Talk:Al-Ahbash/Archive 9

RfC
With reference to the above discussions, it becomes abundantly clear that the subject of Al-Ahbash is extremely controversial, thus, this page desperately need the involvement of some previously  non-involved , impartial, neutral , just , fair and knowledgeable editors who can kindly help with a version of Al-Ahbash (and other Al-Ahbash related pages) which presents the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents (including "Wahabis", "Salafis", "Infidels" or "Kaafir" .etc) objectively under the light of pertinent sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Your kind and precious help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, what are you requesting here? An RfC should ask a specific, clear question. I mean, you can technically use it like you've done here, but you're unlikely to get any good help. What specifically do you think should be changed? What should be added? What should be removed? What other sources are good, or what current sources don't meet WP:RS? If you think something's wrong, either discuss it here or try fixing it directly (and then, if someone reverts you, discuss it here). You're basically saying "This article isn't perfect. Someone please work on it". That's true for 99% of our articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * , Thank you very much for your kind input. With all due respect, this article is literally littered with SEO friendly keywords (which has been cherry-picked from various sources) "Sufi," "anti-fundamentalists," "Religiously pluralist", "Traditionalist," "Apolitical," "Sufi religious movment," "Al-Azhar university," "anti-Islamist," "anti-Islamism," "human-rights friendly," "women rights friendly," "anti-Wahabi," and so on and so forth. Enough is enough and this practice has to be stopped somewhere as this page (or Wikpeida in general) is not a Marketing Flyer or Catalog for the proponents of Al-Ahbash to keep on glorifying and portraying ONLY the positive side of the Al-Ahbash by hook or crook.


 * Furthermore, one should appreciate the fact that no human being, group, sect, school of thought, organization, version of religious beliefs .etc is immune to criticism and given that we are on Wikipedia, which aspires to NPOV and given that the subject of Al-Ahbash is extremely controversial, it is only fair to ask for this glorification of the Al-Ahbash by its proponents who constantly insert their POVs to all the Wikipedia pages to be stopped and let the NPOV prevail through facilitating the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents(including " Wahabis ", " Salafis ", " Infidels " or " Kaafir " .etc) objectively under the light of pertinent sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines to be incorporated into this article (and other Al-Ahbash related pages) without edit-warring and intimidation against those who support NPOV. I don't think it is too much to ask for. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Again, if you have exact, specific concerns, raise them. Having those terms is not inherently wrong, if they are supported by sources. If they aren't, then they should be removed. What hits this page gets on search engines is of absolutely zero concern for us. We want a neutral, well-written article that covers the subject with due weight to various POV and ideas. Please focus on specific places where that is not the case. Or just make the changes directly, then we can discuss them afterward. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * McKhan, the only controversy ever seen on this article has been caused by you. I am, as you wrote above " non-involved, impartial , neutral , just , fair and knowledgeable " I only got involved in this article due to it having being kept as a stub since the dawn of time. We follow what the sources say, regardless of SEO. This RFC is pointless, who the hell is going to read the wallotext you posted and come here to comment? You need to learn how to post on a talk page, underlining, bolding and of course your wallsotext. It makes my eyes bleed to have to read your posts. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with the other editors in this case. The only thing mentioned in this RFC is that "this article is POV, and I don't like how easy it is to find".  This reads basically like a more disruptive version of driveby NPOV tagging.  It looks like there have been disputes on this page recently, and if this RFC is meant to bring those disputes to a wider audience that is fine, but that's what we should be addressing, not some nonsense about SEO.  If you are truly concerned about NPOV, higlight one specific issue at a time and trust in editors' good faith.  We will do our best to address your legitimate and good faith concerns, but Wikipedia does not care if information upsets you. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (DarknessShines asked me to take a look here) This is not a workable RfC. You need to raise specific concerns and, preferably, include specific pieces of text that you would like to see added or deleted. If you want fresh eyes on the article, the best is to look for some sort of dispute resolution but, even then, you will need to very specific with your concerns. --regentspark (comment) 20:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your kind comments. I have requested for further and expert help at the WikiProject Islam/Islam and Controversy task force talk page. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I have to agree with other editors here your RfC is not clear enough. If you are not happy with the tone then be bold and change it. As for the not happy that it is one of the top results in a search engine...don't forget that as the biggest encyclopedia on the internet, if you search something, and there is a page on it, it is going to be at the top of the results...regardless of the topic. -- MisterShiney    ✉    18:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Assassination of Rafic Hariri
Would the IP who keeps restoring this explain why the actions of two individuals have any bearing on this organization? Has the organization itself been linked to the crime? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Affiliated with al-Azhar?
Recently when web surfing, I found a few sources stating that al-Azhar had formally severed its affiliation with the al-Ahbash movement. I might search for them again when I get time, but has anybody else seen anything about this? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Please, read Wikipedia Guidelines such as Identifying reliable sources and Neutral point of view for a reference. Thank you.
Just saw this and posting my response which I posted on ProtectorOfHaq's talk page. "The sources (i.e. Pierret, Thomas (2010). 'Al-Ahbash'. Basic Reference (Scotland, UK: Edinburgh Academics) 28: 217–229. . Retrieved27 April 2012., Raphaël Lefèvre (April 2014). 'The Roots of Crisis in Northern Lebanon' (PDF). Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. p. 8. Retrieved 28 October 2014., Dietrich Jung (18 September 2004). Jung, Dietrich, ed. The Middle East and Palestine: Global Politics and Regional Conflict. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 156.ISBN 9781403982124, Gary C. Gambill (December 2007). 'Islamist Groups in Lebanon' (PDF).Middle East Review of International Affairs 11 (4): 44. Retrieved 12 April 2015., Nicholas Blanford (25 August 2006). Killing Mr Lebanon: The Assassination of Rafik Hariri and Its Impact on the Middle East. I.B.Tauris. p. 177.ISBN 9780857714053 and more) you are calling 'bullshit' are not only verifiable but also from peer-reviewed academic journals and written by career academics and they help Wikipedia's NPOV standard a lot. Otherwise, hypothetically speaking, anybody who is the adherent of the Al-Ahbash ideology or Wahabi ideology or any other ideology will convert the Wikipedia pages into blog entries in which they wouldn't want to mention or see anything negative about their favorite ideology (or subject, topic, hero, favorite person .etc) at all but all the good things. I am afraid Wikipedia doesn't work that way as it is an encyclopedia but not a blog. I will strongly urge you to read the pertinent Wikipedia guidelines before editing on Wikipedia constructively. The version you are vandalizing and calling its sources 'bullshit' is the closest Wikipedia's NPOV compliant version and is the fruit of countless discussions and re-discussions. Please, go through the Talk History of the Al-Ahbash. Let's not reinvent the wheel here. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)" No intention of cross-posting.

