Talk:Al-Ahbash/Archive 5

Al-Ahbash beliefs regarding the Qur'an
On the AICP website, they state "They keep following the methods for reciting Qur'an as these methods were originally conveyed by prophet Muhammad. The lineage to the prophet is extremely strong. From here, one realizes that it is impossible to tamper with Qur'an. From here, one realizes that it is impossible to tamper with Qur'an." From that quote, I deduce that they believe in the totality of the Qur'an. Comments, suggestions? BhaiSaab talk 04:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe you have your answer :) Crono 22:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Article by Nizar Hamzeh is not neutral
The article by nizar hamzeh is not neutral as it claims that al-ahbash engage in trances that unite them with God. This contradicts the belief of the ahbash which clearly states that nothing unites with God and God does not dissolve in the world. Their books such as Bughyat Attalib and others clearly state that they refute the belief of unity between created beings and God.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ^abdullaah (talk • contribs) 07:20, 30 October 2006‎ (UTC)

Proabivouac
I just want to chime in that this article doesn't have sufficiently important links to make a relatively prevalent conservative-ish Muslim site non-notable when speaking about the subject. Can you more fully explain your edits? You say it's not notable... but, being ranked 8,615 by Alexa is pretty important. AICP is 480,000... just for reference. I am not arguing that it is a particularly good or neutral source--it isn't. But I do think it represents a notable Islamic view about this subject. gren グレン 09:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There can be no problem linking to such rulings when they are signed by a particular scholar, whose notability we can then evaluate. Otherwise, it is to the best of our knowledge, just an anonymous non-notable opinion hosted by a notable site.
 * The first of the two fatwa links (the one that is there currently) is attributed to, "The Standing Committee for Academic Research and Issuing Fatwaas." Perhaps this does satisfy my objection. The second is attributed merely to "A group of Islamic researchers," and does not.Proabivouac 19:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a good point. I really don't know if the producer of that fatwa is notable just because it's on a notable site. gren グレン 07:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected; please discuss disputes first
Hello everyone,

For now, due to the edit warring, this page has been protected from editing. It is not productive for everyone to keep reverting everyone else's edits. We should always discuss possibly controversial changes on the talk page, here, first. I know that not everyone agrees, but if things are discussed first, a compromise can be come to, and the edit warring will not have to continue.

I hope that productive discussion can take place so that the page can soon be unprotected, and left that way. Thanks for trying to work things out, -- Nataly a 13:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, after my comments above I couldn't really protect. gren グレン 18:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll keep on eye on things, but since you seem to be more familiar with the situation, if it seems like things will be okay unprotected, let me (or anyone) know, and I'll take care of it. -- Nataly a 04:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

IslamQA and other links
IslamQA is a well known wahabi/salafi site and is completly biased in its outlook about AICP. It is far from being anything near traditional Islam. The link from Islam Online tells lie after lie. One needs to be objective. Moreover, why put links on Wikipedia that have no true basis.
 * The AICP is likewise presumably biased in its outlook towards itself, and some would say is itself far from traditional Islam. These are external links, and such bias is entirely acceptable so long as the source is notable.Proabivouac 21:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well those links also contain lies about AICP. It says that we allow free mixing and its ok for women to wear tight clothes? Thats unacceptable and its far from anything AICP teaches.


 * Please, feel welcome to come forward with a CRITICAL link which doesn't contain "lies" about AICP / Al-Ahbash. McKhan 00:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to post any "Critcal" links about Ahbash. However, I dont think its right to post links that contains lies about what the group teaches. Im not going to search the internet looking for links to post, and thats beyond the point.


 * I have been watching this page for years and had countless discussions with the adherents of AICP / Al-Ahbash and I haven't seen any CRITICAL link / content / material .etc which doesn't contain any "lies," "misinformation" .etc about the AICP / Al-Ahbash as per the adherents / proponents of Al-Ahbash / AICP. And this IS the main point here as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which aspires to maintain NPOV as well as the equilbirium and those links are simply part of that equation of maintaining the NPOV / Equiblibrium. McKhan 01:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we consider unprotection?
Things seemed to have calmed down here since the article was protected. That also may have stemmed the discussion on the talk page, but I'm hopeful that this has given everyone enough time to cool off a bit, and can work together and edit the article without edit warring. Does it seem feasable? If we think so, I'll unprotect the page, providing the edit warring stays away. -- Nataly a 04:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. I hope the same. -- McKhan 08:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Seen As Heretical" - IS that really NPOV?
"Seen as Heretical" According to what source? If a view is to be posted, then it chould be made clear who holds that view. I think it would be better to say ..'"..and other beliefs, which according to are seen as heretical" There is no unanimous agreement amoung the muslims that AICP teaches or holds beliefs generally seen as heretical..so i don't think we should make it appear so. 75.64.144.211 04:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It has already been discussed. Tearlach has already given the source which is right there: http://ddc.aub.edu.lb/projects/pspa/al-ahbash.html . Further, AICP / Al-Ahbash / Habashies are SEEN AS HERETICAL by mainstream Sunnis whether AICP / Al-Ahbash / Habashies accept it or not. McKhan 06:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

AICP, are mainstewam muslims..."SEEN AS HERETICAL by mainstream Sunnis whether AICP / Al-Ahbash / Habashies accept it or not." According to what source? Which orginaization gave such a census? Or are you talking out of your rear end? As far as wikipedia is concerned, this is hearsay you just made up. And your own opinion. Unless you want to cause another revert war, you better provide a source.

The link you posted doesn't represent the views of all muslims, it only represents the views of two supposed sufis. Sence you cannot provide a source where *all* the muslims on earth, unanimously agree that AICP's beliefs are heretical. I am going to revert the artcle back.75.64.144.211 13:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * By using profanity, "Or are you talking out of your rear end?," you are being impolite and uncivil and on the top of that you are threatening another "revert war" which is also irrational and illogical. Both are violations of Wikipedia guideliens. Having said that, under the Wikipedia Guidelines, it is about what INDEPENDENT and ACADEMIC sources say about the AICP / Al-Ahbash / AICP - NOT - what AICP / Al-Ahbash / Habashies would like to see on the Wikipedia pages about themselves. I think it is pure logic, reasonable and rational. Otherwise, each and every group will make sure to sanatize itself by calling them right and others wrong. In this context, http://ddc.aub.edu.lb/projects/pspa/al-ahbash.html constitute to an INDEPENDENT and ACADEMIC source. McKhan 14:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a perfectly acceptable source, see my comments below.Proabivouac 22:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you are talking out of your rear end, you have yet to provide a source that represents the views of every single sunni muslim, that states AICP beleifs are seen as heretical. What you posted was a artcle written by two random guys with islamic names.

Secondly, what i said about the revert war holds true....read the last 3 archived pages on this article, you have been involved in numerous revert wars, and have even been blocked several times for it. If anyone is in violation here, it is you. You are constantly pushing your own agenda, which is hindering this articles development. If this continues, i will have to report it.

