose print runs, Birt says, "can be five to 10 times that of any other British-based sectarian publication, aggressively targeted for a global English-speaking audience." This has had the effect of forcing non-Wahhabi publishers across the Muslim world to close. It has put out of business smaller bookshops catering for a more mainstream Muslim market."
3. Source 3 is a dead link. The title "Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism and the Spread of Sunni Theofascism" makes it clear that it was discussing Wahhabism.

Wikipedia:No original research says "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented".

Sources 1 and 2 clearly support the case that the Saudi Government is providing funding to increase Wahhabi Islam throughout the world. The inference from that the Saudis are supporting Salafis is indirect - it depends on accepting Mr Stephen Schwartz's claims and combining them with other statements to draw a conclusion not directly stated. i.e. the claim that the Saudi Government is funding the spread of Salafi Islam is original research.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Minor Edits

The following end note,

^ Jump up to: a b Wahhabism, Salafismm and Islamism Who Is The Enemy? By Pfr. Ahmad Mousali | Ameriacan University of Beirut | Page-11

which was #140 the last time I checked the page, has a typo in it -- "Ameriacan" instead of "American." Tried to change it myself, but the editing section for references, a Reflist, doesn't appear to enable editing of it. Emerald Evergreen 03:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Fixed! The references are actually included in the body of the article's text, the Reflist is only an "anchor" that groups them all down there, so to speak --CopperKettle 06:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

should the terrorist attack in france be added

according to news the terrorist was a part of the movement. should that b84.213.45.196 (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)e mentioned in the article.

No mention of aqeedah as being a reason of differing views

In Islam, there are three major schools of thought on the aqeedah, or the attributes of God. A prominent school is the Ashari, primarily deriving from Sufi's. There is also "Athari" or "Atharee" which the "Salafi's" follow. In many cases, this is the only major belief that makes one considered "Salafi." Generally with regard to biddah or innovation, many many scholars from all viewpoints are against it. When it comes to madhabs, many Muslims accept them but believe if something is discovered that is more authentic than the view of the madhab, they will hold the differing view, and therefore use ijtjihad. Taqleed is denied by most Islamic scholars because if you find a Hadith that says different and you are studied in the Islamic sciences, you don't have to agree with your madhab. So 1. aqeedah 2. biddah and 3. taqleed/ijtjihad are the three major characteristics. However, the aqeedah is the biggest. Many Muslims hold aqeedah views of the Athari, do not believe in biddah, and support ijtjihad but do not call themselves Salafi because they want no labels. But they fit the definition. Wikipedia's lack to mention that is sad. See Yasir Qadhi's view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.203.153.242 (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Revert by Toddy1

I have added the following statements:

"Some Sunni leaders, however, consider Salafism to be outside of the fold of Sunni Islam and rather to be a modern version of Kharjism"

This is justified by the sources indicated.

The first source clearly states: "The most extremist pseudo-Sunni movement today is Wahhabism (also known as Salafism)." As we can see they refer to Salafism as a pseudo-Sunni movement, which according to them delegitimizes the claim that Salafis are Sunnis. According to this source it states the following:

"...and this is typical of the Khawarij or Separatists who went against the authority of the Imam of Muslims and the Shari'a of Allah, the latest example of whom being those who followed Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab in his repellion against the Khalifa. We have no doubt that the present attack is the work of those who follow the Wahhabi tenets rather than the tenets of Ahl al-Sunna, and who are known today as "Salafis."

As we can see in this source the Salafis are referred to as modern day Khawarij as well as NOT a part of Ahl al-Sunna (Sunnis). This point of view by mainstream Sunni leaders should NOT be ignored.

According to this source it states the following: The self-proclaimed righteous clergyman of Arabia followed the foot steps of Khawarij and revived the Khawarijism.

