Talk:Al-Ahbash/Archive 10

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2017
Also, the groups name is AICP, no where do they call themselves Ahbash, AICP.org.

Citation #3 Cambridge university source doesnt say "claims" it use to say "The organization runs Islamic schools affiliated with Cairo's Al-Azhar University".

Citation #4 is not related to whats being cited and biased as it is funded by Saudi Arabia which funds groups AICP warns against "Egypt arrests 22 men for corrupting Islam"- Reuters, 13 December 2007.

Citation #5 is unreliable. It is said that "AICP Claims", rather it is the source McKhan posted which claims AICP is affiliated with AlAzhar, they did not make this claim, no where has AICP claimed this.

Citation #6 is not neutral nor academic. The Sheikh was visited by the highest Islamic Organization in Indonesia, so this fringe group spreading bias is not a valid source. "Exposing Abd Allah al-Harari and his sect the Ahbash of Lebanon ("Association of Islamic Charitable Projects")" (PDF). Markaz al-Nasr li Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaah, Jakarta, Indonesia. pp. 23, 24. Retrieved July 17, 2016. AbeEll (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of independent and verifiable sources and references provided herewith in the Al-Ahbash article as well as on the Internet which proves that Al-Ahbash are in fact behind the Association of Islamic Charitable Projects (AICP).


 * The AICP uses the name of Al-Azhar and Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah to buy the legitimacy and clout. The sentence "The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools being affiliated with Al-Azhar,[3] a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar.[4][5][6]The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools being affiliated with Al-Azhar,[3] a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar.[4][5][6]" makes it very clear what the AICP claims and what the Al-Azhar denies. AbeEll needs to read the talk page thoroughly where the AICP claims that their material is endorsed by the Al-Azhar. There has been a long discussion.
 * And last but not the least, what Markaz al-Nasr or its clergy visiting Abdullah al-Harari's has to do anything with this article other than promoting the Markaz al-Nasr and its clergy on Wikipedia.
 * Thus, the above request for edits should not be entertained without due discussion. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) 1 You have not provided any evidence for your claim "The AICP uses the name of Al-Azhar and Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah to buy the legitimacy and clout."
 * 2) 2 No WHERE have you proven that AICP claims this, rather YOUR own source says that AICP is affiliated, not they claim, do not spread misinformation, you seem obsessed with this. ""The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools being affiliated with Al-Azhar,[3] a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar.[4][5][6]The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools being affiliated with Al-Azhar,[3] a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar.[4][5][6]" makes it very clear what the AICP claims and what the Al-Azhar denies."


 * 1) 3 "And last but not the least, what Markaz al-Nasr or its clergy visiting Abdullah al-Harari's has to do anything with this article other than promoting the Markaz al-Nasr and its clergy on Wikipedia." Has alot to do with Abdullah Al-Harari as it shows that he is supported by Scholars of Ahlu-Sunnah, clearly you naming the group by its leader only shows YOU have your own personal issue with said group.

So far you have proven that you are obsessed with these people and that you are a bias person with some personal vendetta. No where have you addressed the fact that your sources are not reliable. This act of bias and personal opposition should not be entertained. AbeEll (talk) 06:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Clearly consensus needs to be obtained on this before the request is processed. --  Dane  talk  20:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Here we go again...every few years, the same claims defending the Ahbash come up, never with anything new to add. Azhar's disavowing of the Ahbash is pretty clear in the sources provided...I'm not sure if the argument here hinges upon third editors simply not actually reading the citations, but it's a rather poor strategy.
 * I'm really not sure what else to say. This has already been said so many times that we almost need a stock response, or a Wikipedia essay, every time people come along and try to insert the Ahbash's claim that they're somehow affiliated with Azhar. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Lets focus on one thing at a time here. You keep claiming that AICP makes things up but the darulfatwa link CLEARLY shows AlAzhar at their Mawlid celebrations, had they claimed AICP is a false misguided sect, they would not entertain with their presence or acknowledgement of AICP's actions. Also you claim Darulfatwa is hated by many yet you can see thousands of people in their Mawlid celebration (from the exact same link). You disregard AICP Affiliated websites and their proofs that are authentic in image/video while your own sources are sunnah.org and an image hosting website with "proof" from AlAzhar claiming they are against AICP while it can be made by an imposter. You keep accusing me of being a member of AICP while If i look at your profile you've been obsessed with these 2 wiki posts for many years as if you are paid to do it so should I call you a paid agent of wahhabis? So you tell me who is right and who is wrong, you claim AICP makes up its own websites to fool people? Fine, this is an Egyptian Website that says " It is a charitable organisation that runs schools in conjunction with Egypt’s venerable Al-Azhar University, one of the largest Sunni Muslim institutions in the world. Indeed, many African students at Al-Azhar have been introduced to Egyptian Sufi orders.". Seems more believable than the blogs you post that lack much professionalism.

1. Your AlAzhar "Proof" has NO BACKING by AlAzhar, if you want to prove me wrong you are welcome but you just keep pasting it as if it'll become a reality

2. Your "Verifiable Letter" from Indonesia is literally a PDF with hearsay and no signatures and again not through official channels meaning it could have been falsified.

3. Also its strange you post AlArabiya as your source considering it is bias and funded by the Saudi government who reportedly fund Wahhabism world Wide.

I thought you said we were going for a nonBias approach here?

I also see you've added 2 new references, one of which is literally another biased and unverifiable page [AmjaOnline]. And the [Grozny] one is strange considering I have read the Grozny statement and it is officially here, it makes absolutely NO MENTION of Ahbash. Are you checking your sources or just copy and pasting, please read the rules on the matter. Thank youAbeEll (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not religious, Wikipedia is not censored and Wikipedia is not a battleground. Thus, quit dropping these terms "Saudi Government", "Wahabism", "Mwalid", "Terrorism" etc. I also would like to invite you to go through Wikipedia guidelines such as Assume good faith, neutral point of view policy, disruptive editing, spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Having said that please feel welcome to read my detailed response here. I hope it helps. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * AbeEll was one of many sockpuppets of Shawwal. As such, I suggest ignoring the account's suggestions: none of the various socks have ever provided stimulating or helpful discussion on any of the articles the puppetmaster set his/her sights on. All that ever happens is a delay in productive work between the time when they start tendentiously editing in bad faith and the time when they inevitably get blocked. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

It is 2017 and we need new references for wikipedia if we are going to be an updated source of information. The azhar-ahbash relationship is active. http://www.amust.com.au/2015/12/multicultural-mawlid-concert-2015-bigger-and-better/ Samsparky (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Samsparky (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC) Samsparky (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Samsparky, With reference to the following refences
 * Liz Fuller (September 14, 2016). "Analysis: Grozny Fatwa On 'True Believers' Triggers Major Controversy". Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty/RFE/RL, Inc. Retrieved March 27, 2017. (Excerpt: "Conference participants, who included Ahmed El- Tayeb, rector of Cairo's Al-Azhar Islamic University, adopted a fatwa stipulating that the sole true adherents of traditional Islam are those who abide by Kalam scholastic theology, belong to one of the four madhhabs (legal schools)......It identifies the Salafi strain of Sunni Islam professed in Saudi Arabia as a "dangerous and erroneous contemporary sect," along with the extremist group Islamic State, Hizb ut-Tahrir, and the Habashis.")