It is in its current shape because every time someone makes an edit, you revert it. If you want to push your agenda this much, you will atleast follow wikipedia guidelines, by stateing the source of your opinions when you post them on the article. I have edit the artcle to further suit wiki guidelines by posting a source. "Seen as heretical" Is a one sided statement, made by those who oppose AICP, i certainly won't, and i hope the admins won't, allow such as statement to be present without the source of it being known.

It is like if i went to a base ball article and wrote about the Yankes "This team is generally seen as a bad team"

Also, you did not provide a source that states AICP teaches Shia Islam, according to thier site, they teach Sunni Islam, and Sufism, nothing is mentioned about Shiaism, thus there is no reason to mention it, unless you feel it significant enough. And if you do feel it significant enough, you WILL provide a source for it. On the article, where everyone can see it. 75.64.144.211 21:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Anon, see WP:CIVIL, also WP:RS - this is a great example of the kind of sources we need. McKhan, it would seem that this worthy article attributes the characterization of Ahbash as heresy not to "mainstream Sunnis," but to Islamists.Proabivouac 21:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There is NO source out there which will satisfy Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP
Please, go ahead and castigate all the following sources as "Wahabi," "Salafi," "Kaafir," "Islamists" .etc. Nevertheless, most of these sources are INDEPENDENT / ACADEMIC and / or RELIGIOUSLY AUTHORATIVE sources. The only thing which they lack of, obviously, that they don't say what the Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP would like to see.


 * - Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context
 * - Jamaa’at al-Ahbaash (the Habashis)
 * - Doctrines compared between Al-Ahbash and to mainstream sunni Muslims
 * - Mainstream Muslims' Tawheed vs. Al-Ahbashs' Tawheed


 * - Al-Ahbash: Evolution and Beliefs
 * - The Habashies Weighted On The Scales of the Sharee'ah (Jurisprudence)
 * - A Sufi response to political islamism: Al-ahbash of Lebanon
 * - Al-Ahbash: Their History and Their Beliefs
 * - Habashies / Al-Ahbash / Ahbash / AICP
 * - ICPA-AFIC connection: Pathetically Flawed - by Dawood Yusuf - NIDA'UL ISLAM - ISSUE 2, VOLUME 7, DECEMBER/JANUARY 2000/2001
 * - Lebanese Group 'should Be Investigated
 * - Australian Islamic organisations label al-Ahbash extremist
 * - Andrew Robb & The Government's preferred Lebanese sect
 * - Is Andrew Robb sponsoring fringe isolationist Islam?
 * - The Brethren & The PM’s Favourite Muslim
 * - Dossier: Al-Ahbash (April 2001) - Middle East Intelligence Bulletin

McKhan 21:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * McKhan, there are no "religiously authoritative" sources on Wikipedia. If a religious scholar is notable in their own right, then their views can be included with attribution. Academic sources of the type discussed in the section above are preferred; as with everything, we must take care to characterize them fairly. News articles are also fine when discussing the events they cover.Proabivouac 22:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wether there is a source or not is not the point, in reguards to the "Heretical' Issue, what is the point is that you POST the source right there NEXT to the phrase, and let people review the soruce and judge for themselves if it is worthy or not. All sources should be available to the reader right then and there. It should be made clear who says what about AICP.

I deleted the references section, because there is no need to post 'A Sufi Response" in its own little section. Plus the fact that it IS an external link, i think it would better fit in the external links section. Also, I was thinking of fixing the article so we have a 'pro-aicp' section, and an 'anti-aicp' section. Sorta like the Salafism/Wahabism, and the Shia articles are written. AICP is infact a group of people within Islam, and i think the format should be the same as with all other sects. And also note, on the AICP website, there is hardly any mention of any political involvment, while i don't deny it, i feel it shouldn't be the main thing, and i feel this artcle would better serve under the Islam umbrella rather than Lebenon umbrella...also, AICP is a world wide thing, they have centers in nearly every country on earth, so catagorizing it as a 'Lebenon' type artcle is not very accurate, In my city alone is a center with LOTS of members. And this is the smallest branch. So it isn't really just a 'lebenon' thing.

Please review my suggestions and get back to me when you can. This article needs work badly, and over the summer, i plan to rewrite it and post it, and once everyone agrees, we will post the new article on wiki.

Also, its Habash, not Ahbash. The group gets its named because the head shiekh Abdullah Hariri is from Habash, in Eithiopia.75.64.144.211 23:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been watching this article / page since the day it was created. I have had several "discussions" with the proponents / adherents of Al-Ahbash / AICP / Habashies. I have been accused of having an agenda numerous times. If I had an agenda, this article would have been totally different. But I have been trying my best for the past several years to keep this article neutral despite several attempts by the adherents / proponents of Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP to malign me personally and / or trying to sanatize themselves on this very page as well as on the article page by itself through edit-wars. I cannot help but to point out to everybody who is reading these lines that this page was Protected for at least 2 weeks but NO proponent / adherent came forward to discuss anything on the Talk Page. But as soon as, the page got unprotected, 75.64.144.211 has already started an edit-war. This is the typical attitude which has been demonstrated, quite consistently, by the proponents / adherents of Al-Ahbash / AICP / Habashies. Having said that, all I have been doing is to insist on the version of Tearlach, an independent, who wrote this version on his own without having any agenda. Most of the points raised by 75.64.144.211 has already been discussed OVER and OVER again and I find it quite redundant to reiterate the same information again. Since 75.64.144.211 is the propoent / adherent of Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP, all I can do for him is to sympathize with him as there aren't any INDEPENDENT / ACADEMIC sources or statistics available which justify the claims made by him regarding AICP / Al-Ahbash / Habashies being the "World-Wide Movement" (Having centers in many parts of the world doesn't constitue to massive population of adherents, specially, when that cannot be verified through the INDEPENDENT / ACADEMIC sources) and / or that AICP / Al-Ahbash / Habashies should be treated as any other major group like Wahabis / Salafis / Shias .etc as there are plenty of mainstream Muslim (INDEPENDENT / ACADMEIC / religiously authorative) sources which points to otherwise. 75.64.144.211 is more than welcome to presnet his arguments or anything else WITHOUT starting an edit-war on the main page and WITHOUT discussing it on the Talk-Page. McKhan 00:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I made an edit, you reverted it, if a reveret war happened, it was because of you. And the fact is, YOU are the one who has been proscuted many times for causeing problem on this article. Personally, you shouldn't have any access to this article ever again. And that fact that YOU are the only person satisfied with the page, whilst EVERY other person isn't, is obvious of your agenda, you want the page they way YOUR views fit. Well, i'm sorry, Wiki doesn't work based on what you consider to be NPOV. every edit that has been made has been specificly made to fit your view. And every single person affiliated with AICP,who has made any edit, has had thier work reverted by you. its not your article, you don't control it. And sence its creation, you have done nothing but hinder its development. With what YOU consider academic resources. Many of which arn't even valid as citation according to Wiki.

Teearlach wrote this article with the guidence of who..You?

