Misplaced Pages

Talk:Salafi movement: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:32, 10 August 2015 editToddy1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,622 edits Revert by Toddy1: need for care that sources about Wahhabis are represented fairly← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:49, 16 November 2024 edit undo2a0e:cb01:ca:2800:a181:49f0:752d:e804 (talk) Undid revision 1256981630 by VenusFeuerFalle (talk
(337 intermediate revisions by 70 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header }}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=no|1=
{{controversial}}
{{WikiProject Islam|class=C|importance=Top|Salaf=yes}}
{{WikiProject Saudi Arabia|class=C|importance=Top|reqphotoin}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Islam |importance=Top |Salaf=yes}}
{{WikiProject Saudi Arabia |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=top|Social movements=yes}}
}}
{{Old moves
| list =
* RM, Salafi → Salafism, '''Moved to Salafi movement''', 3 March 2013, {{section link|Talk:Salafi movement/Archive 3|Requested move}}
* RM, Salafi movement → Salafism, '''No consensus''', 19 November 2014, {{section link|Talk:Salafi movement/Archive 5|Requested move 19 November 2014}}
}} }}
{{controversial}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 5 |counter = 7
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(92d)
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Salafi movement/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Salafi movement/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Archives}}

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

==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",<ref>Documentary ''The Qur'an'' aired in the UK, </ref> between $2 and 3 billion per year since 1975 (compared to the annual Soviet propaganda budget of $1 billion/year),<ref name=deadly>Yahya Birt, an academic who is director of The City Circle, a networking body of young British Muslim professionals, quoted in | Paul Vallely 01 November 2007</ref> and "at least $87 billion" from 1987–2007.<ref name=wilson>| By Ambassador Curtin Winsor, Ph.D.</ref>
<references/>

# 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.
# says "King Abdullah's Saudi regime spends billions of pounds each year promoting Wahhabism". It does mention that "], 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 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."
# is a dead link. The title "Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism and the Spread of Sunni Theofascism" makes it clear that it was discussing Wahhabism.

] 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.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">] ]</span> 18:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

== Minor Edits ==


== Persistent undoing of edits in the Sweden section ==
The following end note,


I have better things to do with my time than creating a Misplaced Pages account and becoming an "editor". The user 1Kwords has persistently and spitefully undone a legitimate edit of the section on Sweden, hiding behind Misplaced Pages policies of one form or another. The claim "Salafists in Sweden are supported financially by Saudi Arabia and Qatar" is utterly devoid of evidence. Nothing! "It was said in a newspaper article so it must be true because a newspaper article is the source in this case" is the sum of the position evident from 1Kwords' persistent, petty undoing of edits. First of all 1Kwords claimed that "Magnus Ranstorp said it" - NOT TRUE. Next, 1Kwords attempted to protest that Magnus Ranstorp is an "expert" (irrelevant). If anyone anywhere in the world wants to make the claim that Saudi Arabia or Qatar financially supports any Salafis anywhere, let them bring one of two things: either a verified document proving the transfer of money, or a person who would swear in court on oath 'yes we received money from so-and-so'. Failing that, "a newspaper said it" is a pathetic, untenable position. This whole farce serves to underline Misplaced Pages's junk status, and that Wiki editors are pretentious pedants who hide behind absurd policies and use said policies to pursue an Islam-hating agenda.
^ Jump up to: a b Wahhabism, Salafismm and Islamism Who Is The Enemy? By Pfr. Ahmad Mousali | Ameriacan University of Beirut | Page-11


An article by some crazy "NewageIslam" website states: "Saudi Arabia has funded the construction of some mosques in Sweden . There had also been rising number of Salafists in the country." Yet again, the claim of "financial support" is made and....there is no evidence for it. None, nothing, nil.
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 --<font color="000066">]</font> 06:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


== Revert discussion ==
== should the terrorist attack in france be added ==


Since the edit summary is not for discussion, here the summary in case someone has an urge to discuss this:
according to news the terrorist was a part of the movement. should that b] (]) 12:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)e mentioned in the article.
<blockquote>religious blogpages do not fall under the category of ] and an explanation of the Salafs is ] except you want to suggest that there is a relation between Salafs and Salafis, but this directly contradicts the Misplaced Pages guidlines and the ]</blockquote> ] (]) 13:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


== "Salafi Muslims oppose bid'a (religious innovation) and support the implementation of sharia (Islamic law)." ==
== No mention of aqeedah as being a reason of differing views ==


I'm confused about this statement. Islam as a whole is opposed to religious innovation; this is not unique to the Salafi movement. Neither is the implementation of shari'ah. This sentence gives no useful information whatsoever. ] (]) 13:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
In 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. Misplaced Pages's lack to mention that is sad. See Yasir Qadhi's view. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Article Short Summary ==
==Revert by Toddy1==


@] Greetings,
I have added the following statements:
maybe it is better to discuss this here, as the limitations on the edit summary can easily lead to misunderstandings.