As for the history section it is very clear and conside. The Salafi Movement was started by Ibn Abdul Wahhab of Najd. The usage of the term "Salaf as Salih" or its variants has nothing to do with the actual Salafi Movement. This is well documented and the sources are clear and accurate. Xtremedood (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Thanks for updating the article Xtremedood, I put this on my watchlist when I noticed that how heavily it downplayed the fact that Salafis are a recent phenomenon. Thanks for fixing things. Nonetheless I dont believe "Some Sunni leaders, however, consider Salafism to be outside of the fold of Sunni Islam and rather to be a modern version of Kharjism." should be the second sentence of the lede. It should be much lower down in the lede, because it's important to first describe what Salafis believe themselves to be. Brustopher (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually a little bit shocked by how poor these edits were, and I'd really like more editors to be involved in trying to correct this. I generally avoid this article like the plague, but the blatant anti-salafi/pro-sufi bias seems to have returned after having been tamed by consensus for so long.

Sunnah.org is as clear an example of a hate site if I ever did see one. It's run by a group of sufis even considered outlandish in the world of Sufism, namely G.F. Haddad, Faraz Rabbani, Nuh Keller, et al. They flourish in the west but have little to no following in the actual Muslim world. That doesn't make them wrong, but they do represent a fringe view - a non-academic fringe view with no proper oversight or editorial board policies.

Hisham Kabbani in particular is considered a fraud among many in his own tariqa, has few academic qualifications to be writing (or used as a Wikipedia citation) and mostly just spews dogmatic hate about the salafists - much of which is demonstrably false. That isn't to say that the salafist movement hasn't been criticized or that it's free from the numerous problems with extremism pointed out; rather, what needs to be said here is that basing material - in the lead no less! - on "sources" including junk from Sunnah.org and its associated authors would be about as reasonable as including material from, say, SalafiPublications.com or other blatantly pro-salafi sites (which are also included in the article, strangely enough).

Suffice to say that these recent edits did not conform to the long held consensus nor generally understood scholarly criticism of the movement. Something more mainstream would either be stuff by non-Muslim academic stuff (McGill, Univ. of Chicago, etc.) or Muslim academics who actually have credibility outside of entirely self-published sources; better examples would the the Khaled Aboul Fadl types. But the whole "wahhabi alert" page not only ignores the actual cited reliable sources here by conflating salafism with wahhabism; it also simply promotes rather ignorant and often empirically false claims. Let's just try sticking to academic sources instead of going on a warpath against User:Toddy1 or whoever and making massive changes to the lead, one of the most important parts of the article, without any discussion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The sources look doubtful but in any event WP:UNDUE applies: it is entirely fringe to say that Salafis/Wahhabis are considered to be not Sunnis. DeCausa (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The source cited as "Wahhabism: Understanding The Roots And Role Models Of Islamic Extremism by Zubair Qamar" is not Zubair Qamar's work. It is "condensed and edited by ASFA staff". It is unfair and misleading to pass this off as Zubair Qamar's work.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a version of the article that was actually written by Zubair Qamar. It is therefore a fairer representation of what he says. I am not sure why Sunnah Foundation of America staff condensed and edited the original 2006 article by Zubair Qamar.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC) You can read Zubair Qamar's autobiography on Linkedin.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The revert that Xtremedood is complaining about is this one.

• Under history it says that "The actual modern day Salafi movement was started by a man named Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab who disagreed with a variety of beliefs and practices common throughout the Muslim world, such as veneration of Muslim saints (Awliya Allah), celebration of the birth of Muhammad (Mawlid), belief in intercessors, and prayer to God at the tombs of holy Muslim figures (i.e. Prophets, Saints, etc.)" and cites Saudi Arabia in Transition, Cambridge University Press, p. 163 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) I checked page 163 of the book and it does not support the statement.
• Under Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab it says "Salafists consider Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab as the first figure in the modern era to push for a return to the religious practices of the salaf as-salih." It cites "The Principles of Salafiyyah". Salafipublications.com. Retrieved 2010-04-18.. It does not support the statement.