As i said, Sence the begining of this, the article has been specificly tailored to fit your view, and yours alone. IP7564144211 05:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I NEVER EVER gave any guidance to Tearlach NOR I gave him ANY sources. Anybody is welcome to ask Tearlach. Having said that santizing one's group through selected / partial sources as well as twisting the Wikipedia guidelines doesn't constitute to "devleopment" per se nor it satisfies the Wikipedia which aspires to be NPOV. You are more than welcome to bring-forth your INDEPENDENT / ACADEMIC sources as long as you refrain from reverting the article to fit to your agenda. In the meantime, I would like to take the liberty to reiterate what Tearlach had to say in 2005 about the very same argument / points which you are making / raising in 2007:


 * Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP's Objections: "an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunni and Shi'a theology with Sufism"[1] ? + "anti-Salafi, and with Sufi and other beliefs seen as heretical"[2] ?


 * NPOV / Tearlach's Response: It was an attempt to summarise and merge the descriptions at the three cited sources: their own promotional website; a critical description; and what appears to be a fairly balanced and properly-sourced paper in an academic journal. It incorporated other academic sources such as Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context. Tearlach 15:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC) + Read NPOV. I chose those links because they represent a spread of views: one well-referenced and (as far as I can tell neutral) academic article; one from the official AICP site, which is completely uncritical of Al-Ahbash; and one fairly representative of what its critics say about it. Tearlach 02:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * A Sufi response to political islamism: Al-ahbash of Lebanon
 * Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context


 * McKhan 06:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The page is ok now, but, in the summar, we are still rewriteing the entier article. It is still incomplete IP7564144211 13:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to ask from where did the claim that 'AICP teaches and spreads "Shia" Islam' came from? That is a blatant lie. Anyone who has studied under their scholars and has been to their masjod, or even the website knows that is NOT the truth.


 * Once again, it is right there in A Sufi response to political islamism: Al-ahbash of Lebanon:
 * 88; see also Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi, Al-Kafil bi-'Ilm al-Din al-Daruri (The Guarantor of the Necessary Science of Faith)(Beirut: Burj Abi Haydar Mosque, 1984), 46
 * Habashi, Sarih al-Bayan, 90
 * 111. Habashi does not give much importance to the Hanafi and Maliki Schools of Law
 * 107; see also Manar al-Hudd, April-May 1993, 45
 * Habashi, Sarih al-Bayan, 86, 88, 105. These ahadith are: "For whosoever I am master, this Ali is his master; 0 God support whosoever isloyal to him and fight whosoever is fighting him," and "Hasan from me and Husayn from 'Ali."
 * Manar al-Hudd, November 1992, 32; ibid., April 1993, 37


 * McKhan 12:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it amusing that people attempt to vandalize the page by saying we are kafirs and we "never pray" and we teach that "rape is good." Some people are just downright disgusting.

There is this new report by RAND institute. It just refute any notions that the Ahbash are a different religeous sect. It characterizes them as mainstream sunni muslims. The RAND report is highly criticial of wahhabi and attributes most terror done under the banner of islam to them.


 * Let's see who else is among "refuting" that 'notion':


 * "Faces of American Islam[:Muslim Immigration]"

by Daniel Pipes and Khalid Durán Policy Review http://www.danielpipes.org/article/441


 * "American Muslims vs. American Jews"

by Daniel Pipes Commentary May 1999 http://www.danielpipes.org/article/312


 * "Needed: Muslims against Terror[ - and Not Salam Al-Marayati"

by Daniel Pipes Forward July 16, 1999 http://www.danielpipes.org/article/308


 * -- and this...:


 * "Outlining proposals for how the US can distort Islam for its own interests"

by Zafar Bangash http://www.muslimedia.com/ARCHIVES/book04/civilbk.htm


 * "From another shore - New Sufis for New Labour"

by Shehla Khan http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=2563


 * "Rand Corporation’s new recipe to handle the Muslim World"

by Abdus Sattar Ghazali http://www.amperspective.com/html/rand_corp_new_recipe.html

McKhan 19:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism / Edit war - Dezember 07
How about page protection ... again? --89.56.171.199 (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit war / Vandalism - September 08
This page is under attack again by the Al-Ahbash. Further to edir-waring, Wassimsaade is trying its best to add Al-Ahbash's POV to this page by taking a sentence out of the context. McKhan (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Seen as heretical is offensive and not neutral.
Al Ahbash are seen as heretical by their opponents. Adding "by their opponents" makes it neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freemason hiram abiff (talk • contribs) 05:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. I would like to clarify few things. First of all, you vandalized the page (Evidence has been documented by SineBot on your new page, ) using the IP address of and then launch a personal attack on me, which is against the Wikipedia guidelines, by saying, "Labeling any group as heretical is not neutral content. McKhan is an extremist." on its user page, without even seeing the source that where the word "heretical" is coming from. Tearlach, the writer of that page, has already given the INDEPENDENT / ACADEMIC source, which is right there: http://ddc.aub.edu.lb/projects/pspa/al-ahbash.html. These INDEPENDENT / ACADEMIC scholars are not being "offensive" to anybody but just presenting their research. Please, feel welcome to read the discussion which will answer lots of your questions including the point which you have raised. McKhan (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please, read the previous discussions before making any edits. Thanks
I have seen your edits which you did using your IP address. You removed the parts from the Al-Ahbash page as well as the links and THEN you pointed to the AICP web site. After that you signed up as Freemason Hiram Abiff, a prominent Freemason personality, to make the changes you wanted. I visit this page every now and then and I have noticed whenever there is any religious Muslim event is closer, attempts are being made to alter the Neutral content of this page. I can see on this very talk page that the point of "Seen as heretical" has already been discussed and pointed out that article was written by two scholars. It is pity if Al-Ahbash thinks of those scholar as "opponents", however, as per Wikipedia, it constitutes to research as pointed out by another editor. AmandaParker (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Is your name really Amanda Parker or Amanda Khan ? Reviewing your editing history, you seem like a pakistani and Wahhabi, a supporter of the extremist school in Islam that label others as heretics. Looking at your edit history, you label christians as terrorists and Al-Ahbash as heretics. How can this Wahhabi extremism be considered neutral ? Al-Ahbash are pro-west and this is why I'm here to expose your cyber gang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freemason hiram abiff (talk • contribs) 05:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Seaons Greetings. I don't appreciate your personal attacks. I am a Westerner by myself and I don't belong to any "cyber gang". I have not tried to "label" Christians as "terrorists" as I respect all the religions. I regret that you feel that all the Wikipedia editors who help to maintain the neutrality of this page are either "Wahabis" or "Extremists". I just happened to learn about Al-Ahbash when I was researching about Islam for my Comparative Religion course. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays. AmandaParker (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Every group out there is seen as heretical by some other groups. Do we add the sentence "seen as heretical" to every page describing every school of thought ? This is not neutral. Merry Christmas to you. Freemason hiram abiff (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merry Christmas to you as well. Please, feel welcome to read the Wikipedia guidelines on quoting the academic sources / independent research as well as the discussion above regarding your point, "Seen as hertical", on this very talk page. Thank you. Happy Holidays. AmandaParker (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi AmandaParker. The principal point of this edit was to properly format the references. You reverted it with a request that this talk page be read first. I can't find anything here about reference formatting, but I'm guessing the point you were referring to is the phrase "seen as heretical" which is discussed above. Having followed your request re this page, I've therefore restored the reference formatting but also re-included the "heretical" phrase.