First of all, I want to let you know that I respect your great improvements and edits on the article.
"Some Sunni leaders, however, consider Salafism to be outside of the fold of Sunni Islam and rather to be a modern version of Kharjism"


I do not insist on ading 'ultra' as a descriptor for 'conservative' in the short descriptions. However, if objected, I want to ensure it is rejected for good reasons. I see you point two points:
This is justified by the sources indicated.<ref>{{cite|url=http://www.sunnah.org/articles/Wahhabiarticleedit.htm|title= WAHHABISM: UNDERSTANDING THE ROOTS AND ROLE MODELS OF ISLAMIC EXTREMISM |author=Zubair Qamar|}}</ref><ref>{{cite|url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=cgmrBAAAQBAJ&|page=18|title=The Salafi Movement Unveiled|author=Hisham Kabbani|publisher=Osmora Incorporated|year=2014|}}</ref>
1) the term has a negative connotation 2) the term doesn't apply to all forms of the Salafi Movement.


I am inclined to reject the first reason as valid, because authors cannot consider misitnerpretations of terminology by laymen. 'Ultra conservate' are not to be understood as "transgressing" the conservative values, but rather sticking to a more conservative interpretations than other conservative parties. This seems to apply to at least some Salafi Movements.
The first source<ref>{{cite|url=http://www.sunnah.org/articles/Wahhabiarticleedit.htm|title= WAHHABISM: UNDERSTANDING THE ROOTS AND ROLE MODELS OF ISLAMIC EXTREMISM |author=Zubair Qamar|}}</ref> 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<ref>{{cite|url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=cgmrBAAAQBAJ&|page=18|title=The Salafi Movement Unveiled|author=Hisham Kabbani|publisher=Osmora Incorporated|year=2014|}}</ref> it states the following:


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


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


with best regards ] (]) 20:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
According to this source<ref>{{cite|url=http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.com/wahabization-salafization-of-muslims/|publisher=Islamic Supreme Council of Canada|title=Wahabization-Salafization of Pakistan and Muslim Ummah|}}</ref> it states the following: ''The self-proclaimed righteous clergyman of Arabia followed the foot steps of Khawarij and revived the Khawarijism.''