Neutral point of view clearly states the following:

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

Thank you. McKhan (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Fatwas against and Syrian alliance
I have done alot of research and cannot find any of the "fatwas" against Ahbash. Nor can I find any evidence of Syrian Gov alliance being when Syria left Lebanon the Ahbash had no power in government and still rely on donations to this day. I also find it funny the article mentions Syrian alliance and later on says "neutral in Syrian conflict" despite pressure from both sides (again no proof of this).ProtectorOfHaq (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * With reference to your words "I have done alot of research and cannot find any of the "fatwas" against Ahbash. Nor can I find any evidence of Syrian Gov alliance...," one can find plenty of Fatwas against the Al-Ahbash (That's something else that the adherents / supporters of the Al-Ahbash ideology consider them as anti-Ahbash, Wahabis' fatawas and hearsay .etc) over the Internet as well as evidence of the Al-Ahbash being supported by the Syrian Government. The references are right there with-in the article referring to the Fatwas against the Al-Ahbahs, their alliance / support by Syria and more. Once again, I will urge you to read the Wikipedia Guidelines, policies and the Talk Archives of this very page. The things you are complaining about has already been discussed and re-discussed and the version you are vandalizing is the most closest Wikipedia NPOV compliant version possible. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (The Association is not known as Al-Ahbash in anyway, rather it is a way for wahhabists to class the AICP as its own Islamic sect. Furthermore this is evident when there is a redirect on the Association of Islamic Charitable Projects (AICP) to go to Al-Ahbash which makes no sense as I already said (and you can check AICP.ORG and you wont find AlAhbash anywhere) it is not a name we have given ourself rather its made up by people we warn against (Aka the wahhabis and their followers) The citations on the other page are not view-able (They are pay 2 read/rent) so it is unknown if the author of the wiki is being biased and selectively writing about them OR it is plain text with also, no proof. It seems like there are just alot of rumors. One of the biggest issues I have also noticed is being classed as Shia

"elements of Sunni and Shi'a theological doctrines with Sufi spiritualism by supporting the legitimacy of Imam Ali and his descendents while condemning Mu'awiyya, the caliph and governor of Damascus, and his son Yazid as "seditious" thus adopting Shi'ite tradition whereas setting apart from all other Sunni jurists."

Refutation: "Wahhabis claimed that Sheikh Abdullah curses ^Aishah and Mu^awiah and companions and referenced page 182 of the explanation of "at-Tahawiyah". We searched that page and found nothing of what they claimed whatsoever!

Rather we find in his book "Bughiat at-Talib" Sheikh Abdullah says in page 347: وقال في الكتاب ذاته ص/347 ما نصه:"و أما الآل فإن أريد بهم مطلق أتباع النبي الأتقياء، فتجب محبتهم لأنهم أحباب الله تبارك و تعالى بما لهم من القرب إليه بطاعته الكاملة، و إن أريد به أزواجه و أقرباؤه المؤمنون فوجوب محبتهم لما خصوا به من الفضل." اهـ

"Among the obligations of the heart is to love the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وءاله وصحبه وسلم) and his Kind Al, his Wives and his Companions due to their high honorable status" and he says about ^Aishah "Ummul-mu'mineen, Radiallahu ^Anha" and that she is the most knowledgeable woman and that she must be loved and respected.

And on page 375 of "al-Bughia" Sheikh said: ص/375 ما نصه:"من معاصي اللسان سب أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم، قال الله تعالى:"و السابقون الأولون من المهاجرين و الأنصار و الذين اتبعوهم بإحسان رضي الله عنهم و رضوا عنه"، هؤلاء هم أولياء الصحابة و سب أحدهم أعظم إثما و اشد ذنبا من سب غيره" اهـ.

Which means: "And from the sins of the tongue is to curse or cuss the companions of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وءاله وصحبه وسلم) as Allah praised them in al-Qur'an: {..Radiallahu ^Anhum Wa Radu ^Anh}. And cussing one of them is greater and worse in sin than cussing others". And in another point he says "Cursing and cussing all the companions entirely, is considered as kufur".

As for Mu^awiah, What sheikh Abdullah said about him was the Hadith of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وءاله وصحبه وسلم: which is: "ويح عمار تقتله الفئة الباغية" which means "Praised be Ammar (bin Yassir), he will be killed by the aggressors" and so Mu^awiah is considered an aggressor as the Prophet said in the hadith. Sheikh and his students don't say he is kafir or cuss him! And In his book "Sarihul-Bayan" Sheikh Abdullah mentioned the sayings of Imam Shafi^iy and imam Abul Hassan al-'Ashariy about Mu^awiah being wrong in fighting Imam ^Aliy based on the hadith of the Prophet. But wahhabis insist on permitting lies in order to diminish their opponent! but surely they have failed in that attempt."

Enforcing the idea regarding Mu^awiah, Imam Abul Hassan al-Ash^ari said: قال إمام أهل السنة أبو الحسن الأشعري رضي الله عنه: "إن مقاتلي علي ءاثمون لكنَّ ثلاثةً منهم مغفور لهم طلحة والزبير وعائشة رضي الله عنهم، أما البقيّة فيجوز أن يغفر الله لهم على قاعدة أهل السنة في جواز الغفران للمذنب ما لم يكفر". This means: "All those who fought Imam Aliy are sinful except for three that were forgiven: Talhah, az-Zubeir, and ^Aishah Radiallahu ^Anha. As for the rest it's possible that Allah would forgive them according to the rule of Ahlus-Sunnah that a sinful Muslim can be forgiven as long as he does not balspheme".

And who ever wants to say wrong about Abul Hassan al-Ash^ari can read the hadith of the Prophet: Al-Hakim related the Prophet, in praising them, said:

(هم مني وأنا منهم)

which means: << They follow my methodology, and I am pleased with their action. >>

In Surat al-Ma’idah, Ayah 54, Allah said:

(فسوف يأتي الله بقوم يحبهم ويحبونه)

which refers to a group of people guided by Allah, who love Allah, and Allah loves them... It was narrated, at the time this verse was revealed, the Prophet pointed at Abu Musa al-Ash^ariyy and said: "Those are His people"--an explicit reference to the tribe of the Asha^irah--to whom Imam Abul-Hasan al-Ash^ariyy belongs.

The idea of "Rejection of anthropomorphism" the wiki author claimed it is not compatible with the consensus of Sunni scholars, yet it is Imam Ali whom : Imam Abu Mansur al-Baghdadiyy related in his book, Al-Farqu Baynal-Firaq, that Imam ^Aliyy, the fourth of the caliphs, may Allah reward his deeds, said:

نقل الإمامُ أبو منصور البغدادىُّ في كتابه الفَرْقُ بينَ الفِرَقِ أن الإمامَ علىَّ بنَ أبِى طالب رضى الله عنه قال كان الله ولا مكان، وهو الآن على ما عليه كان

which means: << Allah existed eternally and there was no place, and He now is as He was. ?? (i.e without a place)

So the SUNNAH agrees with Rejection of anthropomorphism.

Imam Abu Mansur al-Baghdadiyy related that Imam ^Aliyy Ibn Abi Talib, the fourth caliph, said:

نَقَلَ الإمامُ أبو مَنْصورِ البغدادىُّ أنَّ الإمام علىّ بنَ أبى طالب رضى الله عنه قال إنَّ الله تَعَالى خَلَقَ العَرْشَ إظْهَارًا لِقُدْرَتِهِ وَلم يَتَّخِذُهُ مَكانًا لِذَاتِهِ

which means: <>

This also rejects the thought of the wahhabis who claim "God sits on the throne" So we so far established that Allah Existing without a place is of the Sunnah and we refuted the idea that "God sits on the throne" yet the author of the wiki claims, the Sheikh is following the Mu'tazila school of thought. What a joke this wiki is, total joke.