 * If I've got the wrong controversy and there's something else you object to in my edit, please let me know. As I said, my principal interest here is the use of correct citation format, so I'm happy to discuss any alternative wording. Euryalus (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

by its opponents
It must be clear who sees the views as supposedly heretical. To make it appear to be unanimous is not NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.144.8 (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"Seen as hertical" has already been discussed
Please, feel welcome to read the discussion about "Seen as heretical" which will confirm the fact that it is not about "unanimous" but it is about NPOV and the verifiable / independent research as per Wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore, "seen as hertical" comes with the footnotes with-in the Al-Ahbash article to make sure should someone like to read further then sh/e could go further. Thanks. AmandaParker (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Who cares if its within the guidelines? It still shows a view on the subject that appears one sided. Just because an edit complies with wikipedia standard, doesn't mean it can't still be slanted and form a POV. Also, What I added didn't change the fact that it was NPOV. Its all about appearances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.144.8 (talk) 07:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the box to the right refers to Lebanon (eg: flag, president, prime minister), & not to Al Ahbash, i think it should be removed, Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.217.107 (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Very obvious agenda
It is so obvious that the agenda of this page is to completely slander a group of people for following a teacher. My question is, has the author of this page even visited this "organization" to find out what they are really all about, as he mentions, he knows "alot" of them and are all over his area? I for one know for a fact that what is written is slander as I go to their islamic classes all the time. McKhan is a complete idiot, who like his sheikh, 'ibn tamiya, is a complete idiot and his "knowledge" surpasses is brain power, and it cannot comprehend what he is on about. I have found many examples of McKkan's "sources" and his references that conflict one another about the Ahbash, which would point out that McKhan is choosing what he wants from these sources and placing them against the correct view of Habashi's are about. I can't believe Wikipedia hasn't allowed the correct edits to be left on the page. This McKhan most probably thinks of himself very highly and knowledgable, but I am quite sure, a donkey can give better advice, because it would stay silent. I recommend you follow suit McKhan. If you had any idea what the Ahbash were about, i'm pretty sure you would change your perspective to a positive one. Just because you and this Amanda person think they've read a few article of Habashi's on the internet, does not make you a professor on the subject. As we all know, the internet is filled with rubbish, just like yourself. 117.120.16.131 (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Ahmad 12.38pm 10/06/09

The article was not npov
An article about an organization/sect should at least INCLUDE their own definition and stated goals. I changed "sect" to "organization" as that is how they're generally seen, if some is of the opinion it's a sect then it could be mentioned that some sees it as a sect, for whatever reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.72.152.137 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Muslims' Tawheed (Doctrine of Oneness of God / The Concept of Monotheism in Islam) vs. Al-Ahbash's Tawheed
" Tawheed (According to Mainstream Muslims)"

"Tawheed, usually defined as the unity of Allah or His oneness, is actually a term which means the process of repeatedly singling out Allah. The issue had arisen where people lost the concept of tawheed, and in fact, the popular mistranslation of the word tawheed is a result of this misunderstanding. It became necessary to explain tawheed in detail, to discuss its rules and principles etc. The reasons for this were may, however the overriding factor was that Islam had spread all over the world an deach society that accepted added more deviant concepts about Allah and worshipping Him. So, the concept is explained:"

" Tawheed al-Ruboobiyyah"

"The act of singling out Allah in all aspects of Lordship."

" Tawheed al-Uloohiyyah (or Tawheed al-'Ibaadah)"

"The act of singling our Allah as the only diety, the only god, the only one who is in reality divine. It is the act of singling Him out for worship."

" Tawheed al-Asmaa wal Sifat"

"It is the act of singling out Allah with all of His Beautiful names and Majestic Attributes, without denial of any of them, without likening them to anything, without claiming a similarity for them, and without distorting either their meanings or their actual wordings."

"This has lead to the scholars to further state that terminology which has not been used to describe Allah either by Allah Himself, or His Messenger may not be utilized to describe Allah. Why? Because many words contain misleading or unclear meanings behind them, and it does not befit Allah who best knows Himself, that we describe Him with descriptions that He did not use, nor His Messenger. We also refrain from denying specific things from Allah if they have not been denied from Him. This is, as well, because in order to be sure of how. So were an individual to claim that Allah does not have this or that etc. and these things being specifically denied were not denied by Him T'ala or His Prophet then we may not deny them. It is not permissible to estimate Allah as how He should be based upon human understanding. It is only allowed that we claim what He has claimed, or what His Messenger has informed us reaching us by way of authentic narration."

"So, the above method of understanding and implementing tawheed must be utilized completely in order for one's tawheed to be acceptable. If one of the categories above is missing, then this person does not have the correct creed, and he is not properly worshipping Allah alone. Some scholars have revised the above principles so that they utilize two instead of three, and they explain it as Tawheed al-Asmaa wal Sifat, including all of the Names and Attributes, as well as the characteristics of Lordship, and Tawheed al-'Ibaadah. This, too, is a beneficial approach for the subject."

Al-Habashi's tawheed is divided into three principles or categoriesItalic text:

"1. The denial of the proper concept that Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] has many qualities, and his (Habashi) false interpretation of the words al-Ahad and al-Samad"

"2. The denial of any similarity to Allah in His [dhat - Essence] Essence and attributes"

"3. Allah is alone creating, originating and maintaining. So, there is no contributor in inventing, manufacturing, and sustaining the invented things."

 The First Category 

The denial of the proper concept that Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] has many characteristics.

We know that the source for this principle is Plato, for it was he who said,

"'The many is not found in Him at all, as the idea of assembly does not relate to Him under any circumstances. Therefore, He is simply one in Himself.'"

Then he says,

"'And because He is one from every angle, you cannot describe Him with a description that implies numerous substance.'"

Al-Habashi's source for this first principle is purely Platonic. Though, he did not copy it immediately from Plato, perhaps, he copied it from the books of the philosophers and the people of kalaam who studied Plato, Aristotle and others. Like Faraaby, Ibn Seena, Ibn al-Rumi, Ibn Rushid, Juwainy .etc

Here, elucidating the influence that the Greek Philosophers had over them is the saying of al-Faraaby,

"'The Inevitable Existence cannot be divided with divisions of quantity or meaning, otherwise each part of it's division must have it's own existence, so inevitably there are many esisting.' (Source 'Fusuws al-Hikam by Farrabiy. Inevitable Existence: 'al-waajib-alwujoob' ; This is one of the few terms from Ilm al-Kalaam which is used in this book. It is used in quotations of philosophers. It is the Greek Philosophical concept of Sustainer or Lord. It is the concept of that which must exist; which controls the existence.)"

and the saying of Ibn Seena,

"'The Inevitable Existence does not divide in meaning or quantity.' (Source: Al-Ishaaraat - by Ibn Seena)"

This verfies that al-Habashi wants to strip away the attributes in order to confirm Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] and that it disturbs him that the Essence [dhat - Essence] which is ONE could possess more than one quality.

