Talk:Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jamaa'h

When this page was originally put up, it reflected a traditionalist Sunni POV, praised the Sunni, and used the pious PBUH when referring to Muhammad. Of the two links, one is to a traditionalist-Sufi leaning site, and one is dead. I de-piefied, de-Sunnified, and removed the links. I couldn't find anything that was sufficiently non-POV or inclusive. DMOZ didn't help, since there's no category there for Sunni. Zora 07:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The term Salafi can not be found before the creation of Saudi Arabia some 50 years ago. Even the term Wahhabi is a couple of hundred years old. The term Ahlus sunnah Wal-Jamaa'h is from almost begining of Islam. How can a new and minority group claim the thousand year old term belonging to Majority? Only thru oil power!!!
 * That's ridiculous. The word "Salafi" is derived from "salaf as-salih" or "righteous predecessors".  The word is found not only in the Qur'an but throughout all of Islamic history, among many traditional Islamic thinkers.  This is based on the hadith from Muhammad, "the best generation is mine, and the one after that, and the one after that".  This refers to first three generations known as the sahaba, the tabi'een, and the taba'tabi'een - the salaf.  So yes, it does have a long history in Islam.  The dispute comes in over who is actually following the example laid down by those  generations.  As it is, this article reflects an extreme bias toward blind followers of madhahib and toward the Ashariyyah and the Maturidiyyah - in fact, this article falsely claims that those are the only two schools of aqeedah, ignoring the athariyyah entirely.  This really isn't acceptable and this article needs to reflect what is already acknowledged by other articles on this very site. MezzoMezzo 21:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Further review
Upon looking at this article, half of it was taken up by sections on taqlid and the sunnah, which are pointless as both already have their own articles here on Wikipedia. Of the three external links, one of them was commercial and the other was about the sunnah, not the term "ahl as-sunnah wa'l-jamaa'h". The first two paragraphs were blatantly biased in favor of the Sufi point of view, and left out the third traditional school of aqeedah. On top of this, there is a section on Shi'ism which I am not sure about, I am not Shia so I may not be able to pick up on any bias as well as a Shia individual would. Regardless, the necessary edits to remove the extreme bias of this article cut it down to almost nothing. I strongly support the merge of this article with the article for Sunni Islam. MezzoMezzo 21:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)