So much wrong accusations refuted yet AICP are called Shia following Mutazila ideolagy, dont forget the Mutazila believed their were two creators which is incorrect.

) --ProtectorOfHaq (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect Accusations of being Shia/Following nonSunni consensus REFUTED
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (The Association is not known as Al-Ahbash in anyway, rather it is a way for wahhabists to class the AICP as its own Islamic sect. Furthermore this is evident when there is a redirect on the Association of Islamic Charitable Projects (AICP) to go to Al-Ahbash which makes no sense as I already said (and you can check AICP.ORG and you wont find AlAhbash anywhere) it is not a name we have given ourself rather its made up by people we warn against (Aka the wahhabis and their followers) The citations on the other page are not view-able (They are pay 2 read/rent) so it is unknown if the author of the wiki is being biased and selectively writing about them OR it is plain text with also, no proof. It seems like there are just alot of rumors. One of the biggest issues I have also noticed is being classed as Shia

"elements of Sunni and Shi'a theological doctrines with Sufi spiritualism by supporting the legitimacy of Imam Ali and his descendents while condemning Mu'awiyya, the caliph and governor of Damascus, and his son Yazid as "seditious" thus adopting Shi'ite tradition whereas setting apart from all other Sunni jurists."

Refutation: "Wahhabis claimed that Sheikh Abdullah curses ^Aishah and Mu^awiah and companions and referenced page 182 of the explanation of "at-Tahawiyah". We searched that page and found nothing of what they claimed whatsoever!

Rather we find in his book "Bughiat at-Talib" Sheikh Abdullah says in page 347: وقال في الكتاب ذاته ص/347 ما نصه:"و أما الآل فإن أريد بهم مطلق أتباع النبي الأتقياء، فتجب محبتهم لأنهم أحباب الله تبارك و تعالى بما لهم من القرب إليه بطاعته الكاملة، و إن أريد به أزواجه و أقرباؤه المؤمنون فوجوب محبتهم لما خصوا به من الفضل." اهـ

"Among the obligations of the heart is to love the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وءاله وصحبه وسلم) and his Kind Al, his Wives and his Companions due to their high honorable status" and he says about ^Aishah "Ummul-mu'mineen, Radiallahu ^Anha" and that she is the most knowledgeable woman and that she must be loved and respected.

And on page 375 of "al-Bughia" Sheikh said: ص/375 ما نصه:"من معاصي اللسان سب أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم، قال الله تعالى:"و السابقون الأولون من المهاجرين و الأنصار و الذين اتبعوهم بإحسان رضي الله عنهم و رضوا عنه"، هؤلاء هم أولياء الصحابة و سب أحدهم أعظم إثما و اشد ذنبا من سب غيره" اهـ.

Which means: "And from the sins of the tongue is to curse or cuss the companions of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وءاله وصحبه وسلم) as Allah praised them in al-Qur'an: {..Radiallahu ^Anhum Wa Radu ^Anh}. And cussing one of them is greater and worse in sin than cussing others". And in another point he says "Cursing and cussing all the companions entirely, is considered as kufur".

As for Mu^awiah, What sheikh Abdullah said about him was the Hadith of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وءاله وصحبه وسلم: which is: "ويح عمار تقتله الفئة الباغية" which means "Praised be Ammar (bin Yassir), he will be killed by the aggressors" and so Mu^awiah is considered an aggressor as the Prophet said in the hadith. Sheikh and his students don't say he is kafir or cuss him! And In his book "Sarihul-Bayan" Sheikh Abdullah mentioned the sayings of Imam Shafi^iy and imam Abul Hassan al-'Ashariy about Mu^awiah being wrong in fighting Imam ^Aliy based on the hadith of the Prophet. But wahhabis insist on permitting lies in order to diminish their opponent! but surely they have failed in that attempt."

Enforcing the idea regarding Mu^awiah, Imam Abul Hassan al-Ash^ari said: قال إمام أهل السنة أبو الحسن الأشعري رضي الله عنه: "إن مقاتلي علي ءاثمون لكنَّ ثلاثةً منهم مغفور لهم طلحة والزبير وعائشة رضي الله عنهم، أما البقيّة فيجوز أن يغفر الله لهم على قاعدة أهل السنة في جواز الغفران للمذنب ما لم يكفر". This means: "All those who fought Imam Aliy are sinful except for three that were forgiven: Talhah, az-Zubeir, and ^Aishah Radiallahu ^Anha. As for the rest it's possible that Allah would forgive them according to the rule of Ahlus-Sunnah that a sinful Muslim can be forgiven as long as he does not balspheme".

And who ever wants to say wrong about Abul Hassan al-Ash^ari can read the hadith of the Prophet: Al-Hakim related the Prophet, in praising them, said:

(هم مني وأنا منهم)

which means: << They follow my methodology, and I am pleased with their action. >>

In Surat al-Ma’idah, Ayah 54, Allah said:

(فسوف يأتي الله بقوم يحبهم ويحبونه)

which refers to a group of people guided by Allah, who love Allah, and Allah loves them... It was narrated, at the time this verse was revealed, the Prophet pointed at Abu Musa al-Ash^ariyy and said: "Those are His people"--an explicit reference to the tribe of the Asha^irah--to whom Imam Abul-Hasan al-Ash^ariyy belongs.

The idea of "Rejection of anthropomorphism" the wiki author claimed it is not compatible with the consensus of Sunni scholars, yet it is Imam Ali whom : Imam Abu Mansur al-Baghdadiyy related in his book, Al-Farqu Baynal-Firaq, that Imam ^Aliyy, the fourth of the caliphs, may Allah reward his deeds, said:

نقل الإمامُ أبو منصور البغدادىُّ في كتابه الفَرْقُ بينَ الفِرَقِ أن الإمامَ علىَّ بنَ أبِى طالب رضى الله عنه قال كان الله ولا مكان، وهو الآن على ما عليه كان

which means: << Allah existed eternally and there was no place, and He now is as He was. ?? (i.e without a place)

So the SUNNAH agrees with Rejection of anthropomorphism.

Imam Abu Mansur al-Baghdadiyy related that Imam ^Aliyy Ibn Abi Talib, the fourth caliph, said:

نَقَلَ الإمامُ أبو مَنْصورِ البغدادىُّ أنَّ الإمام علىّ بنَ أبى طالب رضى الله عنه قال إنَّ الله تَعَالى خَلَقَ العَرْشَ إظْهَارًا لِقُدْرَتِهِ وَلم يَتَّخِذُهُ مَكانًا لِذَاتِهِ

which means: <>

This also rejects the thought of the wahhabis who claim "God sits on the throne" So we so far established that Allah Existing without a place is of the Sunnah and we refuted the idea that "God sits on the throne" yet the author of the wiki claims, the Sheikh is following the Mu'tazila school of thought. What a joke this wiki is, total joke.

So much wrong accusations refuted yet AICP are called Shia following Mutazila ideolagy, dont forget the Mutazila believed their were two creators which is incorrect.