I think the best thing to do would be to revert to the version before Xtremedood's edits.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The article needs to be careful not to take sources on Wahhabis and write them up as if the sources said Salafis. It is a point of view that Wahhabis are Salafis. Even if the point of view is correct, that Wahhabis are allegedly Salafis, does not mean that Salafis are Wahhabis. After all bats are mammals, but not all mammals are bats.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: It is possible to provide at least one proper source for the statement that some Sunnis have tried to claim that Wahhabis are not Sunnis (Wahhabi Islam by Natana J Delong-Bas). However it is difficult to see its relevance to an article on the Salafi movement. It belongs on the article on Wahhabis, and would need to provide context to the claim.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

To claim that it is fring to refer to "Salafis as not Sunnis" is incorrect. This is due to the fact that during the Ottoman conflict with the Salafis (or Wahhabis) the Ottomans clearly referred to them as Khawarij (outsiders), which are a distinct group different from Sunnis and Shias. Barelvi leaders (a movement of 200+ Million Sunnis in South Asia) have also said the same or similar things. These sources are clear.

user:Toddy1, you are incorrect in your accusations against me. I did not add the following statement: "Under Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab it says "Salafists consider Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab as the first figure in the modern era to push for a return to the religious practices of the salaf as-salih." It cites "The Principles of Salafiyyah". Salafipublications.com. Retrieved 2010-04-18.. It does not support the statement." - This statement was there before I edited it.

For your first quotation, you are not stating the full passage. The full passage states: "If we treat Salafism as synonymous with Wahhabism, then the actual modern day Salafi or Wahhabi movement was started by a man named Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab who disagreed with a variety of beliefs and practices common throughout the Muslim world, such as veneration of Muslim saints (Awliya Allah), celebration of the birth of Muhammad (Mawlid), belief in intercessors, and prayer to God at the tombs of holy Muslim figures (i.e. Prophets, Saints, etc.)"

This is justified if we treat Wahhabism and Salafism as synonymous. The source refers to it as Wahhabism, however there seems to be two definitions of Salafism, as indicated in the lede. See the following passage (which was not added by me): "The Salafi movement is often described as being synonymous with Wahhabism, but Salafists consider the term "Wahhabi" derogatory.[12] At other times, Salafism has been described as a hybrid of Wahhabism and other post-1960s movements"

My sources are clear and they justify the materials in the article. Xtremedood (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

user:Toddy1, Also, the source published by the As-Sunnah Foundation of America is endorsed by Zubair Qamar. This is clear in the link provided by you. "This is a revised/modified article I wrote about eight years ago that was published by the Sunnah Foundation of America. I hope it proves useful and stimulates intellectual debate. Further revisions are being made." Clearly the one published by the As Sunnah Foundation is better as it is a major organization, verses one on his personal website. Xtremedood (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: thanks for the contribution and yes, Salafism is a sub-branch of Sunnism, just like Sufism is; both movements often have people coming onto Wikipedia to attempt to claim the other is deviant/heretical/non-Sunni in order to poke at each other. There are other fringe views expressed there and the lead is definitely not designed for that.

@Toddy1: conflating Salafism and Wahhabism is a major issue people unfamiliar with both sects/movements/whatever. Additionally, Xtremedood's edits not only conflate this issue and rely on fringe views but also target the lead, yet the lead is supposed to be the last part of an article that's changed, after the body has been adjusted properly. I also advocate returning to the consensus version before Xtremedood began editing but then giving him the chance, line by line, to propose changes here on the talk page just as was done with the Barelvi article around two and a half years ago or so. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, for anybody wondering about the edits of Special:Contributions/216.177.129.105: it's an IP stalker whose been randomly reverting all my edits for a few months. It's a minor annoyance but I've requested semi-protection of the page. Until that takes effect, it's best to wait before anybody edits again as this kid kind of doesn't have a life. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Changes by MezzoMezzo