 * "Egypt arrests 22 men for corrupting Islam"- Reuters, 13 December 2007. ("The source said they belong to the al-Ahbash sect – which has a significant following in Lebanon and strong historical ties to Syria – and which is considered unorthodox by many Islamic clerics including the ones at Al-Azhar.")
 * If Al-Azhar and Al-Ahbash have any sort of "relationship" then:
 * Why would a rector of Al-Azhar (in September 2016) support a Fatwa which goes against the Habashis?
 * Why would Al-Azhar let Egyptian authorities arrest the Al-Ahbash men if they had "affiliation" with the Al-Ahbash and they agreed to the preachings of Al-Ahbash?
 * Why would Egypt's mufti Ali Gomaa (also from Al-Azhar) issue a Fatwa against the Al-Ahbash in which he "described the group as "deviant" and said it sought to "corrupt the Muslim creed and incite sedition amongst the Muslim Ummah. Moreover, they are paid agents to the enemies of Islam."?


 * Please, see below for further information regarding Dar-ul-Fatwa (an AICP / Al-Ahbash / ICPA outlet in Australia). Thank you. McKhan (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The news report of arrest is from 2003 and the grozney fatwa doesn't mention anything about ahbash. It only says it identifies them and others. As what? We don't know? Samsparky (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please, see here: -> "''.......along with the extremist group Islamic State, Hizb ut-Tahrir, and the Habashis ." Thank you. McKhan (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It identifies them as what? In the sentence before it said it accepts sufis and here you call us sufis... Samsparky (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is the complete paragraph: "Conference participants, who included Ahmed El- Tayeb, rector of Cairo's Al-Azhar Islamic University, adopted a fatwa stipulating that the sole true adherents of traditional Islam are those who abide by Kalam scholastic theology, belong to one of the four madhhabs (legal schools), and follow the path of moral self-perfection espoused by the great teachers, primarily the Sufi sheikhs. It identifies the Salafi strain of Sunni Islam professed in Saudi Arabia as a "dangerous and erroneous contemporary sect," along with the extremist group Islamic State, Hizb ut-Tahrir, and the Habashis". Thank you. McKhan (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It says extremist group not groups Samsparky (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

And you still didn't answer me about what reference you regard as acceptable for this : It is 2017 and we need new references for wikipedia if we are going to be an updated source of information. The azhar-ahbash relationship is active. Do you want a letter from the sponsored ahbash students studying in al azhar? Samsparky (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please, stop beating around the bush. In order to substantiate that "azhar-ahbash relationship is active," I am afraid "a letter from the sponsored ahbash students studying in al azhar" is not good enough nor reliable as any student can get scholarship in his/her/their own / personal capacity from any institution as long as he/she/they is/are eligible.


 * Given that you keep on dropping year 2017 (see below, in September 2016), you still haven't answered my questions that if Al-Azhar and Al-Ahbash's "relationship" with the Al-Ahbash is active then:


 * Why would a rector of Al-Azhar (in September 2016) support a Fatwa which goes against the Habashis?
 * Why would Al-Azhar let Egyptian authorities arrest the Al-Ahbash men if they had "affiliation" with the Al-Ahbash and they agreed to the preachings of Al-Ahbash?
 * Why would Egypt's mufti Ali Gomaa (also from Al-Azhar) issue a Fatwa against the Al-Ahbash in which he "described the group as "deviant" and said it sought to "corrupt the Muslim creed and incite sedition amongst the Muslim Ummah. Moreover, they are paid agents to the enemies of Islam."?


 * Thank you. McKhan (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

All what you mentioned is from the media article by al arabia from 2003. And the Gozney reference which doesn't say anything about al ahbash because it says extremist group about the group mentioned before it and not groups. So what will change your opinion on the azhar ahbash relationship so i can get it? Or are you unwilling to change it no matter what? Samsparky (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "All what you mentioned is from the media article by al arabia from 2003."


 * The Reuters / Al-Arabiya (Published: Thursday, 13 December 2007) is still a valid and verifiable source regardless of the year.


 * "And the Gozney reference which doesn't say anything about al ahbash because it says extremist group about the group mentioned before it and not groups."


 * I am afraid either you don't know how to put two and two together or you are simply playing semantics. What is not so clear about the following paragraph? " Conference participants, who included Ahmed El-Tayeb , rector of Cairo's Al-Azhar Islamic University , adopted a fatwa stipulating that the sole true adherents of traditional Islam are those who abide by Kalam scholastic theology, belong to one of the four madhhabs (legal schools), and follow the path of moral self-perfection espoused by the great teachers, primarily the Sufi sheikhs. It identifies the Salafi strain of Sunni Islam professed in Saudi Arabia as a "dangerous and erroneous contemporary sect," along with the extremist group Islamic State , Hizb ut-Tahrir , and the Habashis ".


 * "So what will change your opinion on the azhar ahbash relationship so i can get it? Or are you unwilling to change it no matter what?"


 * No verifiable source has been provided thus far which will substantiate that there is any sort of affiliation between Al-Azhar and Al-Ahbash although there are verifiable sources which proves to the contrary or otherwise. Like I said before that the common sense and logic dictates that if one entity has got any sort of relationship with the other entity then the former entity will not issue any negative statement (i.e. Fatwas, kick out one's adherents out of their compound / campus .etc) against the latter entity hence the questions which you haven't been able to answer so far. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I did answer you. Maybe your first language is not English. Not trying to be rude but i said it 3 times. Anyways All of us know how the media is. Your references are not from the primary source they are from the secondary source which is the media reporting on it. Like what i posted darulfatwa reporting on azhar ahbash links. So now I'm asking if you want any update to the ahbash azhar relationship and in what way would you accept it? Samsparky (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Samsparky (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not the sole contributor to this article. You have not answered my questions. Your "primary" source (reporting of an event sponsored by Dar-ul-fatwa and 2MFM Radio - both belong to the Al-Ahbash / ICPA / AICP) - is not a reliable source. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

My sources are secondary at the moment as i stated. So give me an example of proof you would accept so i can bring it Samsparky (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

One of the audience suggested the following link. Source for Azhar connection: University of Montpellier https://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcerri.revues.org%2F331&prev=search Samsparky (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Samsparky (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You must have seen the response too. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

No I didn't see a response Samsparky (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Give you an example of what proof is needed so you can bring it? Wow...I don't think I've seen an example of bad faith editing as that. The fact that you've made up your mind and are simply hellbent on pushing a POV (which is refuted by the mainstream media) only makes it more clear who you are and why you're here. Seriously, I don't know why you're doing this, but it isn't going to work just like it's never worked before. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

My question was to test whether or not you would change if a true reference was brought or whether you will expose yourself as being a biased editor. Mainstream media that is in opposition to your mainstrean media: Source for Azhar connection: University of Montpellier https://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcerri.revues.org%2F331&prev=search & Egypts own News website http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/News/6806.aspx If we can't get one clear opinion from the media then why are we picking and choosing? Samsparky (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That would have been really nice had you have a look into the footnote [66] in the above article and seen where it is referring to.