) --ProtectorOfHaq (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a party between the Al-Ahbash / AICP and Wahabis.
You have created an article Aicp by lifting the content quite selectively from the Al-Ahbash page which proves the fact that you are not here to seriously help Wikipeida but to propagate the viewpoints of Al-Ahbash also known as Association of Islamic Charitable Projects (whose acronym is AICP or Aicp).

I will urge you to please take your war with the Wahabis somewhere else. Wikipedia is not a party between the Al-Ahbash and the Wahabis. There is no need for refutation here on Wikipedia. Whatever has bee posted here hasn't been written by a single editor but collection of editors who have used the academic, verifiable, reputable and independent sources as per the Wikipedia guidelines. I regret that despite suggesting that you should read the Wikipedia guidelines, you have resorted to spamm the Talk Page with what the Al-Ahbash say about themselves. Should you be able to provide independent, academic, verifiable and reputable sources from the peer-reviewed journals like the editors have done then that would greatly help your agenda. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2016
At the sources presented I was unable to read the articles without PAYING, which begs to question if the information is correct, let alone comes with a source to their own points.

Pierret, Thomas (2010). "Al-Ahbash". Basic Reference (Scotland, UK: Edinburgh Academics) 28: 217–229. doi:10.1017/S0020743800063145. Retrieved 27 April 2012.

Seddon, David (2004). A political and economic dictionary of the Middle East (1st ed.). Routledge. p. 22. ISBN 978-1857432121.

In the below citation Raphael talks about alleged connections with the Syrian Gov and then Syrian Intelligence but show NO Proof, just hearsay.


 * Raphaël Lefèvre (April 2014). "The Roots of Crisis in Northern Lebanon" (PDF). Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. p. 8. Retrieved 28 October 2014.

I think the editor should remove any info linked with such ideas as It is plain ignorant and wrong to paint the group with this picture when there is no proof whatsoever other than a dude in Oxford saying so. ProtectorOfHaq (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

ProtectorOfHaq (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Sources don't have to be freely available, per WP:PAYWALL. nyuszika7h (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

== You have admitted that you have lifted the above text from this forum and then you created this page. ==

You have admitted that you have lifted the above text from this forum. In addition to that you have been using the following ID and IP addresses
 * ProtectorOfHaq


 * 2001:56a:7230:b00:445b:84dc:d278:846d


 * 2001:56a:7230:b00:508e:53d1:e1a9:a05d

and have done the following edts (diffs are here, here, here, here and here). Under the light of these edits and diffs, it becomes abundantly clear that you willfully created the Aicp page when you couldn't get what you wanted to portray on the Al-Ahbash about the Al-Ahbash under the light of your Sheikh without having any regard to Wikipedia NPOV, VERIFIABLE and/or other guidelines despite my request. This version of Aicp you have have created is identical to this last edit you made at Al-Ahbash.

Thus, the Aicp page should be deleted as a). the content has been lifted from the Al-Ahbash page b). The page was created with the intent to push one's favorite version on Wikipedia without and regard to the Wikipedia guidelines. I hope an administrator will see through this and delete this page. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 08:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Al-Ahbash and Aicp are merged
Al-Ahbash and Aicp are merged now. In a way, it is better to work on one page rather on two. Given that Aicp is an acronym of Association of Islamic Charitable Projects and the acronyms are usually written in capital letters, thus, I would like to suggest to change Aicp to either AICP or A.I.C.P.. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Dubious and attribution tags
I placed a "Dubious" tag after the extensive quoting from Tariq Ramadan in the Takfir section of this article. There should be more sources to ascertain the validity of the quote by Ramadan even if such extensive quoting should be included. Is it typical to quote extensively like that from one source?

I also placed attribution tags throughout the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:B088:7000:C597:5416:5908:CD47 (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't register. That was me above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaynfromNY (talk • contribs) 17:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

You have lifted most of the above text from this forum
You have lifted most of the above text from this forum which is a known Al-Ahbash outfit along-with other web-sites run by the proponents of Al-Ahbash. It is Abdullah al-Harariy's teachings which the people behind Association of Islamic Charitable Projects follows which is a charitable upfront (i.e. storefront) of Al-Ahbash as rightly pointed out and highlighted by several of the authors. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes I have and it comes with proof (from the Sheikhs books). Im not looking to start a "war" but I refuted your claims. If you dont want to take the proofs because theyre from that website, then okay. But the ones about Rejection of anthropomorphism should be looked into as they support the Sunnah consensus of the Scholars and the Association does not need to prove itself to people rather it's #1 goal is to teach the Aqeedah, this is the same Aqeedah of AlAzhar AlShareef in Egypt and Zaytuna University in Tunis. The least you can do is look into this point. ProtectorOfHaq (talk) 07:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please, try to understand that I am not the sole editor here on Wikipedia. The version (which includes Rejection of anthropomorphism) you are vandalizing hasn't been written by me but by the collection of editors who are bound to use independent, verifiable, academic and reputable sources as per the Wikipedia guidelines. You must understand that it is not only about what your Sheikh (or Al-Ahbash or AICP's forums or web-sites for that matter) had said in his books and / or recordings but what the independent, verifiable, academic and reputable sources say on / about the topic / teachings of your Sheikh, Al-Ahbash and AICP.
 * As far as I know, the "Aqeedah" and the teachings of Al-Ahbash or Association of Islamic Charitable Projects or your Sheikh Abdullah Al-Hariri are not compatible with the mainstream Sunnis nor taught at Al-Azhar contrary to your claim. The truth of the matter is that Al-Azhar distanced itself from the Al-Ahbash long time ago and some of the Al-Ahbash were arrested in Egypt. Please, see here:
 * In August 2001, the President of the University of Al-Azhar in Egypt, Dr. Ahmad ʿUmar Hashim, issued a letter / statement on the official letter-head of Al-Azhar (The ORIGINAL image of that letter / statement in Arabic can be found  here ) in which he announced ' that Al-Azhar had nothing to do with the Ahbash of Lebanon and he stated that the position of Al-Azhar was that “that group [the Ahbash] is unwholesome, untrustworthy, and un-islamic in its thinking.” '
 * It is  extremely important to note  that Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam by Mustafa Kabha and Haggai Erlich was published in November 2006,  5 years after  the letter / statement issued (August 2001) by the President of Al-Azhar. Source: President of Al-Azhar's Letter / statement issued on the official letter-head of Al-Azhar and Exposing the Ahbash
 * Dr. `Ali Jum`ah, Professor of the Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence at Al-Azhar University, issued a Fatwa (Islamic Decree) against the Al-Ahbash in which he stated: "This sect follows `Abdullah Al-Harary Al-Habashi, and it has surface and deep levels. At the surface, this sect seems to adhere to the Shafi`i School of Jurisprudence, and to Imam Al-Ash`ari’s School as regards creed. However, at the deep level, their main intention is to corrupt the Muslim creed and incite sedition amongst the Muslim Ummah. Moreover, they are paid agents to the enemies of Islam." Source: Al-Ahbash: Evolution and Beliefs
 * Jamaa’at al-Ahbaash (the Habashis) - Fatwa
 * Jamaa’at al-Ahbaash (the Habashis) - Fatwa


 * It is important to note that the above information has NOT been added to the version you are vandalizing. The points or the complaints you are making have been discussed and re-discussed over and over and again throughout the years and the current version is the closest Wikipedia NPOV compliant version. Let's not reinvent the wheel here. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 08:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Then can you tell me why AlAzhar has a joint program with the "Ahbash" where they can do school transfers? Why does AlAzhar stamp the books of Sheikh Abdullah?