The changes on August 10th,2015 by user:MezzoMezzo, reflect clear bias and are a hindrance to an impartial understanding of the topic at hand. He has removed a variety of legitimate sourced materials and is referring to the official website of As-Sunnah Foundation of America as a hate site in an attempt to seemingly diver the issue. His reference of figures like Nuh Keller and Faraz Rabbani (which are not at all referenced) seem to indicate he has a biased agenda. I would urge other users to keep watch of this user. Clearly, Sunnah.org is not a hate site and Hisham Kabbani, a leader of the As-Sunnah Foundation of America has been declared by the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre as one of the 500 most influential Muslims. Clearly this is not fringe in any sense of the matter. To say this is fringe is to say that the Ottoman Empire, the Barelvi Movement (200+ million strong), and many Sunni groups all over the world are fringe.

I am very much concerned at his recent changes. He states for example:

"Some Sunni leaders rival to the movement" - Labeling those who have a differing intellectual perspective as a "rival" without any proper evidences or sources displays clear bias which violates WP:NPOV.

In the subsequent paragraph, he reverted the phrase from "Muslim Saint (Wali or Awliya Allah)" back to "Shrine veneration", when the source clearly states Awliya.

"Due to the nature of salafism, a large aspect involves active reformation of Islamic communities. With this comes challenging the status quo and traditions (considered heretical by salafis) which may be deeply embedded in society. A primary issue is the matter of Shrine veneration, a central theme in many sects of Islam including sufi and shia sects, which is considered as a route to polytheism and shirk by Salafis.[4][better source needed] Hence, they receive much criticism in from, including accusations of being Khawarij following the destruction of several tombs[5] in the Islamic world[6] and only following the teachings of Ibn Abdul Wahhab."

In this paragraph the user also has removed reference to Ottoman and Barelvi perspectives and their disagreement that Muslim saint veneration constitutes polytheism or shirk. He has also removed legitimate academic sources which indicate that the Sunni Caliph of the Ottomans (which had the largest Islamic institutions in the world during the 19th and 18th centuries) and the 200+ Million Sunnis of the Barelvi Movement opposes Salafism/Wahhabism and their interpretation of what constitutes shirk or polytheism. Xtremedood (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As of now I have changed it to this edit, [1] which is clearly much more fair and neutral. Xtremedood (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Very clever, Xtremedood. Well meaning as I can tell you think you're righting some great wrong here on the page, but the not-so-subtle attempt at power play is evident. Open a separate section when there was already one above...making the section title specifically about someone else's edits (as you did with Toddy) as if they're some sort of rogue editor...it's well done, but if your argument is well thought out then it shouldn't be necessary. Here's what we're going to do.

You're editing against a previously held consensus which had stood at this article for a while. You don't have to agree with it, but that's a fact. Now, consensus can change, but the onus is on you to prove that; it's not your right to edit the article, slander other users and then expect others to explain after the fact why it's wrong; please read the Wikipedia:Consensus policy. So, first bottom line: I'm reverting your edits and returning the article to the consensus version, and will continue doing so until you join the discussion like a mature adult and follow site policies.

Next thing: the materials you're adding have been rejected by multiple editors; not just myself in this case, and not even just during this specific case we have now. Let's not even worry about the talk page archives here and elsehwere yet, though; just look above. I'm not the only one opposed to you adding the fringe views of Kabbani and Sunnah.org into the lead of the article. The body? There's a discussion so feel free to suggest proposed changes here on talk. But, I'm very sorry, those aren't going in the lead. Oh, Kabbani is one of the 500 most influential Muslims? So is the top cleric of Saudi Arabia. Should we use sources from him in an article about Sufism? Didn't think so.

Next next thing: I never said the Ottomans or Barelvis are fringe. I never specifically targeted their views in the body of the article either; I simply removed your additions to the lead which were based on hate sites promoting fringe views. Again, nice try at a subtle coloring of my intentions, but that doesn't fool people over the age of twelve.