 * Let me help you out. Following is the exact wording of that footnote:


 * [66] Publication of the undated APIB center Askandari Sheikh al-Islami. Also given information on the site: www.alsunna.org/azhar2.htm.
 * And I am sure you know very well that www.alsunna.org belongs to the Al-Ahbash / AICP / ICPA / APIB / Habashies .etc thereby not an independent source. Thus, by using the information provided by the Al-Ahbash's own outlet and people proves noting in order to substantiate that Al-Ahbash has any sort of relationship with Al-Azhar. Ahram's article says the same thing what the above article is saying but without any reference. Should you like then please feel welcome to read this discussion with AbeEII for more information. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

You have been using media articles that make statements without references so why are you being so strict on my articles? And just because one footnote in the references is alsunna.org it doesn't mean that Dominique Avon Professor of Contemporary History at the University of Maine, deputy director of LHAMANS (lab attached to CERHIO) is a habashi. You come across as a biased person. Samsparky (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's stay on the topic and assume good faith.


 * So far, your edits (as well as AbeEII's edits soon after KevinAbdulqader) have demonstrated that your very collective goal and agenda was, has been, is and will be to modify the Al-Ahbash and Abdullah_al-Harari articles on Wikipedia with the POVs and material of Al-Ahbash / AICP / ICPA / APIB (or whatever name the Al-Ahbash are using) regardless of Wikipedia guidelines such as Wikipedia is not religious, disruptive editing,Assume good faith, neutral point of view policy, spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion and Wikipedia is not a battleground.


 * You started from Al-Ahbash and AbeEll started with Abdullah_al-Harari and following the similar path and even using the same links (i.e. Dar-ul-Fatwa, AMUST, AHRAM and Doninique Avon) both of you started concentrating on the Al-Azhar-Al-Ahbash "relationship" which is a very contentious, disputed and controversial topic.


 * (You haven't used this source/link so far albeit used by AbeEll because it states: " Islamic Scholars in Somalia’s northern eastern state of Puntland have condemned Shiite books allegedly loaded from Iran which tries to gain foothold in the Horn of African nation, Garowe Online reports......Books spotted in Somalia’s Puntland were largely authored by controversial cleric, Abdullahi Mohamed Yusuf (Al Harari), Sunni scholars said. " You didn't use it because I know it doesn't fit your collective goal and agenda as it undermines Abdullah_al-Harari.)


 * You picked up exactly where AbeEII left from and started using the very same POVs and links/sources.


 * Having said that it seems to me that you did not read my response to AbeEll very carefully. Let me try again.


 * Here is the complete paragraph from the above article: "In 1993, representatives of the APBI visited Cairo to present their publications to the authorities of al-Azhar University. Six years later, on 17 November 1999, an official document handed out during a ceremony in the Lebanese capital recognized the APBI as a "legal Islamic society" and a "fortress of knowledge", assuring that "its scientific and Religious "was sealed, sealing a" cultural collaboration "agreement to promote" Islamic knowledge, culture and ethics "or" authentic Islamic heritage "against" infectious propaganda "reaching Islam [66] the "exaggerations" and "extremism" of the other. Al-Azhar was represented by Dr Ahmad Hashem 'Omar, Director General of Cultural and Scientific Affairs of the institution, accompanied by Dr Mohammad Saleh. They were received by APBI authorities: Sheikh Hussam Qaraqira, Adnan Traboulsi, vice-president of the association, and Sheikh Osama al-Sayed-Sayed, head of the APBI branch in the Beka'a . The choir closed the ceremony at the Commodore Hotel and the participants met with Sheikh Hirari to pay tribute and exchange views on the Islamic mission in the world."


 * [66] Publication of the undated APIB center Askandari Sheikh al-Islami. Also given information on the site: www.alsunna.org/azhar2.htm.


 * As I stated earlier that www.alsunna.org belongs to Al-Ahbash thereby not an independent source.


 * This is not the first article which is using throughout Al-Ahbash sources (i.e. web-sites, press statements, Al-Ahbash's magazine, material) but there are other too. Mustafa Kabha and Haggai Erlich throughout in their article, Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam are using AICP / Al-Ahbash / ICPA / The Habashis' sources. They refer to Al-Ahbash's own monthly magazine, Manar Al-Huda 93 (December 2000): 36-42 and their other sources and web-sites. ). Nevertheless, it is quoted in the Al-Ahbash article to represent what the Al-Ahbash / AICP / ICPA / The Habashis claim in lieu of Al-Azhar.


 * But the fact remains that there are no sources out there which will corroborate with what Al-Ahbash claims regarding their "affiliation" with Al-Azhar without referring to Al-Ahbash's own web-sites, Manar-ul-Huda, Dar-ul-Fatwa etc which are not independently verifiable as the Al-Ahbash can post whatever they want to post and publish on their web-sites magazines and outlets .etc hence the need for presenting sources which counter that very claim as per Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

How on earth do you think you will be able to talk about al ahbash beliefs if you don't reference from what they themselves said. Yes I am here to edit al ahbash article because I find mistakes in it just like i would be requesting to edit any health topic if i find a mistake. To me Religion is my number one interest that is why i read al ahbash not gardening or health. If you as a writer want to be unbiased you should be ready to correctyour article if it has a mistake. I have already put forward my case that your references conflict with mine despite them not being made by ahbash. They refer to ahbash just like some of your ones do and even wikipedia does because they are talking about what ahbash believe. Since the same thing has been happening over and over namely you are not willing to take into consideration references we bring you then i think we should get an unbiased judge from wikipedia to examine the case. Samsparky (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not the sole editor of this article or any of the Al-Ahbash related articles on Wikipedia. I would like to remind you that Wikpedia adheres to neutral point of view policy and Wikipedia is not religious, Wikipedia is not censored and Wikipedia is not a battleground. Thus, quit insinuating and accusing others for the bias when you are here with an agenda to push the Al-Ahbash's POVs. It will be prudent for you to go through Wikipedia guidelines such as Assume good faith, neutral point of view policy, disruptive editing, spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I really can't remember a better example of WP:NOTHERE than this fiasco we saw here in this section from AbeEll and, less than two weeks after AbeEll was blocked as a sockpuppet, Samsparky. I'm literally shaking my head as I'm looking at the computer screen here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you should read those articles about bias to be honest. You keep insinuating things about me and I am being patient. From what I understand you are unwilling to change the article no matter what and that sounds a lot like bias. Samsparky (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Any impartial editor who knows the article and your movement will be unwilling to listen, because for literally years you and all the other sock/meatpuppets who've attacked this article haven't been bright enough to come up with different angles or points to make. Even when you bring a new sock account mere days after getting one blocked, I've never seen you/you guys adjust your sales pitch in the slightest. So, yes, I know I personally am not willing to listen because all you ever do is waste time on the article, get blocked for sockpuppetry, and then wait a while before trying the same thing all over again. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that this argument would be repeated over and over if you were truly refuting it rather than ignoring it. If you are rejecting my references for mentioning the references of ahbash then remove your ones because they also reference ahbash. Will we see action? We are all still waiting Samsparky (talk) 07:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but your level of maturity has decreased proportionally to your desperation across however long you've been trying to push this same POV. I won't bother responding any further, I will revert any more edits you attempt to make, and further combative POV pushing will result in this being escalated to proper channels for disruptive behavior. You can try this all you want, but as has happened many times before, your refusal to edit honestly and in good faith will simply result in your eventual blocking one way or another. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Can any unbiased person scrutinize this case? Samsparky (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2017
I was looking at the language regarding the relationship between al-Ahbash and Syria on the page. While as far as I can tell it seems correct, the information is kind of dated --given the Syrian Civil War and withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon. Politics in Lebanon have changed. I found the following in a source from the Carnegie Middle East Center: "While the Ahbash still owe their original growth to the Syrians, politically, they are in an undeclared alliance with Mustaqbal, perhaps for reasons of current political expediency." This line seems to be a more accurate reflection of the current state of the relationship or lack there of between al-Ahbash and the political actors in Lebanon.