Why did AlAzhar approve the TIES book which has the SAME exact Aqeedah taught nowadays? Why have they approved ALL AICP books? Also about the Qiblah in NorthAmerica, dont forget AlAzhar also issued a fatwa in 2015 declaring the Qiblah SouthEast! ProtectorOfHaq (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As per the above-mentioned letter / statement on the official letter-head of Al-Azhar (The ORIGINAL image of that letter / statement in Arabic can be found  here ) issued by the President of the University of Al-Azhar in Egypt, Dr. Ahmad ʿUmar Hashim (roughly translated here from Arabic to English):
 * "When I visited Lebanon 2 years ago, I was presented with some papers to me and a lot of pressure had been exerted on me to sign them. However, I have learned from the Egyptian Ambassador and from other sources that this organization (AICP / Al-Ahbash / TIES) is not credible, and their Islamic mindset is unhealthy. Thus, we have broken off contact with them and we have withdrawn / canceled everything they had demanded of us. There is no longer any relationship between them and us. 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 name of the prestigious Al-Azhar University by this organizations or associations, which do not fully commit nor follow the Quran and Sunnah."
 * Conclusion: Under the light of above letter, it becomes abundantly clear that the AICP / Al-Ahbash / TIES has no "approved" book(s) by the Al-Azhar nor the "Aqeedah" it propagates is agreed upon by the Al-Azhar.


 * (I think the other editor / MezzoMezzo was referring to the same in his Talk Page edit.)