The word rival: I'm guessing you're not a native speaker of English, right? Rival means opponent. Are Sufis opposed to Salafism? Yes they are. Therefore they're rivals. But if you have a valid synonym acceptable in English, than go ahead and suggest it here.

Also - and this is important: you're being disingenuous in your regusal to acknowledge the fact that Wahhabism and Salafism are NOT the same. Reliable sources in both articles prove this. So, sorry, all your talk about the Ottoman war against Saudis or whatever is completely irrelevant. Reliable sources trump your rant here and above denying this simple truth.

In short: I'm reverting back to consensus. The burden of proof is on YOU to show why consensus can change. If you try to revert again, I'll report you for edit warring (if others don't beat me to it). Please take time to sit back, don't reply to this immediately, and get to know how the site works before coming in guns blazing without sufficient background in the long standing history of this mess of an article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Xtremedood: I just realized that you've only been editing for six months...and you're asking the community to keep an eye on the edits of another user? Seriously? Have you even checked the history of this article and its talk page? By the way, you were recently blocked for edit warring on other Islam-related articles and you've just been reported for edit warring again. Please take care, cool off and learn site policies. It isn't too late to turn things around. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Sunni Islam and rather to be a modern version of Khajirism...", "A primary issue is the matter of Muslim Saint..." "Conflicts between the Sunnis of the Ottoman Empire and the Salafi or Wahhabi followers of Ibn Abdul Wahhab have resulted in the.." ?? This is clearly not even supported by the provided sources and pretty non-mainstream. Most conflicting part was "These leaders also maintain that Salafis do not adhere to the fundamental tenets of Islam, do not emulate the..." Please avoid such soapboxing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.4.180 (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted to the version of 04:38, 23 July 2015, and have made one change to that version so as to ensure that it is consistent with what the source really says.

If people want to re-add disputed text, please can they show how the sources back the content. Maybe the problem is that they are using second-hand citations. (A second-hand citation is a citation borrowed from another article, or from an internet notice-board. Typically, editors using second-hand citations honestly believe that the citations back up their text, and do not see the need to actually check.)-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I have added the words "condensed and edited by ASFA staff" to the citation to the article "by Zubair Qamar". As mentioned above, the version of the article being cited has been changed by ASFA staff, and it is unfair to Zubair Qamar to represent it as solely his work.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

user:MezzoMezzo, The sources I use are sound and are not hate sites. Stick to the issues at hand, rather than delve into irrelevant matters. Statements like these "So is the top cleric of Saudi Arabia. Should we use sources from him in an article about Sufism? Didn't think so." and many others are a hindrance to effective discourse on the matter. Your ad-hominem attacks are also not helpful.

Before we should continue on this issue, it is important to first clarify what Salafism is. According to the article itself "The Salafi movement is often described as being synonymous with Wahhabism, but Salafists consider the term "Wahhabi" derogatory. At other times, Salafism has been described as a hybrid of Wahhabism and other post-1960s movements."

Based upon this definition, it is clear that there are two main definitions of Salafism. The first being that it is the same as Wahhabism, in this case any source which uses the term "Wahhabi" should therefore be seen as synonymous with "Salafi." The other definition given in this passage refers to it as a hybridization "of Wahhabism and other post-1960s movements".

From either of these definitions, it is clear that the origins of Salafism lies in Wahhabism. Wahhabism is therefore inseparable from Salafism, even if we take the second definition. The edit of the article by user:Tobby1 adds to this when he states "Modern Salafists consider the 18th Century scholar Muhammed bin 'Abd al-Wahhab and many of his students to have been Salafis.". Ibn Abdul Wahhab is no doubt the founder of the movement of Wahhabism (and as I have stated earlier, many consider it to be synonymous with Salafism).

