Talk:Salafi–Sufi relations

Sufi response to destruction of Holy sites in Saudi Arabia
Why is this section included in here at all? None of the sources mention Salafism; it's just about the actions of the Saudi government. I really hope we're beyond the infantile claim that Saudi Arabia is a Salafist state. They've funded Sufis both in their own country and abroad; Saudi Arabia is a large, complicated country whose religious beliefs are not monolithic. On top of that, check what Salafists around the world are currently saying about Saudi Arabia and the Saud royal family; that's a quick way to dispel such notions.

Anyway, I suggest just removing this section - it's already in the main article about destruction of heritage so it doesn't need to be merged. The only purpose it serves here is to imply that Salafists are Saudi and Saudis are Salafists, part of the reason why this article was initially nominated for deletion - it's full of blatantly false, borderline-prejudiced claims like this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Saudi Arabia officially follows Salafi ideology,Sufi response is totally relevant MezzoMezzo and when they are responding something which affects their relations is totally relevant. Shabiha (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Saudi Arabia doesn't officially follow Salafi ideology. Officially, their court system is the Hanbali madhhab and they're Sunni/anti-Shi'ite, but that's about it. I would ask for proof of this claim, but I know that there is none; thus, I will reinstate the edit. The onus is on you to prove this point, but again, given the complicated and often schizophrenic nature of Saudi religious policy, I know that you can't. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool down!Here we have sources to prove your open lies.Saudi is officially following salafism.Your ignorance is not base to remove all Saudi Salafi sources from the article.Now you have to stop.Read here,

No Shabiha, I don't have to stop. One quote from one person doesn't prove the policy of an entire country. If that's your basis for inclusion then I will simply revert your edits again, as will other editors. It's like finding a single quote from Pervez Musharraf to write about the official policy of Pakistan; it wouldn't make any sense. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * “My brothers, you know that true Salafism is the path whose rules derive from the book of God and the path of the Prophet…This blessed state (Saudi Arabia) has been established along correct Salafi lines since its inception by Imam Mohammed bin Saud and his pact with Imam Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab.Saudi Arabia will continue on the upright Salafi path and not flinch from it or back down,” Prince Nayef told the conference participants. . Now don't revert any content. Shabiha  (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not one prince saying, it is govt of Saudi Arabia, confirming in these words ,Saudi Arabia will continue on the upright Salafi path.Minister is not saying they should rather they will continue.There is large and big difference between both.The official and dominant form of Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia is commonly known as Wahhabism (a name which some of its proponents consider derogatory, preferring the term Salafism[197])on this Article.Saudi Arabia.Islam in Saudi Arabia Says,When the modern kingdom was established, Salafism became the only brand of Islam espoused by the government. The Saudi government hosts multiple international Islamic organisations and uses its government arms to propagate the Salafi brand of Islam worldwide. The King of Saudi Arabia is considered the guardian of the two mosques, considered the holiest in Islam, of Mecca and Medina. The majority of the fifteen to twenty million Saudis are Salafi Muslims, an orthodox movement within Sunni Islam.U.S department of State Muslims who do not adhere to the officially sanctioned Salafi (commonly called "Wahhabi") tradition can face severe repercussions at the hands of the Mutawwa'in (religious police).It is established fact that Salafism is officially religion in Saudi Arabia its Scholars follows it and proudly accept it.Officially Prayer leaders and religious police,religious department follow Salafism.They daily confronts Sufi followers and stop them praying at various places,they stop Shia community.They are doing many things which directly affecting Sufi Muslim community who come there on religious pilgrimage.Moreover their direct funding to Salafi fighter is also major step in Salafi Sufi relations. Shabiha (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Then why do most of the Salafists worldwide declare the Saudi Arabian government to be apostate infidels, Shabiha?
 * Why was Prince Nayef, who actually was a Salafi, so hated by the rest of the royal family? Why did other Saudi royals almost threaten a revolt if he were to have taken the throne? (When he was still alive, he was crown prince)
 * Saudi Arabia funded Salafists, yet they also funded Sufis such as Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki. Why is that, Shabiha?
 * Ignoring the reality of Saudi Arabia's complicated political landscape, most Salafists live outside of Saudi Arabia, in Egypt, Yemen, Algeria and Morocco. Saudi Arabia clearly doesn't represent them, so your notion that the Saudi government's closeness to their own Salafist scholars somehow makes Saudi Arabia a representative of Salafism is somewhat silly.
 * You haven't proven that actions of the Saudi government represent Salafism any more than actions of the Iranian government represent Shi'ism; both are modern political states with their own interests who will play their religion cards as necessary.
 * What I am saying will be clear to any other editors; you're the only one who seems to cling to this conspiracy theory. I'm reverting your insertions, Shabiha, as even if what you've said here is accurate - it isn't, but hypothetically speaking - your edits are still original research because the SOURCES you put in the article mentions Saudi government demolition, not Salafism.
 * You were advised by more than one editor to review WP:SYNTHESIS; it's clear that you have not, and that you're still just trying to insert the same edits any way you can. This is absolutely unacceptable. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * distancing salafists from saudi arabia is practically impossible so i don't know why your trying to make the effort to do so..saudi arabia funds wahabis in egypt yemen etc it doesn't matter if they live outside of saudi arabia. & when i say wahabi that includes albani..you also brought up a point about the saudis funding sufis yes thats true..the saudis fund anyone that is willing to drop the wahabi issue and stop criticizing them but they use their money mainly to influence other muslims around the world to the wahabi/salafi ideology. Baboon43 (talk)
 * Articles on Islamic topics on Wikipedia have to follow the same rules as other topics. If sources do not support what editors claim, then the claims are uncited and must go.  Taking two sources and using them to support conclusions that are not in either of them is called "synthesis" and is unacceptable.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * i didnt comment on the content that was inserted by shabiha but rather was just replying to some of the things Mezzo had said & im quite aware of synthesis. Baboon43 (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Baboon, what you're saying here is such a huge leap of logic and based on so many points of OR and synthesis that there's no reason to even discuss it. The issue of Saudi Arabia supposedly having an official ideology has been done to death elsewhere. The point is what the sources support, and what Shabiha was pushing is in no way supported by reliable sources without resorting to original research. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Its actually common sense but i have not looked at shabhias sources so i wouldnt know what your talking about. Baboon43 (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring by Shabiha
Shabiha, you're just reverting without even discussing now. What's worse, you blatantly lied in your edit summary for a second time - the sources which I removed don't even mention the words Salafi, Salafism or Salafists with the exception being the few which I mentioned as such in my own edit summaries - one out of many. Yet here you are claiming that all of the sources mention Salafism.