 * Thank you. McKhan (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you write that yourself? KevinAbdulqader (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What did I write myself? McKhan (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The Azhar letter. KevinAbdulqader (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That letter was written by the President of the University of Al-Azhar in Egypt, Dr. Ahmad ʿUmar Hashim. And it can be found all over the [https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZiteYfxYYiIAkjBslTgzyMr7GbY8KB5Upl6PSWvOPMOlrDwypka9HhblxqeCAY8lXZywP8HjrRSvnKkAI9ISyQpMG-4TrOcYqRzd5kFMyPreYFXO2jE904SAIoWoGEdlONirXSCL1qBItUaJufA6vM1Vo9CpU-G1VE6Liq4FYrwlQnnHMXyJ2wKho8uMGYXr_1813mIWyWbDaRLGi5WpPk2LXkQ-ubbJ_11xw7au_190MA24JdmH4d5_1sQ4EkiBxn_1E71WSrPq2R8K1yFaIwTOYVh8ubY4iEUxM7aqvCBvEO6ri7BeP8oT4by7uvszqqSHAWsnMf-Vvl3g_1N8k0scQsFLgdmfpuDR5kFtMi2Aocx7zs6C7YdNPB0x2HPW_1915B5xVmsKPqcs_1P65ht1c0LnZx2HdRllBRB4aOCwYFN6FgLsFO29PKFxjH05o7vWSTLnR-l5UwDl13UCeB6o7I6ceqZqQW7HSDMItnu4wMSkBkIK9U_18SwHZY3LJOYIY9wr8qTPvI-mETgXndJEFuUEu2EXMbma21hjDMbHlMFTf6EdmBBOINZJIRNKl7-MggD5LYKEVDzKWlpcjgFHg1xQh1NOESJ5rLRwmutdQ8HnsNZdaEwUol8hIGxB74YIkDUD0RAl0lkiq8Q4NeQTiB-Lr8kKHkyM2Qih6l4FEKsyMe6B2tiQbRV1_1dW4kz4EaVAgSVUvJZX3AT9Fs11C7bT-SHz1wGSYKiyaN5rtp2ckKsJA_1jf6dT5yCYr2XrhqJAxKdQ770882Rt-ERoWWdARei55hKrY5GeF0r8hYUkG7FszRjfOvfM5vroGI4nJZLuWfu0PZPoTPgz3uThCgtz0ENxqq6srOhapjWt8p1TLFX23aniKYj0ycGFsUgEQift7kpdMEF9lvNWdp7uVG9Q5AiiDKCKQB5foaDI7eGqr_1YOJlzVjTERLTtTAzVfEEwwW7r-o-ecxNjq5Uli34nF2wXsrtmNyJ7P525toxeE8Yw8HrgtZfB0uhbc6K1PHS0E0_1qVBEGEXD0-OVt_1-ynhrRnCUELkUdesYXZxcw5Khdvmb-oqJ_1t2lToirK5fvejZeS5JxryOblChqnpzhtr-11Ac2nKckjOQHTurf0uCfV4_1I4c7n7a6VVyr-fok2C8OLaZyCM5PKqeFX0mGzAs934EjTFVoFcO0dBzIdOhIoEWZ9g0OepqbW2Fcy8ruCbSBEE5xN_1Fgjy6qh2cATEcNk8ev87iYpfmvtLcT9Ps94f2ckqV3RexRMXDCHf_1S16IL9N48_1kjEqvfY9k_1O-98PPEkCjMdLr7mJZNoEylok1VaDfsOx7ouw16kdBFURTPOEO264xwW6j0H1sLYAZq0W2NAYMD_1_1F3hiYayXen_1TCmuzbAYPfZdxRICN7KyR17ByC1YmyQdsTbl2xy7OxpkQAiEHzL_1Ol8uF-8Di-rqOjK5lIiZJLJp-UE1T9O4B2uplDlWqVc_11OZRBWlTPHV6asRI2_1V4wfz6f3HOyeASJGZrRz41CsBsZQnRrQTm8ovPsUxt2Ia02BncA-IiEW5UGD4SMQiUHcqJixlSryBkiD2KbYEDFzXtJHHQ_1IBBnZ6Zdli88MPMybYiUgvdZ5bHhwbMCTxwOyIt3B7zQll9zgzz106G-nveBwU&hl=en Internet] along-with references to it. I can see that how quickly you created an account and went straight to remove it. How many other accounts do you have? I will be restoring the page as in one edit you did not only gave the false summary but removed "North American" along-with that letter and a verifiable sources. The very reason of creation of this account is to remove the information which you don't like regardless of the reason. From your edits one can tell that you are not a new user but an old user. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is unreliable and you have no consensus to restore it. I created this account to edit Wikipedia much like yourself. KevinAbdulqader (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Says who that it is unreliable? McKhan (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are you adding in unreliable sources? The source regarding Azhar was misrepresented. Reply back@mkhan. KevinAbdulqader (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * How is the source unreliable and how did I misrepresent it?? How many other accounts do you have? Why did you remove North America? McKhan (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The forged letter is only found in personal websites/blogs. Find it in reliable sources and post. I registered now after I observed your defamation and slander on this forum. KevinAbdulqader (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Who says that it is a forged letter? How does the sentence "The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools being affiliated with Al-Azhar,[1] a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar.[3][4]" constitute to "defaming" and "slandering"? Did you post this {https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:McKhan&diff=prev&oldid=730781454 preposterous claim}? Wikipedia is NOT forum NOR it is a personal blog for the Al-Ahbash or {{Wahabis]]. McKhan (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The source mentions not a claim for affiliation with Azhar, its stated as a fact. I cant find letter in Haggai Elrich's review it is forged my friend. It sure looks like a forum by the messages your spewing. In germany we say taten sagen mehr als worte. No it was not me nonetheless people are angry with you maybe KevinAbdulqader (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Which source are you referring to? Was the Haggai Elrich used ALONE in the sentence "The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools being affiliated with Al-Azhar,[1] a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar.[3][4]"? (The claim made by the Al-Ahbash - as mentioned in Haggai Elrich's article and rejection of that claim by Al-Azhar - as mentioned in that letter in Arabic by Dr. Umar and VERIFIABLE source by Markaz al-Nasr li Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaah, Jakarta, Indonesia published by As-Sunnah Foundation of America is right there along-with the letter in Arabic and source in English). Why did you remove North America? McKhan (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Jakarta based Islamic group is not verifiable source, it is non neutral source to be used. My apologies on removing qibla things, I am from europe, I presumed you were slandering the group, they dont have different qibla here. KevinAbdulqader (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * How can you say that it is not a verifiable source? What about As-Sunnah Foundation of America which published that? Is that also not a verifiable source? McKhan (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A Islamic group judging another Islamic group is not fair assessment. Foundation of America is competing for orthodoxy against AICP. The organizations are bitter enemies. Look at the article, all are cited by university publishers and academia. Look for a source other then blogs or competeing organizations, who want to discredit rivals. This is not posted on Azhar website. KevinAbdulqader (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What does Wikipedia have to do with that competition? Did you know that Kabha is ALSO using http://www.alhabashi.info/ (An Al-Ahbash outfit) under the footnotes? As I clarified earlier that it is  extremely important to note  that Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam by Mustafa Kabha and Haggai Erlich was published in November 2006,  5 years after  the letter / statement issued (August 2001) by the President of Al-Azhar. (Source: President of Al-Azhar's Letter / statement issued on the official letter-head of Al-Azhar). Al-Azhar's grand Mufit has also issued a Fatwa against the Al-Ahbash. Why would Al-Azhar issue a Fatwa against the Al-Ahbash if they have got affiliation with them? McKhan (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that the 'affiliation' of Al-Ahbash's with Al-Azhar is contentious, disputed and rejected by Al-Azhar itself under the light of many sources (I know you consider them all from Anti-Habashi, Wahabi, from the "competing" organizations and so on and so forth) available on-line (in Arabic and English) and given that President of Al-Azhar Dr. Ahmad Omar Hashem issued a letter in Arabic - roughly translated above in English - (which I know you and other adherents of Al-Ahbash considers to be "forged" for the mere reason that it hammers out and eliminates the false legitimacy and clout of having "affiliation" or "agreement" with Al-Azhar which the Al-Ahbash and AICP propagate through their web-sites including alsunna.org, alhabashi.info and more) and last but the not the least a Fatwa issued by yet another President of Al-Azhar and Grand Mufti of Egypt Dr. Ali Gomaa and Islamic Research Academy at Al-Azhar against the Al-Ahbash, I am going to remove that reference of AlCIP having an affiliation with Al-Azhar altogether. I am also going to restore "North America" portion of the Al-Ahbash article on Wikipedia which was removed for no apparent reason because the main target of the edit was the letter. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No Elrich would of mentioned this since Goma's alleged fatwa was in 2003 and Elrich's review (2006. Al Azhar has a diverse faculty, to say one person (president) has monopoply over decisions is wrong. Azhar leaders are not a khalifa or pope of islam. This is all lies and you can not add it in to defame this organization. KevinAbdulqader (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Is Reuters and Al-Arabiya lying too about Ali Gomaa's Fatwa and arresting the men "who had been attempting to spread their beliefs on the campuses of al-Azhar University" and "belong to the al-Ahbash sect."? Why would Al-Azhar let Egyptian authorizes arrest the Al-Ahbash men if they had "affiliation" with the Al-Ahbash and they agreed to the preachings of Al-Ahbash? Apparently, if one buys your argument then everybody is out there to "defame" and "slander" the Al-Ahbash with "alleged" Fatwas and "forged" letters and everybody and every entity which disagrees with the Al-Ahbash on any level are just plain liars, Wahabis, Anti-Ahbash or just not worthy. I am glad that you agree that "Azhar leaders are not a khalifa or pope of islam." Thus, I am not adding anything new but simply removing the contentious and disputed "affiliation." Thank you. McKhan (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A photocopied letter made by affiliates of your organization will not be used on wikipedia. KevinAbdulqader (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What organization are you referring to? I belong to no religious or political organization (not even a membership of any organization of any kind) nor I posted that letter on the Internet. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't damage the reputation of Wikipedia by removing citations. KevinAbdulqader (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * How am I damaging the "reputation" of Wikipedia by removing a contentious and disputed "affiliation"? I thought we have already discussed enough. McKhan {{sup|(talk)}} 17:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Cambridge is a respectable source. Removing it only reveals your intentions on the forum. KevinAbdulqader (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove North America? Since the time you showed up on Wikipeida, you went straight to that letter and removed North America? What does it reveal about your intentions? How many other ids do you have? McKhan {{sup|(talk)}} 18:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant to re-add your removal of Azhar see here p.523 http://aigaforum.com/documents/Al-Ahbash-whaibyya.pdf KevinAbdulqader (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

{{od}}Yet you did remove North America from the Al-Ahbash article from the get go. After having an extensive discussion with me, I am fully aware of the fact that why you are trying to "re-add" that article after admitting that "Azhar leaders are not a khalifa or pope of islam." My point is that the article you are trying to "re-add" is using the following Al-Ahbash own sources (i.e. Manar Al-Huda, www.namradio.com) for the alleged "affiliation" with Al-Azhar, which has been denied by Al-Azhar and more than one verifiable sources : "It has issued a monthly, Manar al Huda, since 1992, and has had its own radio station, Nida' al-Marifa,[16] since 1998. Its members are very active on the internet and have websites that spread the word of the shaykh and his polemics with their rivals.[17] In addition, the Association runs networks of kindergartens, elementary and secondary schools, and Islamic colleges affiliated with Cairo's Jami at al-Azhar.[18]

One can CLEARLY see that it is the Al-Ahbash who keep on insisting that they have got "affiliation" and "agreement" with Al-Azhar (Why? Because claiming so gives them the false legitimacy and clout of having "affiliation" or "agreement" with Al-Azhar and that's what the Al-Ahbash and AICP want and propagate through their web-sites including alsunna.org, alhabashi.info and more) despite the fact that Al-Azhar denies that (See above). In other words, they are misusing Al-Azhar's as a Marketing tool to buy legitimacy and clout.
 * [16]- On the radio station, see http://www.namradio.com/
 * [17]- On the Ahbash usage of the Internet, see Thomas Pierret, "Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context," The International Institute for the Study of lslam in the Modern World 15 (2005): 50.
 * [18]- On those activities, see, for example, Manar Al-Huda 93 (December 2000): 36-42.
 * [20]- http://www.aicp.de and www.islami.de/

Why should we trust Manar Al-Huda (An Al-Ahbash's own monthly magazine) and not the other sources by other organizations (i.e. Al-Azhar by itself)?