'''Please add the line "While the Ahbash still owe their original growth to the Syrians, politically, they are in an undeclared alliance with Mustaqbal, perhaps for reasons of current political expediency" after the line "At the end of the 1990s there were close to 250,000 Ahbash members worldwide, according to a high-ranking Ahbash activist." ''' Maybe we can add it, or it and some more language form the source, after the bit about Syria or as a partial replacement? Any thoughts MezzoMezzo or McKhan or whoever? ZaynfromNY (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh and here is the link to the source: https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/157969/CMEC_6_abdellatif_lebanon_final.pdf     I am terrible at citations, haha.
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 17:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2017
Also, the groups name is AICP, no where do they call themselves Ahbash, AICP.org.

Citation #3 Cambridge university source doesnt say "claims" it use to say "The organization runs Islamic schools affiliated with Cairo's Al-Azhar University".

Citation #4 is not related to whats being cited and biased as it is funded by Saudi Arabia which funds groups AICP warns against "Egypt arrests 22 men for corrupting Islam"- Reuters, 13 December 2007.

Citation #5 is unreliable. It is said that "AICP Claims", rather it is the source McKhan posted which claims AICP is affiliated with AlAzhar, they did not make this claim, no where has AICP claimed this.

Citation #6 is not neutral nor academic. The Sheikh was visited by the highest Islamic Organization in Indonesia, so this fringe group spreading bias is not a valid source. "Exposing Abd Allah al-Harari and his sect the Ahbash of Lebanon ("Association of Islamic Charitable Projects")" (PDF). Markaz al-Nasr li Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaah, Jakarta, Indonesia. pp. 23, 24. Retrieved July 17, 2016. AbeEll (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of independent and verifiable sources and references provided herewith in the Al-Ahbash article as well as on the Internet which proves that Al-Ahbash are in fact behind the Association of Islamic Charitable Projects (AICP).


 * The AICP uses the name of Al-Azhar and Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah to buy the legitimacy and clout. The sentence "The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools being affiliated with Al-Azhar,[3] a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar.[4][5][6]The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools being affiliated with Al-Azhar,[3] a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar.[4][5][6]" makes it very clear what the AICP claims and what the Al-Azhar denies. AbeEll needs to read the talk page thoroughly where the AICP claims that their material is endorsed by the Al-Azhar. There has been a long discussion.
 * And last but not the least, what Markaz al-Nasr or its clergy visiting Abdullah al-Harari's has to do anything with this article other than promoting the Markaz al-Nasr and its clergy on Wikipedia.
 * Thus, the above request for edits should not be entertained without due discussion. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) 1 You have not provided any evidence for your claim "The AICP uses the name of Al-Azhar and Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah to buy the legitimacy and clout."
 * 2) 2 No WHERE have you proven that AICP claims this, rather YOUR own source says that AICP is affiliated, not they claim, do not spread misinformation, you seem obsessed with this. ""The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools being affiliated with Al-Azhar,[3] a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar.[4][5][6]The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools being affiliated with Al-Azhar,[3] a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar.[4][5][6]" makes it very clear what the AICP claims and what the Al-Azhar denies."


 * 1) 3 "And last but not the least, what Markaz al-Nasr or its clergy visiting Abdullah al-Harari's has to do anything with this article other than promoting the Markaz al-Nasr and its clergy on Wikipedia." Has alot to do with Abdullah Al-Harari as it shows that he is supported by Scholars of Ahlu-Sunnah, clearly you naming the group by its leader only shows YOU have your own personal issue with said group.

So far you have proven that you are obsessed with these people and that you are a bias person with some personal vendetta. No where have you addressed the fact that your sources are not reliable. This act of bias and personal opposition should not be entertained. AbeEll (talk) 06:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Clearly consensus needs to be obtained on this before the request is processed. --  Dane  talk  20:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Here we go again...every few years, the same claims defending the Ahbash come up, never with anything new to add. Azhar's disavowing of the Ahbash is pretty clear in the sources provided...I'm not sure if the argument here hinges upon third editors simply not actually reading the citations, but it's a rather poor strategy.
 * I'm really not sure what else to say. This has already been said so many times that we almost need a stock response, or a Wikipedia essay, every time people come along and try to insert the Ahbash's claim that they're somehow affiliated with Azhar. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Lets focus on one thing at a time here. You keep claiming that AICP makes things up but the darulfatwa link CLEARLY shows AlAzhar at their Mawlid celebrations, had they claimed AICP is a false misguided sect, they would not entertain with their presence or acknowledgement of AICP's actions. Also you claim Darulfatwa is hated by many yet you can see thousands of people in their Mawlid celebration (from the exact same link). You disregard AICP Affiliated websites and their proofs that are authentic in image/video while your own sources are sunnah.org and an image hosting website with "proof" from AlAzhar claiming they are against AICP while it can be made by an imposter. You keep accusing me of being a member of AICP while If i look at your profile you've been obsessed with these 2 wiki posts for many years as if you are paid to do it so should I call you a paid agent of wahhabis? So you tell me who is right and who is wrong, you claim AICP makes up its own websites to fool people? Fine, this is an Egyptian Website that says " It is a charitable organisation that runs schools in conjunction with Egypt’s venerable Al-Azhar University, one of the largest Sunni Muslim institutions in the world. Indeed, many African students at Al-Azhar have been introduced to Egyptian Sufi orders.". Seems more believable than the blogs you post that lack much professionalism.

1. Your AlAzhar "Proof" has NO BACKING by AlAzhar, if you want to prove me wrong you are welcome but you just keep pasting it as if it'll become a reality

2. Your "Verifiable Letter" from Indonesia is literally a PDF with hearsay and no signatures and again not through official channels meaning it could have been falsified.