Bu al-Habashi neglected the fact that this is Palto's theory, who was so excessive in his theory that he would not describe Allah with His many correct qualities. Yet he described Allah [with an additional quality] as khair [good] even theough he attempted to avoid describing Allah with a description implying many qualities in His Essence [dhat - Essence]. Plato, according to his own views says,

"'We do not describe Him as a substance or with appearance because the substance and appearance are relative things. So, describing Him as a substance demands the imagination to picture the appearance or design along with it. Because the imagination does not stop simply at picturing it as a substance only rather it goes on to picture it's parts as well and that is the design which without a doubt must have and abundance of contents.'"

The reader may notice that this is from the sayings of the Greek Philosophers; the knowledge of reason which drove many groups like the Jahmiyya, the Mu'tazila, the Haruriya, and others to deny the attributes of Allah. They stated their argument as Plato had; that describing Allah with something will lead to many things, which in itself denies the ONENESS of Allah.

Furthermore, he who theorized this principle is the same who 'assigned' the attribut of khair [good] to Allah [after being excessive in his theory that ONE cannot be described with more than one characteristic] and this is a contradiction and it amounts to nothing less than hesitation [in affirming Allah's attributes] and no rational Muslim believes that Allah accepts the philosophical principles, ideas or ways. For what Muhammad was sent with was enough, and in the opinion of those Greek Philosophers, no one truly knows these things but Allah. Yet their words cam from other than Him.

This brings us to al-Habashi's interpretation of al-Ahad, the One. That is, that [something that is one] cannot have a description or division in its essence [dhat - Essence] and there are no parts in it as Allah T'ala said, al-Ahad, al-Samad. However, you will not find that something which is described with characteristics cannot be called Ahad in the Arabic language. Contrarily it is proven that Ahad is a description of the creatures in the Qur'an as Allah T'ala said,

"'And if one [Ahad] of the idolators seek protection from you...' [Tawaba: 6]"

"'An not join any one [Ahadan] in the service of his Lord.' [Kahf: 110]"

"'Leave Me and him whom [Created alone [Waheedan].' [Mudathir: 11]"

Reference to people as alone/one or Ahad is made in these verses and these creatures are described with descriptions that befit them. Therefore, how is it correct that something which is Ahad cannot be described or divided? If al-Habashi's assertion was correct then Allah would not describe the creatures with Ahad. Yet these creatures are described with appearance, substance and with many attributes which lead to many qualities (as they calim).

It is known that Allah quotes the believer saying,

"'...and I do not associate anyone [Ahadan] with my Lord.' [Kahf: 38]"

So, if none can be described as Ahad "One" except Allah (as there is no attribute for Him which denies His Onenees) and Allah has described His creatures with it, and they have many qualities in them -- then this concept of al-Habashi is baseless. For this reason Ahad serves as a witness falsifying al-Habashi's explanation of tawheed.

Here then, al-Habashi is disproven from three directions:

"1. The Qur'an. For the Qur'an has been revealed i the pure Arabic language which does utilize the term Ahad to name something which has various characteristics and qualities. This proves that using this description is known to the Arabs and is acceptable in the language."

"2. The Arabic language. Because it is not a rule in the language that a thing cannot be caleld Ahad simply because it can be described or divided."

"3. The Greek Philosophers and Plato. Because these it is who forbade refering to Allah with attributes that would 'increase' His unity, and then described Allah as khair [good]."

 The Second Category 

The Second category of tawheed according to al-Habashi is the negation of any similarity to Allah in His Essence [dhat - Essence] and His Attributes.

There is no difference between us and al-Habashi in that Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] is not similar to any of His creatures, and that His attributes are not like those describing the creatures. However, concerning the attributes it is important to clarify the following:

No sane Muslim would assert that Allah's Attributes were in reality similar to those of His creatures. Just as it is true that Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] is not like that of His creatures. Allah has said,

"There is nothing like Him.' [Shura: 11]"

So, His Attributes are not like that of His creation. The similarity is in the word describing the attribute, not in its reality...

And this is distinguished by His sayings;

"'There is nothing like Him.' [Shura: 11]"

"'None is comparable to Him.' [Ikhlas: 4]"

"'Do you know any one who is called by His name?' [Maryam: 65]"

Yet Allah has described Himself with the words, Sameea [Hearing] Baseera [Seeing] while describing humans with the words hearing, seeing through seeing and hearing for humans is not like that of the Creator.

Allah has described Himself with the term Raouf [kind] Raheem [Merciful]

"'Indeed Allah is kin, merciful with the people.' [Baqarah: 143]"

and He has said abou the Messenger [Muhammad],

"'With the believers (he is) kind, merciful.' [Tawbah: 128]"

But the Prophet's mercy is not like Allah's Mercy.

So, denying similarity between the attributes of created things and the Attributes of Allah is in fact denying a similarity in the reality of these attributes not their terms. Because utilizing similar terms for both Creator and the created is normal and has been proven, whereas utilizing the reality of similar terms for both the Creator and the created is false and incorrect.

"'There is nothing like Him.' [Shura: 11]"

Using similar terms for reference is proven in the Book, but it is not proven in the sense of having a common reality. So, similarity does not exist between the reality of Allah's attributes and those of His creatures.

Contrarily, one finds the opposite in Allah's book - that is - one finds many verses proving that it is not possible to find any similarity at all between Allah and His creatures in any of His Attributes.

An example is the Attributes of power in Allah's Book about which He Azza wa Jalla said:

"'Indeed, Allah has power over all things.' [Baqarah: 20]"

"'Surely, your Lord makes plentiful the means of sustenance for whom He pleases and strengthens them.' [Israa': 30]"

and compare it with the power that is possessed by Hi creation as He says,

"'Except for those who repent before you gain power over them...' [Ma'idah: 34]"

"'...and (He) adds force to your stength.' [Hud: 52]"

Then read His saying,

"'Allah is He who created you weak, and then after your weakness He made you strong, and then after your strength He made you weak and gray haird.' [Ruwm: 54]"

Then it is clearly proven that there is no comparison between the attribute of Allah and that of the creatures. But simply because the words are the same, it does not imply that the reality behind the meanings are the same. This is all the more clear when there is a verse in Allah's Book which forbids a common reality in the meaning of these attributes.

"'There is nothing like Him.' [Shura: 11]"

So, if al-Habashi says that there is nothing comparable to Allah, then this is true, and if he says that nothing is comparable to His attributes, this is also true, and that we are looking for.  However,  that does not mean that one should deny an attribute of Allah simply because one finds that word in Allah's Book describing one of His creatures. As Allah T'ala said,

"'Indeed, Allah hears and sees [everything].' [Nisaa': 58]"

and He T'ala said about man,

"'And We gave him hearing and sight.' [Insan: 2] (Translator's Note: One must take note here, the Arabic descriptions are the same in both verses, although, we have translated them differently due to the preceding words and the context.)"