What is your goal? Do you really think that no other editors will take the time to inspect the sources and see that what you're saying is false? What is the aim here? Please answer here on the talk page instead of edit warring with pithy comments in the edit summary. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Shabiha, why did you reinstate the information about Afghanistan, India and so forth? You didn't even discuss that here on the talk page. If this isn't edit warring, then I don't know what is. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

There are serious problems with this article as irrelevant and highly biased news articles were used to source certain quotes and this article as a whole is extremely biased and seems to be written with a Sufi POV. Article should be made neutral, if not deleted. How to vote for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsumaiya (talk • contribs) 17:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We already tried, but the article's author flooded the deletion discussion and there were never more than a few commentators; this, no decision was reached. Initially, the title of this article was "Sunni Sufis and Salafi Jihadists" which was changed when the author's bias became clear. The article was basically written as an attempt to paint any act of violence against Sufis as the fault of Salafis, and to paint one as peaceful and the other as violent; basically, to push a certain POV as fact to the readers. Myself and BoogaLouie (another user) have tried to clean it up, BoogaLouie especially has done great work in neutralizing the article, though work is still needed.
 * Look, if you're still new, you might want to practice by editing some non-controversial articles first to get the hang of Wikipedia etiquette, policies and guidelines, and then come back here afterward. Matters like this are somewhat delicate so it's not a good way to learn the ropes, figuratively speaking. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of templates
Few, if any, of the POV issues with this articles have been directly addressed. I really don't understand why it was removed recently, though good job for Toddy1 who restored it. What's the deal here? MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If people think that the templates should be removed, please could they first address the issues.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Have attempted to address the issues with these edits. Have gone over the old citations, and researched each country to add or subtact sources. What issues do you believe remain to be addressed? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are some small copyediting issues, which exist in most articles of this size. There are some choices of wording which perhaps could be discussed, but none of them seem serious. If someone were to remove the templates for OR, misrepresentation and neutrality, I wouldn't object. I can't speak for others but the work @User:BoogaLouie put in seems to have paid off in this editor's view. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Move the page
The page Sufi–Salafi relations should be moved to "Sunni–Salafi relations" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348940722_Islamic_Traditionalism_in_a_Globalizing_World_Sunni_Muslim_identity_in_Kerala_South_India page 2, 3. Traditional Sunnis are called Sunnis and Wahabis/Salafis are called as such in the Kerala contexts. Moreover Sunnis in Kerala are not identified as Sufis, rather Sunnis itself. Deobandism is reformism. So common name for traditional Sunnis is "Traditional Sunnis. Only that can include all Ash'aris and Mathuridis in its definition. They may not necessarily follow Sufism. So the current name of page is incorrect. Neutralhappy (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The article is not about Kerala or Sunnis, so I'm not sure where this is coming from. An oddity though the article may be, it is about comparisons between Salafism and Sufism, mysticism within Islam, and is named as such. Your attempted renaming seems to imply that you think it should be rescoped, but that is an entirely separate kind of discussion from a simple page move. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)