3. Also its strange you post AlArabiya as your source considering it is bias and funded by the Saudi government who reportedly fund Wahhabism world Wide.

I thought you said we were going for a nonBias approach here?

I also see you've added 2 new references, one of which is literally another biased and unverifiable page [AmjaOnline]. And the [Grozny] one is strange considering I have read the Grozny statement and it is officially here, it makes absolutely NO MENTION of Ahbash. Are you checking your sources or just copy and pasting, please read the rules on the matter. Thank youAbeEll (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not religious, Wikipedia is not censored and Wikipedia is not a battleground. Thus, quit dropping these terms "Saudi Government", "Wahabism", "Mwalid", "Terrorism" etc. I also would like to invite you to go through Wikipedia guidelines such as Assume good faith, neutral point of view policy, disruptive editing, spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Having said that please feel welcome to read my detailed response here. I hope it helps. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * AbeEll was one of many sockpuppets of Shawwal. As such, I suggest ignoring the account's suggestions: none of the various socks have ever provided stimulating or helpful discussion on any of the articles the puppetmaster set his/her sights on. All that ever happens is a delay in productive work between the time when they start tendentiously editing in bad faith and the time when they inevitably get blocked. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

It is 2017 and we need new references for wikipedia if we are going to be an updated source of information. The azhar-ahbash relationship is active. http://www.amust.com.au/2015/12/multicultural-mawlid-concert-2015-bigger-and-better/ Samsparky (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Samsparky (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC) Samsparky (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Samsparky, With reference to the following refences
 * Liz Fuller (September 14, 2016). "Analysis: Grozny Fatwa On 'True Believers' Triggers Major Controversy". Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty/RFE/RL, Inc. Retrieved March 27, 2017. (Excerpt: "Conference participants, who included Ahmed El- Tayeb, rector of Cairo's Al-Azhar Islamic University, adopted a fatwa stipulating that the sole true adherents of traditional Islam are those who abide by Kalam scholastic theology, belong to one of the four madhhabs (legal schools)......It identifies the Salafi strain of Sunni Islam professed in Saudi Arabia as a "dangerous and erroneous contemporary sect," along with the extremist group Islamic State, Hizb ut-Tahrir, and the Habashis.")


 * "Egypt arrests 22 men for corrupting Islam"- Reuters, 13 December 2007. ("The source said they belong to the al-Ahbash sect – which has a significant following in Lebanon and strong historical ties to Syria – and which is considered unorthodox by many Islamic clerics including the ones at Al-Azhar.")
 * If Al-Azhar and Al-Ahbash have any sort of "relationship" then:
 * Why would a rector of Al-Azhar (in September 2016) support a Fatwa which goes against the Habashis?
 * Why would Al-Azhar let Egyptian authorities arrest the Al-Ahbash men if they had "affiliation" with the Al-Ahbash and they agreed to the preachings of Al-Ahbash?
 * Why would Egypt's mufti Ali Gomaa (also from Al-Azhar) issue a Fatwa against the Al-Ahbash in which he "described the group as "deviant" and said it sought to "corrupt the Muslim creed and incite sedition amongst the Muslim Ummah. Moreover, they are paid agents to the enemies of Islam."?


 * Please, see below for further information regarding Dar-ul-Fatwa (an AICP / Al-Ahbash / ICPA outlet in Australia). Thank you. McKhan (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The news report of arrest is from 2003 and the grozney fatwa doesn't mention anything about ahbash. It only says it identifies them and others. As what? We don't know? Samsparky (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please, see here: -> "''.......along with the extremist group Islamic State, Hizb ut-Tahrir, and the Habashis ." Thank you. McKhan (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It identifies them as what? In the sentence before it said it accepts sufis and here you call us sufis... Samsparky (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is the complete paragraph: "Conference participants, who included Ahmed El- Tayeb, rector of Cairo's Al-Azhar Islamic University, adopted a fatwa stipulating that the sole true adherents of traditional Islam are those who abide by Kalam scholastic theology, belong to one of the four madhhabs (legal schools), and follow the path of moral self-perfection espoused by the great teachers, primarily the Sufi sheikhs. It identifies the Salafi strain of Sunni Islam professed in Saudi Arabia as a "dangerous and erroneous contemporary sect," along with the extremist group Islamic State, Hizb ut-Tahrir, and the Habashis". Thank you. McKhan (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It says extremist group not groups Samsparky (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

And you still didn't answer me about what reference you regard as acceptable for this : It is 2017 and we need new references for wikipedia if we are going to be an updated source of information. The azhar-ahbash relationship is active. Do you want a letter from the sponsored ahbash students studying in al azhar? Samsparky (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please, stop beating around the bush. In order to substantiate that "azhar-ahbash relationship is active," I am afraid "a letter from the sponsored ahbash students studying in al azhar" is not good enough nor reliable as any student can get scholarship in his/her/their own / personal capacity from any institution as long as he/she/they is/are eligible.


 * Given that you keep on dropping year 2017 (see below, in September 2016), you still haven't answered my questions that if Al-Azhar and Al-Ahbash's "relationship" with the Al-Ahbash is active then:


 * Why would a rector of Al-Azhar (in September 2016) support a Fatwa which goes against the Habashis?
 * Why would Al-Azhar let Egyptian authorities arrest the Al-Ahbash men if they had "affiliation" with the Al-Ahbash and they agreed to the preachings of Al-Ahbash?
 * Why would Egypt's mufti Ali Gomaa (also from Al-Azhar) issue a Fatwa against the Al-Ahbash in which he "described the group as "deviant" and said it sought to "corrupt the Muslim creed and incite sedition amongst the Muslim Ummah. Moreover, they are paid agents to the enemies of Islam."?


 * Thank you. McKhan (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

All what you mentioned is from the media article by al arabia from 2003. And the Gozney reference which doesn't say anything about al ahbash because it says extremist group about the group mentioned before it and not groups. So what will change your opinion on the azhar ahbash relationship so i can get it? Or are you unwilling to change it no matter what? Samsparky (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "All what you mentioned is from the media article by al arabia from 2003."


 * The Reuters / Al-Arabiya (Published: Thursday, 13 December 2007) is still a valid and verifiable source regardless of the year.


 * "And the Gozney reference which doesn't say anything about al ahbash because it says extremist group about the group mentioned before it and not groups."


 * I am afraid either you don't know how to put two and two together or you are simply playing semantics. What is not so clear about the following paragraph? " Conference participants, who included Ahmed El-Tayeb , rector of Cairo's Al-Azhar Islamic University , adopted a fatwa stipulating that the sole true adherents of traditional Islam are those who abide by Kalam scholastic theology, belong to one of the four madhhabs (legal schools), and follow the path of moral self-perfection espoused by the great teachers, primarily the Sufi sheikhs. It identifies the Salafi strain of Sunni Islam professed in Saudi Arabia as a "dangerous and erroneous contemporary sect," along with the extremist group Islamic State , Hizb ut-Tahrir , and the Habashis ".