It does not befit Allah to describe Himself as 'hearing', seeing' and then to describe the human as 'hearing, seeing' as if the two attributes were the same in each case. But we see the human and we know how he sees and hears but as for Allah - "There is nothing like Him" - so nothing will cause us to compare Him to His creatures - even - if the word attributed is the same. For the sole reason that similarity is in the word,  not  in its reality. Otherwise there would be no reaon for Him T'ala to say, "There is nothing like Him," and it would be just a verse being recited with no use for it in this chapter. But no mind would think that Allah is like any of His creatures in their true characteristics. The only common thing between the descriptions of Allah and His creatures is the word which is used for the description. In order to confirm the characteristics of Lordship in all of what is attributed to Allah, we have what is common between Him and His creatures, for if this common pronunciation in the attributes did not exist, then we would have no idea what the attributes of Divinity meant. Just as there is no proof that Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] is like any other essence, and Allah's Existence does not mean that He Exists like others, it is the same concerning the attributes - they are not similar to the attributes of the creatures.

So, Allah Exists and the creatures exists and there is no comparison in this existence. Therefore, if we confirm Istawa' [Ascension] and Nuzool [descending] and Majee'ya [Coming] to Allah, this does not mean the ascending, descending, or coming of the creatures. This is the same if we confirm Hand, the Face, the Eyes... it does not mean the same hands, face or eyes of the creatures. So, according to al-Habashi, it is a must to withhold the attributes of Allah and their interpretation. Because confirming to him equals similarity. So, he combines most of the attributes ino the following:


 * - Hearing;
 * - Seeing;
 * - Power;
 * - Intent;
 * - Speech;
 * - Knowledge;
 * - Life;
 * - Existence;
 * - Everliving;
 * - Eternal;
 * - Oneness

Te remaining attributes are combined by al-Habashi into innovated attributes such as:


 * - Mukhalifat lil Hawadath (Not an Event) - This is another of the Ilm al-Kalam terms. It refers to the concept of something which does not do anything, or does not move, or does not change, or is unaffected .etc; it also implies one who has no parts. Al-Habashi attributes it to Allah as do many of the Mutakalimoon and their like. Stating that Allah will be seen on the Day of Resurrection without him being, "...short, long, light, dark, not moving, moving, and touching anything." (As quoted in al-Habashi's followers in their "Izhar Al-Iqedah Al-Sunnyah" - The Authentic Beliefs of Ahlus-Sunnah - Ahbash). It is a Greek philosophical attributes of the divine.

and


 * - Qiyaam binafs (Self-subsisting / Self-sustaining) - Another of the Ilm al-Kalam terms used by al-Habashi to describe Allah. It is used to imply, "Self sustaining." However, attesting to the implied concept has lead its inventors to claim that Allah will be seen on the Day of Resurrection without Him being, "...standing up, sitting on, leaning against, attatched to, unattatched to, seperated from, in front of, in the back of [anything]." (As quoted by al-Habashi's followers in their "Izhar Al-Iqedah Al-Sunnyah" - The Authentic Beliefs of Ahlus-Sunnah - Ahbash).

Regardless of the fact that Allah has clearly described Himself with Istawa' [Ascension] and Nuzool [descending] and Majee'ya [Coming], according to al-Habashi, the attributes of Istawa' [Ascension] and Nuzool [descending] and Majee'ya [Coming] are anthropomorphized by the imagination. Other than this, according to him, they do not have to be spoken of. Yet, al-Habashi does not believe that the seeing attribute causes the imagination to make similarity, so here he contradicts himself.

As for the remaining known attributes, he has combined them as we discovered before, even though Allah Subhannahu wa T'ala has specifically mentioned them concerning Himself. So, where then is the benefit is combining or abbreviating them?

This is why we say that tawheed, according to al-Habashi, equals  T'ateel  [Denial / Denying]. And the solution for all of this is,

"'There is nothing like Him, and He is the [All] Hearing, the [All] Seeing.' [Shura: 11]"

The first part of this verse is the cure for the filth of tashbeeh [Anthropomorphism] - "...Nothing like Him". The second part is the cure for the desease of T'ateel [Denial / Denying] - "...and He is the Hearing, the Seeing". Only by this method is tawheed of Allah perfected.

 The Third Category 

The third category tawheed according to al-Habashi is stated by him as,

"'Allah is unique in creating, originating and organizing, so there is no contribution in inventing, manufacturing, or organizing the invented things.'"

No one disagrees with al-Habashi that Allah doesn't have any partners or associates in manufacturing or organizing creations. Even the idolaters agree with that. They are aware that Allah is the Creator, the Sustainer, the One who gives life and death, and they don't believe that anyone is a partner with Him in His Creating. This is well-known from the Book of Allah T'ala, Allah said,

"'And if you ask them, 'Who created the heavens and the earth and made the sun and the moon subservient?' they will certainly say, 'Allah'.' [Ankboot: 61]"

"'And if you ask them, 'Who sends down water from the sky, then gives life to the earth after it were dead?' They will certainly say, 'Allah'.' [Ankbooth: 63]"

"'And if you ask them, 'Who created the heavens and the earth?' they would most certainly say, ''The Might, Knowing One has created them'.' [Zukhruf: 9]"

So, they didn't claim that their idols were partners to Allah in organizing, creating, sustaining, and giving life or death. But the idolators' argument for worshiping the idols was their claim,

"'We only worship them to bring us nearer to Allah.' [Zumar: 3]"

The reason that they worshipped the idols was not because they thought that they created and sustained, and the proof for that is that if they were asked who created the heavens and the earth and gave life to the earth after its death they would say, "Allah" they did not say, "Allah, and our gods." Yet, this still wasn't enough for their tawheed to be correct, for if it was sufficient, the Prophet Muhammad would have left them alone with their idols. The idolators themselves know that their gods don't hear, benefit or harm them, and this is Ibrahim's argument against them when He asked them,

"'He said; Do they hear you when you call, or can they benefit or harm you?' [Sha'ara: 72]"

And the idolators knew that if they answered no, then it would be an argument against them, and if they answered yes, then it would be a proof that they were lying, and that is what made them excuse themselves from answering this question by saying,

"'We found our fathers doing this.' [Sh'ara: 74]"

Likewise, the Quraish did not deny the portion of Muhammad's message, which stated that one Lord gives life and death, creates and sustains .etc. But they denied what they thought was his implication; that all of their gods were really only one god. They said,

"'Did he make all of the gods just one god; this is surely a strange thing.' [Saad: 5]"

Most of the idolators admit that all of the partners they claim for Allah belong to Him. All belong to the creator of this World, Allah Glorious is He. It is known that when they would encircle the K'aba the idolators would say, "We obey You, No partner have You, except a partner for You, You own him and that which he owns." Abd al-Muttalib told Abraha, "The House has a Lord to protect it." This was when Abraha wanted to destroy the house of Allah. Abd al-Muttalib also said, ''"This is the house of Allah and his friend Ibrahim, so if He kept you away, that would be because it is His House." (Source: "Tahdheeb al-Seerat al-Nubuwiyya"'' by Ibn Hishaam) This, then, is a proof as Allah said,

"'And you forget those who you associated...' [An'am: 41]"

When the idolators are in trouble or hardship they forget the gods whom they associated with Allah and when the trouble ceases, by Allah's Will, they forget again, and they associate partners with Allah once more. Likewise, when Abd al-Mutaalib knew in his heart that they could not prevent Abraha from destroying the House he submitted to the truth and said, "The House has a Lord to protect it," and he did not assocaite partners in that with Him, and he submitted that Allah alone protects and defends the K'aba.