:I didnt notice this comment at first, but I shall soon give a response. ] (]) 23:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
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. ] (]) 10:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
:1) "Ultra" certainly is a ] with negative connotations. These are some of the dictionary entries on the term "ultra":
: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. ] (]) 10:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
:- :
:{{talkquote|"a person who has extreme political or religious opinions"}}
:- :
:{{talkquote|"a person who holds extreme views.."}}
:- :
:{{talkquote|"extremist"}}
:2) As such, it is ] at all to sweepingly describe Salafism (or any mainstream Islamic school of thought) with such ] in the ] or ].
:Look at '']'''s : {{talkquote|"Salafi movement, broad set of Islamic movements that strive to emulate the practices of ''al-salaf al-ṣāliḥ'' (“the pious predecessors”).."}}
:Nowhere does it simplistically describe it as "ultra-conservative", or other ].
:3) Furthermore, it is not accurate to think that Salafism is a homogenously literalist or ultra-conservative school. There are several movements within Salafism, with each movement having diverse strands.
:* ISBN: 9780190942441, Publisher: ], "Salafism in the Maghreb: Politics, Piety, and Militancy", :
:{{talkquote|"'''Salafism is a diverse and dynamic current within Islam''' that promotes itself as the purest, most authentic form of Islam, marked by an emulation of the prophet Muhammad’s contemporary companions, their followers, and the next two generations. Despite its pretentions to literalism and universalism, '''Salafism as a lived reality often incorporates local social contexts and customs'''."}}
:You claimed that Hanbalis are a "conservative movement" and Salafis should be described as "ultra" to be distinguished from such movements. Firstly, ] is not a movement; it is one of the four main schools of Sunni jurisprudence. Secondly, distinguishing in ] is only for similarly named page titles across different topics. It does not require a distinguishing between two differently named page titles in the same topic. Thirdly, Salafis may adopt more lenient positions than Hanbali school. For example, Hanbalis and many Shafi'is (and Hanafis in some situations) view that wearing niqab is obligatory for Muslim women. However, many Salafi scholars view that it is not obligatory for Muslim women to cover her face and hands.
:As you said earlier, there are several conservative movements (or strands within those movements) which are more hardcore than Salafis on several social issues. Founder of Barelvi movement, Ahmed Riza Khan, forbade women from reading and writing. Some Deobandi strands also forbid women from getting advanced education in sciences and mathematics. If they are not labelled "ultra", how can Salafis be then labelled "ultra"? (No Salafi scholar has banned women from pursuing scientific education.)
:Fact of the matter is that opinions of Salafi ulema on various social issues are diverse, and vary from lenient to ultra-conservative. It would be misleading to put them in varying boxes like "ultra-conservative", "hardline", "lenient", etc. That would be a category error.
:4) Regarding ], wikipedia page on this fundamentalist Jewish movement do not label it as "ultra-conservative". "Ultra-orthodox" is a ] in the English-language for the group and it is not used to describe Haredim without attribution. The page's body and lede clearly elaborates that the term is viewed as offensive by many Jews.
:Christian fundamentalist sects like ] and ] have not been labelled as "ultra-conservative" or "extremist" by wikipedia. Why then are Muslim religious movements being labelled with "ultra", "extremist", and other ]? This is more of a demonstration of a ] within wikipedia, due to which ] political agendas and ] propaganda are proliferating across this encyclopaedia.
:Furthermore, Salafism is very broad and is not analogous to Haredi or Calvanist movements. However many Anglosphere readers of the Western corporate press do not care about these nuances and are influenced by the stupid and hateful stereotypes of U.S. government war-propaganda. (which are designed to spread scaremongering amongst the Anglosphere public)
:5) For more on how ] and U.S. corporate media have deployed boogeymen narratives against various Islamic schools and movements like Salafism, I shall quote some excerpts from an academic book:
:QUOTE
:{{talkquote|"Then, through the 1980s and 1990s the word “fundamentalism” underwent a major connotative shift... journalists, politicians, and religion scholars began labeling any global religious movement that they saw as '''too political, too literalist, too opposed to Western hegemony, too outside the norms defined by liberal Christianity as “fundamentalist.”'''' ... the '''narratives that have taken hold about Islam and Salafism before and after 9/11''' – from “Judeo-Christian America” to the “Clash of Civilizations,” from “Islamic fundamentalism” to the securitization of Salafism and “Radical Islam” – '''have created neuralgic responses that lead to general ignorance of Salafism and caricatured imaginings of the threat of the Salafi strand of Islam in America.''' ... Today, Salafism – whether it calls itself that or not, and it often does not – '''is an accessible and vibrant strand of Islam in America.'''"<ref>{{Cite book |last=D. Taylor |first=Matthew |title=Scripture People |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2023 |isbn=978-1-009-35276-5 |location=Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8EA, UK | chapter= Introduction | pages= 13, 14, 21, 24 }}</ref>}}
:END QUOTE
:QUOTE
:{{talkquote|"Reading these descriptions, you are left with the firm impression that to use the terms Salafism and Evangelicalism is to speak about coherent theological and behavioral communities of religious believers marching, more or less, in lock step in accordance with their interpretation of their sacred texts. On the other hand, just to dip your toes into the discussions among Salafis and among Evangelicals, even in a fairly delimited cultural space like America, is to discover a raging ferment of dispute and disagreement and '''manifest heterogeneity'''. Salafis who are ostensibly reading and citing the same texts and '''professedly using the same methods and interpretive assumptions reach radically different conclusions'''."<ref>{{Cite book |last=D. Taylor |first=Matthew |title=Scripture People |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2023 |isbn=978-1-009-35276-5 |location=Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8EA, UK | pages= 222 }}</ref>}}
:END QUOTE
:QUOTE
:{{talkquote|As Yasir Qadhi, wearing his academic hat, puts it, “What you find, actually, is very, very diverse, contradictory, and competing claims of truth within the movement, to the extent that, at times, what separates these strands within Salafism is more significant than what unites them.”<ref>{{Cite book |last=D. Taylor |first=Matthew |title=Scripture People |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2023 |isbn=978-1-009-35276-5 |location=Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8EA, UK | pages= 222 }}</ref>}}
:END QUOTE
:QUOTE
:{{talkquote|"Attempts to comprehensively taxonomize all of the different sub-groupings of Salafis and Evangelicals result in a '''sort of reductio ad absurdum'''... Think of all of the different flavors of Salafism we have seen in the preceding chapters: the paramosque devotional education of AlMaghrib; the African American Salafism that can have a polemical Madkhali mood or not; ... All of these people are ostensibly in the Salafi discourse, interpreting and applying the Qurʾan and Hadith and living within the bounds of American culture, '''but their inhabitations and interpretations of Salafism vary staggeringly.'''<ref>{{Cite book |last=D. Taylor |first=Matthew |title=Scripture People |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2023 |isbn=978-1-009-35276-5 |location=Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8EA, UK | pages= 223 }}</ref>}}
:END QUOTE
:QUOTE
:{{talkquote|"The vast, vast majority that has been written about Salafism in the USA since 9/11 comes from this Security Studies genre of threat assessment, counterterrorism strategy, political analysis... Additionally, there is an ever-growing body of excellent scholarship on global Salafism, and even Salafism in Europe ... has begun to receive more careful, ethnographic, and nuanced academic analysis. Yet, in the USA, Security Studies remains the dominant paradigm for understanding and analyzing Salafism. ...<br> There are two core deficiencies in this Security Studies mode of analysis that, instead of just offering solid analysis and interpretation, '''transmuted it into another stereotyped American narrative about Islam and Salafism.''' .... In short, the securitization of studies of Salafism in the USA has contributed directly to the securitization of Salafism itself, '''framing the entire movement''' around questions of violence, terrorism, political ideology, and foreignness to '''Western sensibilities, instead of asking the questions about Salafi identity that Salafis themselves ask.'''"<ref>{{Cite book |last=D. Taylor |first=Matthew |title=Scripture People |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2023 |isbn=978-1-009-35276-5 |location=Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8EA, UK | chapter= Introduction | pages= 19-21 }}</ref>}}
:END QUOTE ] (]) 05:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)