Since we don't see eye to eye, I removed the "The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools being affiliated with Al-Azhar,[1] a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar.[3][4]" (Although, it is a fair statement as it quotes the claim made by Al-Ahbash and then the rejection in lieu of it.) in order to be fair. But you are still not satisfied.

Going through your edits and the above discussion, it becomes very clear that you are here to make sure that this article remains being a Marketing tool for the Al-Ahbash as this is the very first page which shows up on the Search Engine Results when someone types Al-Ahbash, AICP or Association of Islamic Charitable Projects. You were never genuinely interested in the discussion as per your first edit and the last edit. There isn't much difference. Isn't it? And the way you are editing, one can easily tell that you are an old user.

You still haven't answered that why did you exactly remove North America. McKhan {{sup|(talk)}} 20:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Responding to a tag...wowza, this is quite a discussion. It appears that activity ceased at one point...am I to understand that the issue is the fatwa from Azhar? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Qibla
There is a dedicated page for Qibla on Wikipedia. It is not you, I, Azhar or anybody else to decide whether the correct direction towards Mecca is South-East or North-East. Qiblah.us is not an independent, academic and verifiable source as it is a blog and carries material only / mostly to "prove" that the "correct" Qiblah is towards South-East. Your edits so far and comment prove that you are not a new user and will continue to make those edits which you think are "wrong", "incorrect", "Anti-Ahbash", "pro-Wahabi" etc. I hope you will appreciate the fact that Wikipedia is not a blog for the Ahbash or the Wahabis where one can post the information they like or deem correct and suitable about their likes, dislikes, beliefs, favorite group etc. The version you see on this page hasn't been written by me only but with the collaboration of other editors. Having said that the changes you are trying to make have been discussed over and over again through the history of this page. Please, feel welcome to review the talk page first before making any further edits. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In the very first edits you made on this page, you lifted the content from someone's web-site who has been indicted. See here and here. The best book on the topic is "Port in a Storm: A Fiqh Solution to the Qibla of North America" (by Nuh Ha Mim Keller) which has been referred here. Keller has also used Al-Azhar. Please, discuss your edits before making any further changes to the article. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

, With reference to the above, the edits you have made so far are not based upon facts nor they are neutral as per the Wikipedia guidelines. Please, discuss before you make any further edits. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC).Mckhan


 * My information are based on facts, yet your information are not reliable because they are bios in them and will be edited upon discussing that with Wikipedia team. In addition, leaving your comments untouched unchanged by me, I chose to be neutral by adding comments underneath your comments by me based on facts. Please stop spreading one sided information based on few articles you referenced, yet you chose to ignore the remainder of articles that contradict your articles. I could continue discussing your concerns tomorrow.Chaabano (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This article is not about Tariq Ramadan (i.e. his challenges with the authorities) nor Qiblah (i.e. correct or incorrect direction, South-East or North-East) and by maligning Tariq Ramadan, who has got his own dedicated page on Wikipeda, and others is not going to help your cause nor promoting and advertising Qiblah.us (Qiblah has got his own page too) which contains material favorable to Al-Ahbash's South-East direction is any beneficial. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, not this again...this page is like Barelvi: every few years, an adherent of the movement decides that any criticism of their group at all is unfair and starts randomly deleting sources information and inserting POV pushing material.
 * Let's stop with accusations and look at facts. McKhan has brought specific reasons behind why he believes the consensus version of this article is sound; User:Chaabano, what specifically do you view as problematic about the article and why? Which parts in particular? MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Barelvi: May we discuss few things at a time about my concerns in the article [Al-ahbash] ? I would like to add few lines to show the other side point of view based on facts. For example, I have been doing research with [MIT] researchers, I also had discussed several points of views with other mathematicians, physics ,engineering and political science researchers at Stanford and San Francisco State universities. Regarding [Qiblah] in the article, I personally had traveled to North America and visited many of the Mosques in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Antonio Texas, Nashville in Tennessee ,Virginia, New York, Boston and many other US States. I had a GPS with me and examined randomly the directions of [Qiblah] at those Mosques and had taken calculations myself. I have witnessed that some Mosques had taken directions of [Qiblah] to North, some to North East, some to East-South East and some to the East. Without pointing which group or groups is facing [Qibla] in specifics, I would like to list a short line about my findings.
 * Regarding other information listed in the article of [Al-Ahbash] article, I have examined the page thoroughly and found that there are some bios about one group over another, let us discuss [Tariq Ramadan] after reading numerous articles and publications with publishers that have nothing to do with Tariq Ramadan or other groups including A-Ahbash groups, they have been in conflicts with each other, so stating in the article that [Tariq Ramadan] opinion against [Al-Ahbash] groups is one sided opinion since he is considered by many groups and others the head of [Hizb Al-Ekhwan] groups or for some he is following their steps. I will list here only one independent neutral publication by the New York Times Magazine by [Ian Buruma] as a reference see I am requesting removal of Tariq Ramadan comments against Al-Ahbash groups since he has conflict of interests. Once we agree on consensus of the above editing we could discuss the remainder of the article using independent publications.Chaabano (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Barelvi: and McKhan: Please note that I started the process of mediation so we may resolve this issue in peaceful manner, and will be followed by [Arbitration] if mediation had Fail where Arbitration is different from mediation in that the Arbitration Committee will consider the case and issue a decision, instead of merely assisting the parties in reaching an agreement. If the issue is decided by arbitration, you will be expected to abide by the result. Are you willing to take the chance of final decision or would you rather comes to consensus reaching middle ground? .Chaabano (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * , First of all, I would like to invite you to go through Wikipedia guidelines such as Assume good faith,Wikipedia is not censored, edit war, neutral point of view policy, disruptive editing, no original research policy, spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Having said that let me try to clarify few things here:
 * I am not the sole author / editor of the Al-Ahbash page and other editors have contributed to and vetted the current version.
 * I am glad that you have been researching Qiblah all over the United States and beyond and you would like to share your findings with Wikipedia. However, I am afraid Al-Ahbash is NOT the page for that. You are more than welcome to share your findings (as long as they have been published in an academic, peer-viewed journal or a verifiable source which complies with Wikipedia guidelines) at Qibla which is a dedicated page on that topic / subject. Please, note that Qiblah.us is a blog and any "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Besides this factual statement, "The Al-Ahbash pray using the South-east direction in Canada and the United States[52] versus majority of the Muslims who pray towards Qiblah using the North-east direction in their mosques.[52][53][54]"" is pretty harmless and neutral as it is simply stating what the references say without indulging into any sort of debate whether North-East is correct or South-East is correct. That matter has been discussed on Qibla extensively.
 * Regarding Tariq Ramadan's quote, I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not religious, Wikipedia is not censored and Wikipedia is not a battleground. Tariq Ramadan has got his own dedicated page on Wikipedia (which lists almost everything about him) and whether he is a Wahhabi, criminal, terrorist or grandson of the founder of Muslim Brotherhood, the fact remains that he is a bona-fide and well-respected Professor at Oxford with a Ph.D. in Arabic and in Islamic studies and the quote, which has been taken from an peer-viewed Oxford Press library book, summarizes all the important and controversail elements about Al-Ahbash quite succinctly. "Most religious, political and social movements which have notable opposition contain sections about that on their Wikipedia articles, and of course those sections will quote people who disagree with said movement." There are other sources too who says the same thing. Having said that quote along-with other things you are trying to discuss has already been discussed over and over agan and even through RfC].
 * And last but not the least, please, feel welcome to visit and read the Talk pages of Al-Ahbash thoroughly. You will find that most of things have been discussed over and oever again.
 * Thank you. McKhan (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The AICP Islamic School Affiliation with AlAzhar
I am wondering why you reverted the edit without reason? It is in your own citation[3] that it says "In addition, the Association runs networks of kindergartens, elementary and secondary schools, and Islamic colleges affiliated with Cairo's Jami at al-Azhar.18" while you go on and say AICP makes this claim.AbeEll (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not the sole contributor to this article nor I inserted the above citation. I will recommend that you should read Al-Azhar_and_Al-Ahbash discussion and the talk page in detail. The sentence, "The group follow the teachings of Ethiopian scholar Abdullah al-Harari.[2] 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]" presents Neutral Point of View (NPOV) as it corroborates with what the AICP / Al-Ahbash claims and what the Al-Azhar denies. The points you are making have been discussed over and over again. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is why the Al-Ahbash keep coming back to Al-Ahbash related pages on Wikipedia...
Please, don't forget that the topic of Al-Ahbash is very much contentious and controversial.