With this in mind, it is therefore important to provide a well-rounded perspective of the Salafis or Wahhabis, based not only upon their interpretation of Islamic texts, but of other perspectives. The inclusion of the Ottoman perspective that the followers of Ibn Abdul Wahhab constitute Kharijis therefore should remain. Hisham Kabbani has written a book on Salafism, and I do not see any hate speech or fringe views stated by him, at least in what is being referenced in this article. He simply reiterates what the Ottomans and Barelvis have said about Salafis or Wahhabis. As we can see in this edit [2], the sources are sound, do not constitute hate, and give a more well rounded perspective of Salafism than what you are proposing. Xtremedood (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Wahhabis claim to follow the ways of the early Muslims (the Muslims of the Salaf), and hence call themselves Salafis.
2. Salafis also claim to follow the ways of early Muslims. Salafis claim that various figures from history as following their way - this includes Mohammad's companions, various figures from the Middle Ages, and the 18th Century (including ibn Abd al-Wahhab). Just because Salafis claim this, does not make it true.
3. Some people believe that Wahhabis are a type of Salafi. Maybe they are right. But even people who believe this, do not normally believe that the words are synonymous. Many Salafis are certainly not Wahhabis (even though they admire to some extent the writings of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab).

-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding sources - some of your sources are not relevant to the content you provided them as content for.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1: thanks for the save. The article isn't perfect, but multiple editors have worked hard to get it to where it is - the disruptions by this new person aren't helpful.

@Xtremedood: I'm sad to see that you're just trying to go on the offensive; it seems to be your tactic at other articles and it hasn't worked out well for you so far. Let's review.

1. I made a point that just as the Mufti of Saudi Arabia isn't a fair source on Sufism, Sufi figures (and ones considered extreme even by most Sufis, in fact, such as Kabbani) are also not fair sources on Salafism. You claimed it's irrelevant without explaining why, and therefore your comments will partially be ignored due to your refusal to engage.
2. You accused me of ad hominem attacks without providing proof.
3. You claim Kabbani is a reliable source and yet he has no proven qualifications, his leadership even inside his own tariqa is disputed, he makes blanket accusations of 80% of American mosques being extreme with no proof and was rejected by all major, mainstream Islamic organizations in the United States.
4. You claim that Sunnah.org isn't a hate site and yet any and all material it carries on sects other than Sufism declares them to be misguided, deviated and not true Sunnis - a textbook definition of subjective fanaticism. Additionally, their writers such as G.F. Haddad, Faraz Rabbani, Nuh Keller and Hisham Kabbani himself have no academic qualifications to be writing and the site has no proper editorial board to oversee what's published on the site. It's just a group of laymen who decided to make a website, pure and simple - it's neither objective nor scholarly.
5. You quote one line to show that some people claim Wahhabism and Salafism are the same and literally ignore entire paragraphs on this article and the one on Wahhabism that open with statements like "Wahhabism is a more strict, Saudi form of Salafism,[85][86]." Salafism and Wahhabism are two different things, period, and from here on out you will be reverted and ignored if you attempt to conflate the two again. Merge discussions were already held by other users promoting Sufi sources as objective ones on Salafism just like you are and their proposals were soundly rejected by the community. You're beating a dead horse.

Despite your stunning lack of evidence, you're continuing to post overly long comments as if it will make a difference. You've clearly not taken any of my advice, not reviewed the policy I suggested you review or any other policies for that matter and you're just trying to be argumentative in hope that you can win in some sort of battleground. News flash: Wikipedia is not a battleground! As I said before, take some time to go cool off. Your attempts to change the consensus version of the article have been thwarted and you won't get anything you want until you're willing to cooperate with other editors. You've tried edit warring on other articles and got blocked for it before; that should tell you something about your methods. Try to discuss things like an adult, based on reliable sources. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

A lots been said, so I'll start first with Toddy1

@user:Toddy1,

1. Your first point is correct. Salafis claim that, so it is therefore important in order to maintain neutrality for other claims regarding the matter to be mentioned. For example, Jehovah Witnesses claim to follow the early generations of Christians, however Catholics and Protestants will likely oppose such a subjective classification. Similarly, members of the Tea Party movement claim to follow the early generation of Americans that fought for liberty and freedom, however Democrats will likely have a different perspective. Wikipedia is not the place to promote Salafism dogma.

