This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The result of the move request was: No consensus after 58 days, no messages in last 25 days. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 09:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Salafi movement →
Salafism – The name for this page must be Salafism from Arabic Salafiyya. That's an exact translation from Arabic. The article itself mentions the name Salafism several times. --Relisted.
Dekimasu
よ! 07:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC) –
Islamic11111 (
talk) 06:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
As I understand, "salaf" and "salafi" are almost the same names in Arabic or they mean the same thing. Salaf is ancestor and Salafi is ancestrial, it's a noun and adjective. As such "Salafi" is used sometimes instead of "Salaf" as may be the case in the Oxford dictionary. There is already a page "Salaf", and it means "Salafi" as well. I think Salafism is a proper name to mean a Salafi religious affiliation. Islamic11111 ( talk) 07:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
If someone reads from Arabic version of this page then it is named their Salafiyya, meaning Salafism. It's the name of orthodox Islamic school that teaches Islam as it sees it. The Arabs or the whole Arab Islamic world name it Salafiyya or Salafism and to name it otherwise is a distortion. Arabs don't name it a movement, they name it their as Salafiyya and explain it as an established "Manhaj Islamiyy" and go on to talk about it's Islamic teachings to mean it's a Sunni school. Salafism is not a movement like Muslim Brotherhood which is something like a political organisation. To name this page a "Salafi movement" means to misunderstand what those Arabs mean by Salafiyya. In my opinion, the preference should be given to the Arabic understanding of the term, which is Salafism in English. Islamic11111 ( talk) 10:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The name "Salafi movement" is not totally wrong, it could be somewhere in the article under some title like "The spread of Salafism". Salafism can be described as an Islamic movement. Islamic11111 ( talk) 11:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I am saying that the Arabic version of this page has a correct name "Salafiyya" that would be Salafism in English. The Arabic wiki names Salafism a "Madhhab" or a certain Sunni school. So for all the Arabs the name Salafiyya or Salafism is the initial name to name the teachings of Salafis. The name Salafi movement is secondary, it's about describing Salafism. It's wrong to assume that I was saying that in the Arab world no one names Salafism as Salafi movement. There are other names that end in "ism" that mean some sort of religious school and in Arabic they have the ending "iyya", and they use the word "movement" only in describing their "ism". The name "Salafi movement" is some sort of distortion of the initial Arabic name "Salafiyya" or "Salafism". In other languages on wiki the name that is used is the translation of English "Salafism". The name of the article has to be Salafism. Islamic11111 ( talk) 08:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
What I mean is that Salafism is in my opinion the obvious initial name corresponding to the Arabic Salafiyya. I understood that the Arabs do use initially the name Salafiyya.
Islamic11111 (
talk) 09:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Propose
Salafist movement
-ist is a more appropriate word ending as per: Islamist, Arabist, Ba'athist, Buddhist, cabalist etc.
See also:
wikt:-ist#English.
GregKaye ✍♪ 07:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
From the article: " The migration of Muslim Brotherhood members from Egypt to Saudi Arabia and Saudi King Faisal's "embrace of Salafi pan-Islamism resulted in cross-pollination between Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab's teachings on tawhid, shirk and bid‘ah and Salafi interpretations of the sayings of Muhammad"
Its clear that what M-Brotherhood brought with them was salafism (The salafi movement of md.abduh) [1] [2] [3] and the salafism of this time is the cross-pollination of diffrent movements.Its not a singal movement rather it can be defined as a trend as a methodology or a school [4] [5]
So, its better to rename the page as salafism .Plus we may add "known as salafi movement in west Ejaz92 ( talk) 05:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Google advanced search - language = English, separate searches for country = United Kingdom (GB) and country = United States (US). Similar results not included. All searches have been gone through to the last page of results.
Google advanced book search - language = English, books only
The above search results show that "Salafi" and "Salafism" are about equally common in current English.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Here in article we need to distinguish the two different movements ,
(1). Salafi movement of Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida (also called Islamic Modernism that was the brought to Saudi Arabia) and
(2). The Salafism (or Salafi Movement) of Native Saudi Arabaia which is manifested in Wahhabi Movement and The hybridation of wahhabism and other thoughts since 1960s. As, according to Stéphane Lacroix, a fellow and lecturer at Sciences Po in Paris , also affirmed a distinction between the two: "As opposed to Wahhabism, Salafism refers here to all the hybridations that have taken place since the 1960s between the teachings of Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab and other Islamic schools of thought. Al- Albani’s discourse can therefore be a form of Salafism, while being critical of Wahhabism." [5]
(3)But the topic disscussed in this page should be salafi movement as below:
According to American scholar Christopher M. Blanchard, [66] Wahhabism refers to "a conservative Islamic creed centered in and emanating from Saudi Arabia," while Salafiyya is "a more general puritanical Islamic movement that has developed independently at various times and in various places in the Islamic world." [30] Others call Wahhabism a more strict, Saudi form of Salafi.[67][68] Wahhabism is the Saudi version of Salafism, according to Mark Durie, who states Saudi leaders "are active and diligent" using their considerable financial resources "in funding and promoting Salafism all around the world." [69] Ahmad Moussalli tends to agree Wahhabism is a subset of Salafism, saying "As a rule, all Wahhabis are salafists, but not all salafists are Wahhabis". [47]
See Wahhabis and Salafis section in Wahhabism for references.