This tawheed is referred to as tawheed of ruboobiyya (Lordship), this is the tawheed that implies that Allah is the Lord and the Creator, the Sustainer, the Giver of life and death, and the All Powerful. Yet, this was not enough and it must be accompanied with another form of tawheed - tawheed of uloohiyya - that is the forbiddance of Allah's creatures to take others as gods besides Allah. As it does not benefit a creature to believe that there is no creator, maker organizer, except Allah - unless - he worships this maker and does not woship anything with Him, believing that He is the only one worthy of worship. Since the false gods are incapable of Allah's ability, they do not deserve to be associated with Him in worship.

The idolators do not benefit by believing that Allah is alone in sustaining, giving life, and death even if they call it tawheed of rububiyya because they do not include tawheed of uloohiyya with it, which states that if the Lord is the Creator, Sustainer, Giver of life and death, then He is the Lord for all creation and there is no other Lord beside Him.

Al-Habashi does not differentiate between these two types of tawheed, and he assumes that tawheed of rububiyya is the tawheed for the ability of inventing and organizing, which he mixed in with the tawheed of uloohiyya. So, in other words, to him whoever admits that Allah is the One who invents, then he has grasped the pure tawheed. Then he tries to prove this point of his by citing the statement of Allah,

"'If they had any gods besides Allah they (the heavens and the earth) would have been in a state of disorder.' [Anbiyya: 22]"

Then, al-Habashi claimed that this kind of tawheed is called proof of inability. This is incorrect because the idolators did not claim that there is more than one who has the all encompassing ability or more than one creator. They believed that the creator is one and - yet - they still worshipped many gods and this is proven from the Book of Allah by His saying,

"'And if you ask them, 'Who created the heavens and the earth and made the sun and the moon subservient?' they will certainly say, 'Allah'.' [Ankboot: 61]"

and for that Allah asked them afterwards;

"'...do you not admit?' [Anbiya:67]"

So, we learn from this, that al-Habashi's usage of the verse

"'If they had any gods besides Allah they (the heavens and the earth) would have been in a state of disorder.' [Anbiyya: 22]"

as proof for Allah's unity in creating and inventing is  not  an evidence - because - Allah has mentioned to use that the idolators admit that Allah is the only creator and inventor, but what he means in this verse is that only the the true god should be given tawheed of uloohiyya. So, He is a god with divinity in its real meaning and this is why Allah sent the Messengers calling to single out this divinity. He also meant by this that the idolators admit to His Lordship - yet - they deny His divinity or uloohiyya.

"'Did he make all of the gods one god?' [Saad: 5]"

Each Prophet started His invitation to Allah with the saying;

"'Worship Allah; you have no god bu Him.' [Ar'af: 59]"

And Allah Azza wa Jall said,

"'And ask those of Our Messengers whom We sent before you, 'Did We ever appoint gods to be worshipped besides the Beneficent God'...?' [Zukhruf: 45]"

Concerning the fact that there is only one creator and organizer, the idolators have admitted to this. Thus, al-Habashi does not support pure tawheed which eradicates shirk from its very roots, rather he approves of what the idolators said. His evidence fails to show the truth and it fails to nullify the falsehood.

(Source: Excerpts from "Habashis: A Warning and Refutation of the Heretical Group Known as the Habashis Al-Ahbash," Translated by Abu Zakariya) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.62.218.33 (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Please, read this Talk / Discussion page thoroughly before making any changes to the main article. Thanks.
Thank you for the message. I have seen your changes to the article and unfortunately they are converting this article to a POV of the Al-Ahbash, which they have been trying to do for years, one way or another. Most of the points have been discussed thoroughly and repeatedly on this very talk page. Please, read this Talk / Discussion page thoroughly before making any changes to the main article. Please, also note that this page is not about an organization but Al-Ahbash. AmandaParker (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have read the discussion, but this is article is not NPOV, no matter what people claim. Why should an article about an organization/sect not include its OWN definition and stated goals? At least it should be mentioned that the definition as a sect is disputed. Also, I find it really weird that this article is just a stub after this much discussion. It's because you, mckhan and others keep reverting people's changes. Please stop and let this article grow. TheEasyWay8 (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is NPOV = Here is some research (and more) on the topic of Al-Ahbash being a religious sect
I regret that you feel that I am some sort of obstalce in the devleopment of this article. The truth of the matter is that I have been trying my best to help to keep this article NPOV under the Wikipedia guidelines despite personal attacks and several attempts to twist this article to one POV (Ahbash) to the other (non-Ahabash). Given the sentiments on the both sides, Al-Ahbahs and non-Ahbash, I think this article remains to be the best NPOV possible as it stands. Please, feel welcome to review the following research to find the answer whether Al-Ahbash is a sect or not. Thanks.


 * "...we may mention the secretarian group, the Ahbash, which originated in Lebanon and has its European base in Switzerland (Lausanne), while being active in Europe, the United States and Africa. Often calling themselves the "Islamic Benevolent Association," adherents carry on a permanent double discourse: to Western questioners, they claim to support the emancipation of women and laicism to oppose the "fundamentalists" (all the issues they know are sensitive and useful for getting them recognized). However, within Muslim communities, they carry on an extremely intransigent and closed discourse, usually treating most of the principal Muslim ulama as kuffar *by which they mean "unbeliever,' "impious people"). They base their teachings on interpretations recognized as deviant by all other schools of thought and all other scholars of note (for example, their singular understanding of the meaning of the name of God, or their assertion that the Qur'anic Text was interpreted by the angel Gabriel, or the practice of praying to the dead).[43] Their approach on very specific points of doctrine (such as those we have referred to) is hostile and usually violent. [44]" Page 29


 * Footnotes:


 * "43. Behind the smokescreen of very open ideas about women, the reality is less rosy: a man may contract a temporary marriage with a woman without telling her that this is his intention (the marriage may last only a few days since this was the intention, even though unexpressed, of the "husband"), and adultery with a woman "unbeliever" is considered only a minor sing because she is not a Muslim. In reality, the entire discourse about ethics and social behavior is based on this distinction between "Muslims" (only the Ahbash) and others (the kuffar, understood by the members of this sect as "unbelievers" in the worst possible sense). The founder, al-Harari (who lived in Lebanon till his death), pronounced judicial opinions (fatwa) for his disciples in which he maintained that lying, stealing, and even killing a kafir, an unbeliever, are minor sins."