== This article is a joke ==
::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 Misplaced Pages 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 ] or whoever and making massive changes to the lead, one of the most important parts of the article, without any discussion. ] (]) 04:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


The "salafi movement" was patently NOT formed "in the late 19th century" and any attempt to claim otherwise is futile because it is simply not true.
:::Agreed. The sources look doubtful but in any event ] applies: it is entirely fringe to say that Salafis/Wahhabis are considered to be ''not'' Sunnis. ] (]) 09:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
:::: The source cited as "" 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.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">] ]</span> 10:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


And no I am not going to bother cleaning up all this crap unless I get paid for it. It doesn't matter how many times you undo this - people who have the intelligence to look further will know that you wasters just lie, lie, lie.
::::The revert that Xtremedood is complaining about is .
::::*Under '''history''' it says that "The actual modern day Salafi movement was started by a man named ] 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 (]), belief in intercessors, and prayer to God at the tombs of holy Muslim figures (i.e. Prophets, Saints, etc.)" and cites {{cite|url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=Oj3WBQAAQBAJ&|page=163|title=Saudi Arabia in Transition|publisher=Cambridge University Press|}} 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 {{cite web |url=http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=SLF02&articleID=SLF020001&articlePages=1 |title=The Principles of Salafiyyah |publisher=Salafipublications.com |date= |accessdate=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.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">] ]</span> 10:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


This is another example of how Misplaced Pages is utter trash when it comes to religion, history, and politics. Don't give them your money! ] (]) 22:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::The 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 ] are ], but not all mammals are bats.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">] ]</span> 10:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:49, 16 November 2024

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

Discussions:

Persistent undoing of edits in the Sweden section

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

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

Revert discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Article Short Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"a person who has extreme political or religious opinions"

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

"a person who holds extreme views.."

- Merriam Webster dictionary entry on "ultra":

"extremist"

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

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

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

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

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

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

END QUOTE
QUOTE

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

END QUOTE
QUOTE

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

END QUOTE
QUOTE

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

END QUOTE
QUOTE

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

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

This article is a joke

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

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

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

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