 * "So what will change your opinion on the azhar ahbash relationship so i can get it? Or are you unwilling to change it no matter what?"


 * No verifiable source has been provided thus far which will substantiate that there is any sort of affiliation between Al-Azhar and Al-Ahbash although there are verifiable sources which proves to the contrary or otherwise. Like I said before that the common sense and logic dictates that if one entity has got any sort of relationship with the other entity then the former entity will not issue any negative statement (i.e. Fatwas, kick out one's adherents out of their compound / campus .etc) against the latter entity hence the questions which you haven't been able to answer so far. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I did answer you. Maybe your first language is not English. Not trying to be rude but i said it 3 times. Anyways All of us know how the media is. Your references are not from the primary source they are from the secondary source which is the media reporting on it. Like what i posted darulfatwa reporting on azhar ahbash links. So now I'm asking if you want any update to the ahbash azhar relationship and in what way would you accept it? Samsparky (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Samsparky (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not the sole contributor to this article. You have not answered my questions. Your "primary" source (reporting of an event sponsored by Dar-ul-fatwa and 2MFM Radio - both belong to the Al-Ahbash / ICPA / AICP) - is not a reliable source. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

My sources are secondary at the moment as i stated. So give me an example of proof you would accept so i can bring it Samsparky (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

One of the audience suggested the following link. Source for Azhar connection: University of Montpellier https://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcerri.revues.org%2F331&prev=search Samsparky (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Samsparky (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You must have seen the response too. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

No I didn't see a response Samsparky (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Give you an example of what proof is needed so you can bring it? Wow...I don't think I've seen an example of bad faith editing as that. The fact that you've made up your mind and are simply hellbent on pushing a POV (which is refuted by the mainstream media) only makes it more clear who you are and why you're here. Seriously, I don't know why you're doing this, but it isn't going to work just like it's never worked before. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

My question was to test whether or not you would change if a true reference was brought or whether you will expose yourself as being a biased editor. Mainstream media that is in opposition to your mainstrean media: Source for Azhar connection: University of Montpellier https://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcerri.revues.org%2F331&prev=search & Egypts own News website http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/News/6806.aspx If we can't get one clear opinion from the media then why are we picking and choosing? Samsparky (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That would have been really nice had you have a look into the footnote [66] in the above article and seen where it is referring to.


 * Let me help you out. Following is the exact wording of that footnote:


 * [66] Publication of the undated APIB center Askandari Sheikh al-Islami. Also given information on the site: www.alsunna.org/azhar2.htm.
 * And I am sure you know very well that www.alsunna.org belongs to the Al-Ahbash / AICP / ICPA / APIB / Habashies .etc thereby not an independent source. Thus, by using the information provided by the Al-Ahbash's own outlet and people proves noting in order to substantiate that Al-Ahbash has any sort of relationship with Al-Azhar. Ahram's article says the same thing what the above article is saying but without any reference. Should you like then please feel welcome to read this discussion with AbeEII for more information. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

You have been using media articles that make statements without references so why are you being so strict on my articles? And just because one footnote in the references is alsunna.org it doesn't mean that Dominique Avon Professor of Contemporary History at the University of Maine, deputy director of LHAMANS (lab attached to CERHIO) is a habashi. You come across as a biased person. Samsparky (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's stay on the topic and assume good faith.


 * So far, your edits (as well as AbeEII's edits soon after KevinAbdulqader) have demonstrated that your very collective goal and agenda was, has been, is and will be to modify the Al-Ahbash and Abdullah_al-Harari articles on Wikipedia with the POVs and material of Al-Ahbash / AICP / ICPA / APIB (or whatever name the Al-Ahbash are using) regardless of Wikipedia guidelines such as Wikipedia is not religious, disruptive editing,Assume good faith, neutral point of view policy, spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion and Wikipedia is not a battleground.


 * You started from Al-Ahbash and AbeEll started with Abdullah_al-Harari and following the similar path and even using the same links (i.e. Dar-ul-Fatwa, AMUST, AHRAM and Doninique Avon) both of you started concentrating on the Al-Azhar-Al-Ahbash "relationship" which is a very contentious, disputed and controversial topic.


 * (You haven't used this source/link so far albeit used by AbeEll because it states: " Islamic Scholars in Somalia’s northern eastern state of Puntland have condemned Shiite books allegedly loaded from Iran which tries to gain foothold in the Horn of African nation, Garowe Online reports......Books spotted in Somalia’s Puntland were largely authored by controversial cleric, Abdullahi Mohamed Yusuf (Al Harari), Sunni scholars said. " You didn't use it because I know it doesn't fit your collective goal and agenda as it undermines Abdullah_al-Harari.)


 * You picked up exactly where AbeEII left from and started using the very same POVs and links/sources.


 * Having said that it seems to me that you did not read my response to AbeEll very carefully. Let me try again.


 * Here is the complete paragraph from the above article: "In 1993, representatives of the APBI visited Cairo to present their publications to the authorities of al-Azhar University. Six years later, on 17 November 1999, an official document handed out during a ceremony in the Lebanese capital recognized the APBI as a "legal Islamic society" and a "fortress of knowledge", assuring that "its scientific and Religious "was sealed, sealing a" cultural collaboration "agreement to promote" Islamic knowledge, culture and ethics "or" authentic Islamic heritage "against" infectious propaganda "reaching Islam [66] the "exaggerations" and "extremism" of the other. Al-Azhar was represented by Dr Ahmad Hashem 'Omar, Director General of Cultural and Scientific Affairs of the institution, accompanied by Dr Mohammad Saleh. They were received by APBI authorities: Sheikh Hussam Qaraqira, Adnan Traboulsi, vice-president of the association, and Sheikh Osama al-Sayed-Sayed, head of the APBI branch in the Beka'a . The choir closed the ceremony at the Commodore Hotel and the participants met with Sheikh Hirari to pay tribute and exchange views on the Islamic mission in the world."


 * [66] Publication of the undated APIB center Askandari Sheikh al-Islami. Also given information on the site: www.alsunna.org/azhar2.htm.


 * As I stated earlier that www.alsunna.org belongs to Al-Ahbash thereby not an independent source.


 * This is not the first article which is using throughout Al-Ahbash sources (i.e. web-sites, press statements, Al-Ahbash's magazine, material) but there are other too. Mustafa Kabha and Haggai Erlich throughout in their article, Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam are using AICP / Al-Ahbash / ICPA / The Habashis' sources. They refer to Al-Ahbash's own monthly magazine, Manar Al-Huda 93 (December 2000): 36-42 and their other sources and web-sites. ). Nevertheless, it is quoted in the Al-Ahbash article to represent what the Al-Ahbash / AICP / ICPA / The Habashis claim in lieu of Al-Azhar.