2. Your last sentence points it out clearly. Just because Salafis may claim it, it does not make it true. However, your most recent edit speaks in definitive terms, referring to Salafism as "The doctrine can be summed up as taking "a fundamentalist approach to Islam, emulating the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers—al-salaf al-salih, the 'pious forefathers'...They reject religious innovation, or bida, and support the implementation of sharia (Islamic law)."

This sentence is highly problematic, as it says in definitive terms that Salafis do indeed follow a fundamentalist Islam, emulate the Prophet (SAW/Blessings of Allah be upon him and peace be upon him), and definitively follow the al-salaf as-salih.

To avoid such definitive classifications (which in reality are very subjective), and rather to bring about a more well-rounded and more neutral view, it is therefore important to include sentences like the following, which give a differing perspective: Many Sunni leaders consider Salafism to be outside of the fold of Sunni Islam and rather to be a modern version of Kharjism. These leaders also maintain that Salafis do not adhere to the fundamental tenets of Islam, do not emulate the Prophet Muhammad, and do not properly follow the al-salaf al-salih but rather obey the teachings of Ibn Abdul Wahhab.

As I have stated in my previous edit, that there are differing definitions of what or whom a Salafi is. Therefore I added TWO major definitions in the history section here [3] (you are free to add more, but I would recommend not erasing what is sourced and referenced). It addressed the definition that 'Salafism is synonymous (meaning identical) to Wahhabism' and it also deals with another definition of Salafism that was given by Trevor Stanley.

3. What is clear from all of the definitions of Salafism is that the teachings of Ibn Abdul Wahhab compose a fundamental aspect of the modern Salafi movement and should not be ignored. Statements by the largest Islamic institution of the 19th century, the Ottoman Caliphate therefore should not be taken lightly or labelled as fringe. Similar statements opposing the beliefs of Ibn Abdul Wahhab (which are sourced) by other movements, such as the Barelvi Movement of Sunni Muslims should not be neglected. This is what is necessary for a more neutral position on a complex issue.

You keep on saying that the sources are not reflective of the content, but fail to properly give any direct examples. I have even quoted most of the sources and they do indeed support the statements that I have included. You have also falsely accused me of making a change on the Ibn Abdul Wahhab section, when that was there long before I edited here.

It's already been explained to you by me, and possibly others, why your edits to the lead were problematic for multiple reasons; you don't need to discuss it with Toddy since your points were already shot down by somebody else. The same goes for your factually incorrect claim that Wahhabism and Salafism are somehow one thing.

References

And, wow...you're actually denying that you posted content not supported in the cited sources? I'm seriously stunned...I've been at this site for almost nine years, and in that time it's extremely rare to see dishonesty reaching these levels. I detest using hyperbole but I'm literally shaking my head as I'm reading all this...it's almost too ridiculous to be worth responding to. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Now time for MezzoMezzo

@user:MezzoMezzo,

I will ignore your personal attacks as responding to them will probably take up too much space.

In regard to your points:

1.A Saudi Cleric, well known and respected amongst Salafis is indeed a legitimate source for discussing varying perspectives on a complex matter, even if it is a topic related to Sufis. For example, in the Sufism article, it includes the following statement in the lede: Some Muslim opponents of Sufism also consider it outside the sphere of Islam.

Bringing stuff up like this is irrelevant and works to divert the issue. If you have any issues with Sufi related articles, feel free to discuss them there. This is an article on Salafism. If a Sufi related article states: "Sufism as a doctine can be summed up as taking "a fundamentalist approach to Islam, emulating the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers—al-salaf al-salih" You are free to include statements by Salafi leaders as to why they may disagree. It already exists. Dissenting views in this article, however, have been removed by user:Toddy1.