Having said that I know very well that why the Al-Ahbash keep coming back to Al-Ahbash related pages on Wikipedia. It is NOT about respect for Al-Azhar or academic integrity or Wikipedia. It is basically all about marketing.

They keep coming back to the the Al-Ahbash related pages on Wikipedia because these are the pages which shows up on most of the search results on Google, Yahoo and other major search engines. Thus, it is very important for the Al-Ahbash to keep all good, positive and sanitized information being posted about themselves and their scholar Abdullah_al-Harari on Wikipedia in order to make sure that they are able to keep their current adherents as well as recruit potential adherents.

That's where having the "affiliation" with Al-Azhar or using the banner of "Jamat Ahal Wa Sunnah" becomes handy and important because Al-Azhar being one of the oldest Sunni Institution and Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah being the majority of the World Muslims being Sunnis can really be good for marketing and to buy the clout and legitimacy. Otherwise, the Al-Ahbash couldn't care less about Al-Azhar or Jamat Ahal Wa Sunnah or the mainstream Sunni Muslims.

Don't believe me? Please, read this:


 * At first sight, devices such as live interactive lessons or voice chat groups seem to encourage debates within the movement, but, on the contrary, close examination reveals that these instruments are primarily used by the leadership to increase its ideological control on their followers and to attract new devotees. Similarly, if one checks the AICP’s unofficial e-forums (www.talkaboutislam.com), one discovers that they function as ideological spider webs. Nothing points to the fact that these websites, which only present themselves as being “Islamic,” are actually part of the Ahbash’s cyber network. For instance, they are not related to the official websites by any hypertext link. Therefore, the random visitor is normally unaware that he or she is exposed to a set of selected opinions through carefully controlled debates. Firstly, zealous participants frequently post chapters of books edited in Lebanon by the AICP, but without any reference to the author or the editor. Secondly, veteran members answer questions concerning fiqh (jurisprudence) and reprimand novices whose religious knowledge is considered “deviant.” Thirdly, a team of regulators supervise the discussions and are in charge of censoring the Ahbash who are too keen to use takfir (excommunication) —since such a stance is considered a mark of extremism by most of the Sunnis—but above all of eliminating most of the messages posted by participants of Salafi persuasion.'''


 * Notes


 * [1]. Olivier Roy, L’Islam mondialisé (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 2002), 127.
 * [2]. Michael Gilsenan, Saint and Sufi in Modern Egypt: an Essay in the Sociology of Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973).


 * Source: https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/16971/ISIM_15_Internet_in_a_Sectarian_Islamic_Context.pdf?sequence=1

What I described above is just the tip of the iceberg.

No matter how many sources or references are provided, the Al-Ahbash will only accept those sources which will help them to "demonstrate" to the world (through Wikipedia) that they do have "affiliation" with Al-Azhar although Al-Azhar has denied it and challenged it. And once they have achieved this goal, they will come back to the Wikipedia for something else. Because...remember... it is all about marketing, buying the clout and legitimacy by hook or crook.

Thank you. McKhan (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Azhar - Ahbash ties 2015
I read through McKhan's discussion with the previous Habashi who was talking about this topic. He posts a letter from the Azhar dated 2001. But since 2015 is after 2001 by a lot, why would you not say that the relationship between azhar and ahbash has changed. I mean I saw with my own eyes when the vice president of Azhar came to darulfatwa and announced he would give out scholarships to us and he has and still is. Why not update the information on Wiki??

"Recently, the vice president of al-Azhar university in Egypt visited al-Ahbash in Australia and endorsed them as well as partnered with them and offered them scholarships to study in Egypt, which they have been doing. http://www.darulfatwa.org.au/en/the-historic-visit-of-al-azhar-ash-sharif-to-australia-2015/ "

Samsparky (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Samsparky, You have been resurrected after AbeEll got blocked. Having said the topic Al-Ahbash is very much contentious and controversial. Your point has already been answered. Dar-ul-Fatwa (Australia) is the ICPA / AICP / Al-Ahabash / Habahis's outlet (and AMUST is covering the event by Dar-ul-Fatwa) thus not a reliable source, as the Al-Ahbash / AICP / ICPA or whatever name they are using can post, publish, say or disseminate (in 2001, 2017 or even in the future) whatever they want (on their outlets, material, web-sites .etc) but it doesn't mean that it is reliable. Al-Ahbash have no respect nor regards for mainstream Sunni Muslims in Australia or elsewhere, they only use Al-Azhar and Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah for marketing purposes. Please, see below. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I did read all of what you wrote mcKhan. You also make statements that don't have any reliable references but that is not my argument at the moment. My argument is what proof do you want us to bring? Do you want me to ask one of the people who are on scholarship to al azhar to show you proof of enrolment? Or is nothing enough for you? Samsparky (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)SAMSPARKY

I just read reference 6 grozney. It just says the discussion identifies these and these but it doesn't say azhar disavows ahbash. Samsparky (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 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 following questions:


 * 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) 00:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be blunt, Samsparky: I think you're a sockpuppet. I don't know of who, but this article has been besieged by multiple sockpuppets for many years. Now, just a week or so after yet another Ahbash-affiliated sockpuppet gets blocked, your account comes back into service after a nine year hiatus? Sorry, but I don't buy it. If you keep edit warring, you'll eventually reveal who you are. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

AlHamdu lillaah God supports the truth. The request of check user was rejected because it was absurd Samsparky (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you don't get caught now, you will eventually. The more you and the other puppets who attack this article try to push your POV, the deeper you dig yourselves. Just wait. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)