 * But the fact remains that there are no sources out there which will corroborate with what Al-Ahbash claims regarding their "affiliation" with Al-Azhar without referring to Al-Ahbash's own web-sites, Manar-ul-Huda, Dar-ul-Fatwa etc which are not independently verifiable as the Al-Ahbash can post whatever they want to post and publish on their web-sites magazines and outlets .etc hence the need for presenting sources which counter that very claim as per Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

How on earth do you think you will be able to talk about al ahbash beliefs if you don't reference from what they themselves said. Yes I am here to edit al ahbash article because I find mistakes in it just like i would be requesting to edit any health topic if i find a mistake. To me Religion is my number one interest that is why i read al ahbash not gardening or health. If you as a writer want to be unbiased you should be ready to correctyour article if it has a mistake. I have already put forward my case that your references conflict with mine despite them not being made by ahbash. They refer to ahbash just like some of your ones do and even wikipedia does because they are talking about what ahbash believe. Since the same thing has been happening over and over namely you are not willing to take into consideration references we bring you then i think we should get an unbiased judge from wikipedia to examine the case. Samsparky (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not the sole editor of this article or any of the Al-Ahbash related articles on Wikipedia. I would like to remind you that Wikpedia adheres to neutral point of view policy and Wikipedia is not religious, Wikipedia is not censored and Wikipedia is not a battleground. Thus, quit insinuating and accusing others for the bias when you are here with an agenda to push the Al-Ahbash's POVs. It will be prudent for you to go through Wikipedia guidelines such as Assume good faith, neutral point of view policy, disruptive editing, spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I really can't remember a better example of WP:NOTHERE than this fiasco we saw here in this section from AbeEll and, less than two weeks after AbeEll was blocked as a sockpuppet, Samsparky. I'm literally shaking my head as I'm looking at the computer screen here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you should read those articles about bias to be honest. You keep insinuating things about me and I am being patient. From what I understand you are unwilling to change the article no matter what and that sounds a lot like bias. Samsparky (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Any impartial editor who knows the article and your movement will be unwilling to listen, because for literally years you and all the other sock/meatpuppets who've attacked this article haven't been bright enough to come up with different angles or points to make. Even when you bring a new sock account mere days after getting one blocked, I've never seen you/you guys adjust your sales pitch in the slightest. So, yes, I know I personally am not willing to listen because all you ever do is waste time on the article, get blocked for sockpuppetry, and then wait a while before trying the same thing all over again. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that this argument would be repeated over and over if you were truly refuting it rather than ignoring it. If you are rejecting my references for mentioning the references of ahbash then remove your ones because they also reference ahbash. Will we see action? We are all still waiting Samsparky (talk) 07:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but your level of maturity has decreased proportionally to your desperation across however long you've been trying to push this same POV. I won't bother responding any further, I will revert any more edits you attempt to make, and further combative POV pushing will result in this being escalated to proper channels for disruptive behavior. You can try this all you want, but as has happened many times before, your refusal to edit honestly and in good faith will simply result in your eventual blocking one way or another. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Stronger references
Can you remove

"The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools being affiliated with Al-Azhar,[3] a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar.[4][5][6][7][8], with all references and replace it with

"The AICP runs Islamic schools affiliated with Al-Azhar.

Because these are more reliable citations Samsparky (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Why no talk here? Samsparky (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Same cycle all over again
As per the above TalkPage, we have already discussed both of the references in detail. There is no need to go through the whole cycle all over again. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Once again, you are indulging into single-purpose edits as well as instigating edit-warring here. We have already discussed those references on the Talk Page in detail. Please, stop vandalizing the page by pushing your POV. We are not going to go through the same cycle again. Enough is enough. McKhan (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Last time you didn't even listen and you just brushed me off. If the azhar now is affiliated with the ahbash why are you not letting me publicise it???????? Samsparky (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Do we need to wait for someone to inherit your moderator position to be able to give and take with them? Samsparky (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 1). "Publicize it" is the crux of the matter here. Wikipedia is NOT the appropriate platform nor the venue for publicizing, advertising, marketing, supporting and/or sanitizing the [Al-Ahbash] or anybody else. Given that it has already been admitted in the past that Al-Azhar is not important for the [Al-Ahbash] and by simply using it as leverage to "publicize" the [Al-Ahbash] makes even a stronger case for leaving the article alone as it is. The current sentence states clearly what the Al-Ahbash claim and vice verca. When would you understand that? 2). Nothing has changed in the last one year. 3). These are the very same references (Article in French and Al-Ahram using Al-Ahbash's own sources) which we have already discussed. You are trying the reinvent the wheel here and/or want to go through the very same cycle all over again. Enough is enough. McKhan (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC about Al-Ahbash and Al-Azhar

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are Al-Ahbash schools affiliated with Al-Azhar university? Samsparky (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * Yes  Azhar officials even visited Darulfatwa - Islamic High Council of Australia which is essentially Al-Ahbash (Australia) proof . Currently in the article a letter written by Azhar president claiming Ahbash abuses the name of Azhar looks fake.  Samsparky (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You are back and this time you want to be the judge, jury and the executioner here by repeating the same cycle all over again and using the very same references as well as tacticts.
 * Let me remind you that the points you are raising here has already been discussed. See this discussion here.
 * Are you the sockpuppet of AbeEll and/or KevinAbdulqader? I am asking this question based upon the following:
 * (Most of the single-purpose edits which you made so far are very much similar to AbeEll and/or KevinAbdulqader)
 * Samsparky https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Ahbash&diff=prev&oldid=849413371&diffmode=source [The AICP runs]
 * Samsparky https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Ahbash&diff=prev&oldid=774634418&diffmode=source [The Mawlid - "Proof"]
 * Samsparky https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Ahbash&diff=prev&oldid=849721321&diffmode=source [The AICP runs], [The Mawalid - "Proof"], [Darulfatwa], [Al-Azhar letter]
 * AbeEll https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abdullah_al-Harari&diff=prev&oldid=771605457&diffmode=source [The AICP runs]
 * AbeEll https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Ahbash&diff=prev&oldid=772265175&diffmode=source [The AICP runs]
 * AbeEll https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abdullah_al-Harari&diff=prev&oldid=772823563&diffmode=source [The Mawlid - "Proof"]
 * AbeEll https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abdullah_al-Harari&diff=prev&oldid=772823563&diffmode=source [The Mawlid - "Proof"]
 * AbeEll https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abdullah_al-Harari&diff=prev&oldid=772582306&diffmode=source [The Mawlid - "Proof"], [Darulfatwa]
 * KevinAbdulqader https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Ahbash&diff=prev&oldid=730907088&diffmode=source [The AICP runs]
 * KevinAbdulqader https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Ahbash&diff=prev&oldid=730767142&diffmode=source [The AICP runs]
 * KevinAbdulqader https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Ahbash&diff=prev&oldid=730774052&diffmode=source [Al-Azhar letter]
 * KevinAbdulqader https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Ahbash&diff=prev&oldid=730786843&diffmode=source [Al-Azhar letter]
 * KevinAbdulqader https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Ahbash&diff=prev&oldid=730775290&diffmode=source [Al-Azhar letter]
 * McKhan (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Following are the reports:
 * Intersect Contribs
 * Editor Interaction Analyser
 * McKhan (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You have used and  8 times each, and  4 times. Why was it necessary to use any of these more than once? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing the formatting (i.e. Reflist in the Talk) which I couldn't do properly as I didn't know how to do it. Regarding the Checkuser part, I didn't even realize that while I was copying and pasting. I have tried to fix it although I am not very good when it comes to formatting. Indeed, I apologize for any inconvenience in due course. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * McKhan (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You have used and  8 times each, and  4 times. Why was it necessary to use any of these more than once? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing the formatting (i.e. Reflist in the Talk) which I couldn't do properly as I didn't know how to do it. Regarding the Checkuser part, I didn't even realize that while I was copying and pasting. I have tried to fix it although I am not very good when it comes to formatting. Indeed, I apologize for any inconvenience in due course. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * No And I honestly don't think this is a discussion that even needs to happen at this point. The Ahbash have been explicitly rejected by Azhar, and this has been proven with reliable sources so many times on this talk page and elsewhere that it's hard to take the suggestions otherwise as good faith comments anymore, especially considering the source of those suggestions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Well time changes things and things have changed. Why aren't you man enough to face facts and let it be public? Samsparky (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia, along-with this Talk Page, is open to the public to contribute constructively, not for publicizing, marketing or sanitizing one's favorite group. Nothing has changed but your POV. Please, stop pushing the agenda of your POVs of publicizing, marketing and sanitizing the Al-Ahbash on Wikipedia. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * No, per the abundant citations McKhan in this version of the article: . -- Softlavender (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Al ahbash schools
None of the sources provided currently in the article discuss al ahbash schools connection with al azhar except for these. Cambridge University p.529   Egypt news agency Al-Ahram University of Warsaw p.261  Samsparky (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Lead section