Ejaz92 ( talk) 05:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, you are right but we should think about it.We should distinguish the salafism of modernists(i.e., Islamic modernism) and mainstream Salafism that should actually be discussed here.Kindly refer to my above comment for the proofs.
Ejaz92 ( talk) 03:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Many people dont understand this and become confused so much that they start deleting the sources provided for Salafism, which originally speakes of wahhabism, thinking that the sources supports wahhabism not salafism
While Wahhabism is a synonyms of Salafism (The term is mostly used for the Saudi form of salafism).
Even those who distinguished Wahhabism from salafism called it a type of salafism.Even they did not say that wahhabism is not salafism.They meant that the Wahhabism, that was the old conservative movement in Saudi Arabia, was different from modern Salafism, influenced by the 19th Century Islamic modernists' movement, Qutbism etc.
Ejaz92 ( talk) 06:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem is there is no such thing as 'Wahhabi' and never has been Ibn wahhab was a Salafi, and salafism is just pure orthodox islam :) 87.244.94.46 ( talk) 02:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
There is a paragraph that currently reads as follows:
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)
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)
according to news the terrorist was a part of the movement. should that b 84.213.45.196 ( talk) 12:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)e mentioned in the article.
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)
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. [1] [2]
The first source [3] 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 [4] 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 [5] 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
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help) I checked page 163 of the book and it does not support the statement.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)
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)
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. [1] At other times, Salafism has been described as a hybrid of Wahhabism and other post-1960s movements. [2]"
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. [3]". 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 [10], 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)
@ 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. [1] [2] [3] [4] 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. [5] [6]
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 [11] (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.
References
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)CS1 maint: others (
link)
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The result of the move request was: No consensus after 58 days, no messages in last 25 days. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 09:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Salafi movement →
Salafism – The name for this page must be Salafism from Arabic Salafiyya. That's an exact translation from Arabic. The article itself mentions the name Salafism several times. --Relisted.
Dekimasu
よ! 07:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC) –
Islamic11111 (
talk) 06:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
As I understand, "salaf" and "salafi" are almost the same names in Arabic or they mean the same thing. Salaf is ancestor and Salafi is ancestrial, it's a noun and adjective. As such "Salafi" is used sometimes instead of "Salaf" as may be the case in the Oxford dictionary. There is already a page "Salaf", and it means "Salafi" as well. I think Salafism is a proper name to mean a Salafi religious affiliation. Islamic11111 ( talk) 07:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
If someone reads from Arabic version of this page then it is named their Salafiyya, meaning Salafism. It's the name of orthodox Islamic school that teaches Islam as it sees it. The Arabs or the whole Arab Islamic world name it Salafiyya or Salafism and to name it otherwise is a distortion. Arabs don't name it a movement, they name it their as Salafiyya and explain it as an established "Manhaj Islamiyy" and go on to talk about it's Islamic teachings to mean it's a Sunni school. Salafism is not a movement like Muslim Brotherhood which is something like a political organisation. To name this page a "Salafi movement" means to misunderstand what those Arabs mean by Salafiyya. In my opinion, the preference should be given to the Arabic understanding of the term, which is Salafism in English. Islamic11111 ( talk) 10:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The name "Salafi movement" is not totally wrong, it could be somewhere in the article under some title like "The spread of Salafism". Salafism can be described as an Islamic movement. Islamic11111 ( talk) 11:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I am saying that the Arabic version of this page has a correct name "Salafiyya" that would be Salafism in English. The Arabic wiki names Salafism a "Madhhab" or a certain Sunni school. So for all the Arabs the name Salafiyya or Salafism is the initial name to name the teachings of Salafis. The name Salafi movement is secondary, it's about describing Salafism. It's wrong to assume that I was saying that in the Arab world no one names Salafism as Salafi movement. There are other names that end in "ism" that mean some sort of religious school and in Arabic they have the ending "iyya", and they use the word "movement" only in describing their "ism". The name "Salafi movement" is some sort of distortion of the initial Arabic name "Salafiyya" or "Salafism". In other languages on wiki the name that is used is the translation of English "Salafism". The name of the article has to be Salafism. Islamic11111 ( talk) 08:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
What I mean is that Salafism is in my opinion the obvious initial name corresponding to the Arabic Salafiyya. I understood that the Arabs do use initially the name Salafiyya.