2. Your statements speak for themselves.

3. Do you have a source which has disproven Kabbani's claims? Do you also have a source for Kabbanis original statement. Kabbani is a major leader and you are free to disagree with him, however his perspective, the Ottoman Caliph's perspectives, the leaders of the 200+ Million Barelvi Movement of Sunnis perspectives should not be silenced.

4. Most of what you say here is irrelevant and works to divert the issue. However, you need proof as to why this source is a "hate site" when it represents a major religious organization.

5. According to all of the definitions that I have seen, the teachings of Ibn Adbul Wahhab (commonly referred to as Wahhabism), is either synonymous or composes a fundamental component of Salafi thought and practice. For example, we see in Iraq and Syria that the so called "ISIS" terrorist group is bombing and destroying tombs of Prophets (peace be upon them) and Muslim Saints (Awliya). The first person to do such acts was Ibn Abdul Wahhab, who is a major figure in Salafism and is considered the founder of Wahhabism (or Salafism according to definition that Salafism is synonymous with Wahhabism). The ideology of terrorist groups like the so called "ISIS" is Salafism, as you can see on its article page. Do you have a definition of Salafism which does not include the teachings of Ibn Abdul Wahhab in it? Xtremedood (talk) 05:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Xtremedood: once again, you've taken the route of intellectual dishonesty and petty tactics in your attempts at discussion. Nobody has attacked you personally, yet multiple witnesses here have seen you attack others personally. Do you seriously think that won't be attested to if you continue to escalate this? Instead, you should be leaving all that negativity behind and focusing on issues, not people. Now, regarding your "points":

1. I'm sorry, but to say a Salafist cleric would be a reliable source for the lead of the article. I never said it can't be used as a source at all; I made it clear that for the body, a critical personal opinion could be used after discussion, but not the lead. You're conflating it into using sources in general - which was NEVER the topic - and then go on some rant about other articles which is completely irrelevant. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt but given your tendency to edit war, treat every content dispite as a battleground and the dishonesty you've displayed here and at other talk pages I'm almost inclined to believe that you're actually trying to use a red herring, which doesn't work on grown adults.
2. Um...huh? I'm not even sure what you're responding to.
3. This is a BLATANT strawman argument. Kabbani's claims are the personal opinion of an unqualified non-scholar who sprews hatred of other sects; nobody needs to disprove anything he said because that was never part of the discussion. Additionally, the Ottomans fought a war with Wahhabis, not Salafists. As for the Barelvis, then you still have yet to explain the relevance of this to *Salafism* at all.
4. Most of what I say is...wow. Audacious considering that every single person reading this sees all the red herrings and strawmen you're throwing up in desperation instead of either backing down or pulling out of the discussion. I already explained why Sunnah.org is a hate site: it exists solely to promote a sectarian view and considers all others to be deviant/misguided. That is in addition to the fact that it's non-academic, unscholarly and has no proper editorial board.
5. Sorry, but I'm not going to entertain more of your academic dishonesty regarding the fact that Wahhabism and Salafism are different. Read this article and that article; the sources and text are literally sitting right there. And if you attempt to edit based on this bullheaded, dogmatic belief of yours again, I *will* report you immediately for edit warring in the face of reliable sources - assuming others don't beat me to it.

You've literally provided nothing, absolutely nothing, of value in your comments other than a stubborn refusal to refer to site policies and guidelines or even to simply read this article right here; many of your claims are already put to rest, and most of what you're responding to are things I didn't say. And to be honest, I think you know that you don't have a leg to stand on since you're no longer edit warring here or on the page where you were recently reported for edit warring but for some reason, you still argue baselessly. I don't know if this is some machismo thing or what, but you're achieving nothing by ranting and attempting silly debate "tactics." MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I will ignore the personal attacks and irrelevant statements to avoid diverting the topic. See this edit here [4], it includes a lot of academic sources and gives far more neutral details on the matter. If you have any issues, feel free to discuss them here, however take not of Wikipedia's civility policy. Xtremedood (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)