 * ″The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar, a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar.″

This seems a rather odd sentence to be in the lead section, currently composed of four sentences, given that it's trivial. If a reader only read the lead section, would this be one of the four most important things to know about the Al-Ahbash? The article contains no other details on the AICP's schools or how they are run. Including this in the lead seems to place undue weight on this fact. 2601:243:903:3F5B:1D28:70B2:3ED9:B79E (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * If that sentence was so "trivial" then the Al-Ahbash wouldn't have been fighting and sock-puppeting over it for years. Given that barely after one month of the above RfC, you are showing up yet with another twist, using the rotating IPv6s and targeting the very same sentence which has been contentious and discussed over and over again doesn't seem to be good-faith editing. Let other chime in.  McKhan (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Which general secondary source discusses this portion of the Al-Ahbash so prominently? How many of them do so? 2601:243:903:3F5B:1000:4DF4:BABA:DE06 (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Why are you suddenly showing up after the above RfC with a new twist using the rotating IPv6 and targeting the very same sentence? Why do the Al-Ahbash have been fighting and sock-puppeting over it for years if that sentence is so trivial? What relationship do you have with the previous editors? Answer these questions and let, and other chime in.   McKhan  (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not have a relationship with any recent editors of this page or talk page. I have no control over how often my IP rotates. Please stick to the topic at hand and if you suspect me of having a relationship with another editor, use the appropriate processes as recourse. 2601:243:903:3F5B:1000:4DF4:BABA:DE06 (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The timing of you showing up and targeting the very same sentence doesn't seem very coincidental. I will let others have a look at it.  McKhan (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Al-Azhar Affiliation
I've read the article talk page archives and note that the sentence "[t]he AICP claims to run its Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar, a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar" has been the source of a lot of contention. The problem with this sentence, however, is that the second clause, i.e., "a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar", is a violation of WP:NOR. Specifically, it violates WP:SYNTHESIS in joining multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated in any reliable source cited and WP:PRIMARY in that the letter purportedly written by Dr. Hashem is a primary source of unclear provenance and is not "reputably published." The claim that the AICP runs schools in connection with Al-Azhar is supported by an article published in the International Journal of Middle East Studies, a secondary source that meets WP:RS criteria. Conversely, the five sources used to support that the claim "has been denied by Al-Azhar" are listed below along with an explanation for why each source is not sufficient:
 * "Egypt arrests 22 men for corrupting Islam"- Reuters, 13 December 2007. ("The source said they belong to the al-Ahbash sect – which has a significant following in Lebanon and strong historical ties to Syria – and which is considered unorthodox by many Islamic clerics including the ones at Al-Azhar."
 * Comment: The source does not support the proposition for which it is cited. Certain Islamic clerics at Al-Azhar considering Al-Ahbash unorthodox ≠ no affiliation of Al-Azhar with Al-Ahbash schools. See WP:SYNTHESIS.


 * (Excerpts from the letter from Arabic to English regarding AICP or Al-Ahbash: "There is no single form of recognition/accreditation and cooperation between Al-Azhar University and them. All papers, in which what is otherwise claimed (by this organization) do not correspond to the truth. We reject all attempts to abuse the prestigious name of Al-Azhar University by this organizations..")
 * Comment: The source is not a secondary source. It is a primary source of unclear provenance and is not reputably published. See WP:PRIMARY.


 * (Excerpt: "These announcements are embedded in the following literature and media: Professor Dr. Ahmad Omar Hashim`s letter, Al-Azhar University President, to Muslim World League`s Secretary-General in August 24, 2001.")
 * Comment: This organization's statement does not qualify as a reliable secondary source. It certainly can't be used as a source on anything but itself. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS. Besides that, it doesn't even support the proposition for which it is cited.


 * (Excerpt: "Conference participants, who included Ahmed El- Tayeb, rector of Cairo's Al-Azhar Islamic University, adopted a fatwa stipulating that the sole true adherents of traditional Islam are those who abide by Kalam scholastic theology, belong to one of the four madhhabs (legal schools)......It identifies the Salafi strain of Sunni Islam professed in Saudi Arabia as a "dangerous and erroneous contemporary sect," along with the extremist group Islamic State, Hizb ut-Tahrir, and the Habashis.")
 * Comment: I'm not sure that this source meets WP:RS criteria. Even if it does, the text of the source does not support the proposition for which it is cited. See WP:SYNTHESIS.


 * Comment: As with the AMJA statement above, this organization's statement does not qualify as a reliable secondary source. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS.
 * Comment: As with the AMJA statement above, this organization's statement does not qualify as a reliable secondary source. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS.

Please provide at least one reliable secondary source, as required by WP:RS, that unequivocally states that Al-Azhar denies any affiliation with Al-Ahbash's schools. 2601:243:2200:60E:B1EC:F03A:76FB:7965 (talk) 06:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Expansion of Lead
Many secondary sources, such as the Guide to Islamist Movements stress the controversial aspects of the Al-Ahbash and the article has a large controversy section. This is missing from the lead. A brief sentence such as "The Al-Ahbash have been criticized for fringe views and for violence, claims that the Al-Ahbash have denied" may be appropriate. Thoughts? 2601:243:2200:60E:D0C9:C5D3:6655:BA57 (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)