Islamic11111 (
talk) 09:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Propose
Salafist movement
-ist is a more appropriate word ending as per: Islamist, Arabist, Ba'athist, Buddhist, cabalist etc.
See also:
wikt:-ist#English.
GregKaye ✍♪ 07:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
From the article: " The migration of Muslim Brotherhood members from Egypt to Saudi Arabia and Saudi King Faisal's "embrace of Salafi pan-Islamism resulted in cross-pollination between Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab's teachings on tawhid, shirk and bid‘ah and Salafi interpretations of the sayings of Muhammad"
Its clear that what M-Brotherhood brought with them was salafism (The salafi movement of md.abduh) [1] [2] [3] and the salafism of this time is the cross-pollination of diffrent movements.Its not a singal movement rather it can be defined as a trend as a methodology or a school [4] [5]
So, its better to rename the page as salafism .Plus we may add "known as salafi movement in west Ejaz92 ( talk) 05:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Google advanced search - language = English, separate searches for country = United Kingdom (GB) and country = United States (US). Similar results not included. All searches have been gone through to the last page of results.
Google advanced book search - language = English, books only
The above search results show that "Salafi" and "Salafism" are about equally common in current English.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Here in article we need to distinguish the two different movements ,
(1). Salafi movement of Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida (also called Islamic Modernism that was the brought to Saudi Arabia) and
(2). The Salafism (or Salafi Movement) of Native Saudi Arabaia which is manifested in Wahhabi Movement and The hybridation of wahhabism and other thoughts since 1960s. As, according to Stéphane Lacroix, a fellow and lecturer at Sciences Po in Paris , also affirmed a distinction between the two: "As opposed to Wahhabism, Salafism refers here to all the hybridations that have taken place since the 1960s between the teachings of Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab and other Islamic schools of thought. Al- Albani’s discourse can therefore be a form of Salafism, while being critical of Wahhabism." [5]
(3)But the topic disscussed in this page should be salafi movement as below:
According to American scholar Christopher M. Blanchard, [66] Wahhabism refers to "a conservative Islamic creed centered in and emanating from Saudi Arabia," while Salafiyya is "a more general puritanical Islamic movement that has developed independently at various times and in various places in the Islamic world." [30] Others call Wahhabism a more strict, Saudi form of Salafi.[67][68] Wahhabism is the Saudi version of Salafism, according to Mark Durie, who states Saudi leaders "are active and diligent" using their considerable financial resources "in funding and promoting Salafism all around the world." [69] Ahmad Moussalli tends to agree Wahhabism is a subset of Salafism, saying "As a rule, all Wahhabis are salafists, but not all salafists are Wahhabis". [47]
See Wahhabis and Salafis section in Wahhabism for references.
Ejaz92 ( talk) 05:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, you are right but we should think about it.We should distinguish the salafism of modernists(i.e., Islamic modernism) and mainstream Salafism that should actually be discussed here.Kindly refer to my above comment for the proofs.
Ejaz92 ( talk) 03:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Many people dont understand this and become confused so much that they start deleting the sources provided for Salafism, which originally speakes of wahhabism, thinking that the sources supports wahhabism not salafism
While Wahhabism is a synonyms of Salafism (The term is mostly used for the Saudi form of salafism).
Even those who distinguished Wahhabism from salafism called it a type of salafism.Even they did not say that wahhabism is not salafism.They meant that the Wahhabism, that was the old conservative movement in Saudi Arabia, was different from modern Salafism, influenced by the 19th Century Islamic modernists' movement, Qutbism etc.
Ejaz92 ( talk) 06:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem is there is no such thing as 'Wahhabi' and never has been Ibn wahhab was a Salafi, and salafism is just pure orthodox islam :) 87.244.94.46 ( talk) 02:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
There is a paragraph that currently reads as follows:
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)
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)
according to news the terrorist was a part of the movement. should that b 84.213.45.196 ( talk) 12:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)e mentioned in the article.
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)
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. [1] [2]
The first source [3] 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 [4] 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 [5] 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
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help) I checked page 163 of the book and it does not support the statement.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)
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)
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. [1] At other times, Salafism has been described as a hybrid of Wahhabism and other post-1960s movements. [2]"
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. [3]". 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 [10], 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)
@ 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. [1] [2] [3] [4] 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. [5] [6]
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 [11] (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.
References
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)CS1 maint: others (
link)
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
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)