 * "44. Their eruption on the Lebanese scene has caused some damage: they were behind some violent brawls and some killing in mosques. Not recognizing scholars of other parties as Muslims, since they are explicityly kuffar, they have gone as far as to eliminate them even if they were recognized scholars. Some of their leaders, members of the Lebanese parliament, have frequently praised the [late] Syrian president Hafes al-Asad and did not hesitate to describe him as a "saint" at the time of the accidental death of his eldest son. The tested strategy of Hafes al-Asad is well-known--to rely on secretarian groups, in the forefront of which is his own clan, the Alawites, to cause divisions and sow trouble among his opponents. The significant financial resources available to the Ahbash in the West are due to foreign support from Lebanon and, without the shadow of a doubt, from the Syrian regime." Page: 234


 * Title: Western Muslims and the future of Islam


 * Author: link Tariq Ramadan


 * Edition: illustrated


 * Publisher: Oxford University Press US, 2004


 * ISBN: 019517111X, 9780195171112


 * Length: 272 pages

...


 * "The UN report, compiled by a German prosecutor, Detlev Mehlis, presents this background in telling detail. Having established a motive, it goes on to describe a range of incriminating evidence. Most compelling are mobile-phone records that reveal the existence of a wide-ranging conspiracy to eliminate Mr Hariri. These include not just records from a set of callers, linked to the Lebanese and Syrian intelligence agencies, in the immediate vicinity of the crime. One caller, an official in a Syrian-backed Lebanese Islamist sect known as the Ahbash, put in a mysterious direct call to Lebanon's president only minutes before the blast."


 * Title: Syria and the Hariri assassination


 * Publication: The Economist print edition


 * Date of Publication: Oct 27th 2005 | BEIRUT


 * http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VDJDJNN

...


 * "The Ahbash, a Lebanese sect, supported by Syrian Alawites, an offshoot of Shi'ism, hold the heretical view that the archangel Gabriel was the first interpreter. The Ahbash regard orthodox Muslims as disbeliveers." Page: 363


 * Title: The Quran and the secular mind: a philosophy of Islam


 * Author: Shabbir Akhtar


 * Publisher: Routledge, 2007


 * ISBN: 0415437830, 9780415437837


 * Length: 400 pages

...


 * "A group of TJ leaders join forces with a small fringe Lebanese sect called the al-Ahbash known for their close links to the Syrian government and were staunch enemies of Sheikh Hilaly." Page: 281


 * Title: Once Were Radicals: My Years as a Teenage Islamo-Fascist


 * Author: Irfan Yusuf


 * Publisher: Allen & Unwin, 2009


 * ISBN: 1741758262, 9781741758269


 * Length: 309 pages

...


 * "By the passage to the West and the recruitment of many converts have profoundly altered the anthropological nature of the sect, leading to a schism into a traditional branch and a modern one in which membership is strictly personal and has nothing to do with belonging to a primary social unit. The Ahbash brotherhood in Lebanon, officially known as the Society of Islamic Philanthropic Projects, or Jam'iyyat al-Mashari' al-Khayriyya al-Islamiyya, was founded by Sheikh Abdallah ibn Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Hirari al-Shibi al-Abdari (also known as al-Habashi, signifying his Ethiopian origins.) Its roots are in the Rifa'iyya brotherhood, but once established in Lebanon the brotherhood took an aggressively proselytizing and militant stand, campaigning agaisnt political Islam and targeting especially the Muslim Brotherhood (headed by Fathi Yakan) and Wahhabis. The Ahbash brotherhood is supported by Syria, and one of its leaders, Nizar al-Halabi, was even assassinated in 1995 by a neofundamentalist radical Sunni group called Asbat al-Ansar. The brotherhood has recently moved into Western Europe. In France, for example, a strong branch is active around Montpellier and attracts many converts' one of its leader is Abd Samad Moussaoui, the brother of Moussaoui." Page: 227


 * Title: Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah


 * Author: Olivier Roy


 * Publisher: Columbia University Press, 2006


 * ISBN: 0231134991, 9780231134996


 * Length: 349 pages

...


 * "In addition, Khader Nab'a is associated with the appearance of the Salafi-Jihadist movement in Lebanon, when the leader of the al-Ahbash religious sect.." Page: 153


 * Title: Unmasking terror: a global review of terrorist activities, Volume 3


 * Author: Jonathan D. Hutzley


 * Publisher: Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Jul 28, 2009


 * ISBN: 0967500966, 9780967500966


 * Length: 543 pages

...


 * "The struggle against the transnational Ahbash sect was a particularly important element in preserving salafist-jihadist mobilization.." Page: 22


 * Title: Everyday jihad: the rise of militant Islam among Palestinians in Lebanon


 * Authors: Bernard Rougier, Pascale Ghazaleh


 * Translated: by Pascale Ghazaleh


 * Publisher: Harvard University Press, 2007


 * ISBN: 0674025296, 9780674025295


 * Length: 333 pages

Regards.

McKhan (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes
I could also find people calling ahbash/aicp an organization or a group rather than a sect. I suggest it's mentioned that the classification as a sect is disputed, like it's done in the wahabi article. The claim that ahbash mixes in shia theology is misrepresentation of the source, which only states that they share a certain political view about one person - saying they mix in shia theology is simply opportunistic and anti-ahbash. I also suggest we actully include the sect's/group's OWN stated goals. Lastly, since ahbash is also a political party, their politics should actually be mentioned. They are - but only as a side-remark to back up that they are controversial. The goal of the article should first and foremost be to describe their policies, then state they're controversial, not the other way around. Does anyone have a problem with these changes? TheEasyWay8 (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind proposed changes. You have not provided, thus far, any independent source which shows that " the classification as a sect is disputed". Regarding "ahbash mixes in shia theology is misrepresentation of the source", please, feel welcome to read the discussion, which provides the sources. The Wikipedia is about NPOV, thus, group's owned "stated" goals wil constitute to a POV. As long as you are able to provide INDEPENDENT and SCHOLARLY sources (like we did), we will be more than happy to take it from there. And last but not the least, this article is not an advertisement or infomercial for Ahbahs or Wahabis as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which aspires to have NPOV under the light of INDEPENDENT and SCHOLARLY sources. McKhan (talk)


 * you can tell that this guy TheEasyWay8 is from ahbash people. does this guy realize that the more he argues, the more his cult is going to get exposed? come on. it's all over the web that ahbash is a cult which practices taqqiya just like the shia people. they don't believe in the real tawhid... they believe that the koran is from gabriel words... they call other muslims kaafir and there are lots of other things... these ahabash people are nobody's friends including west or israel... syria is our enemy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.7.52 (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have seen your changes before which you did to the article of Al-Ahbash. I am not surprised that you are back with the same changes in the shape of "proposed" changes. Apparently, all scholars such as Thomas Pierret, R. Hrair Dekmejian, Bernard Rougier, A. Nizar Hamzeh, Pascale Ghazaleh, Tariq Ramadan, some with peer-viewed published books by Oxford University and Harvard University are all wrong to consider Ahbash as a sect and other points of mixing their beliefs with Shiaism etc. This article is about Ahbash which uses Politics (i.e. political party) to seek influence, nevertheless, it is not THE political party. It is very important to note that it was / is a religious sect before it started using politics as a tool for influence. Finally, please, remember that if Ahbash will start making changes to this article which fits their agenda then anti-Ahbash will come along and make their own changes which will lead to another round of constant edit wars, sock-puppetery and vandalism. Regards. AmandaParker (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As much as, we hate Wahabis, let's not start a fight. [ICPA-AICP]