Talk:Salafi movement/Archive 6

16 August 2015 proposals by for new paragraphs
An editor has proposed new paragraphs on 16 August 2015. They need to be discussed. I have created a structure below to help us do that. As there is a lot, I imagine that it will take a few weeks for people to check citations, etc.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph A
Comments I see that this proposed paragraph has two citations to "Wahhabism: Understanding The Roots And Role Models Of Islamic Extremism by Zubair Qamar". If the article is to use this as a source, I think the article should have a statement that it is "condensed and edited by ASFA staff", and also have a link to Zubair Qamar's latest version of his article. If the article is going to cite this article, it could at least do it truthfully. It says described Wahhabis as "neo-Kharijites". That is not the same as describing Salafis as revival of Kharijism.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd strongly oppose the citation of anything written by Hisham Kabbani and his crew. They aren't scholars or qualified to write at all, and even in their own tariqa their leadership is disputed; the entire Sunnah.org crew are considered extremists even among Ottoman-leaning Sufis. There are plenty of professional, academic publications we can use to cite such sections instead, with actual academic credentials and without the sectarian bent. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph B
Comments Paragraph A has two citations to "Wahhabism: Understanding The Roots And Role Models Of Islamic Extremism by Zubair Qamar" (AFSA version). If it is OK to cite that as a source for Paragraph A, it must be OK to cite it here. You see Zubair Qamar's article says that Salafis and Wahhabis are not the same. It is not OK to cherry-pick from that article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This section here actually does have professional, attested sources. Really, the rest of the article would do better with publications like this, for example, the Roy source from Harvard University Press. Also an interesting example of Xtremedood's rather dishonest cherrypicking in an attempt to push a certain POV. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph C
Comments

This section does mention that Ibn Abdul Wahhab is considered an influential figure without mistakenly conflating Salafism with Wahhabism. It seems like a fair mention; a single sentence mention of IAW's conflict with the Ottomans does provide some context, but there probably shouldn't be more than that. The citations look alright. Does anybody else see anything here? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC) 1. Yes IAW is an influential figure 2. No modern Salafism is certainly not traced back to him 3. Mention of the caliph reacting to wahhabism belongs to the wahhabism page. Sakimonk  talk  11:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph D
Comments

The comment isn't anything new, but there's only a single citation for a broad claim, and that citation doesn't include a page number. How does everybody else feel about the wording? Would it be a good idea for us to search proper scholarly, academic articles/encyclopedic entries on the definition of Salafism to corroborate this at least? Are there any issues? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

This is such a poorly structured sentence and strings together so many broad concepts and then finishes with an unfounded accusation which isn't grounded in the preceding text at all. Being 'literalist' is a tradition shared by many schools in Islam, take for example the Dhahiris. What on earth has this got to do with offensive jihad. The author hasn't explained one iota of this. Sakimonk  talk  11:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph E
Comments

Just going through each section. In this case, I do agree with the wording - it should be clear that while many Salafists are against extremism, more than a few are SJs, and the mentioned groups are Salafists, even if the moderate Salafists react with alarm and often try to deny it. The sources certainly seem to demonstrate that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is some truth to this but why single this or like it's unique to the salafi movement? There have been vast numbers of Sufi jihadist groups (through history and more recently). For example the naqshbandi Sufi group in Iraq. Many taliban groups are so called 'militants' and they are officially Chisti Sufis.  Sakimonk   talk  11:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your just hilarious. Why not single out the movement? Its responsible for terrorism worldwide. Lets not forget Ansar Dine. Misdemenor (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph F
Comments


 * There are so many straw man arguments and POV rants in those edits it is actually cringe inducing! Firstly Salafism (as the identified movement we know now) was barely existent during the time of the Ottoman empire, let alone be a considerable force to be reckoned with. Secondly, the unacademic conflation between Salafism (as the Egpytian originating reformist movement assocaited with figures such as Muhammad Abduh and company which spawned in the post-colonialist atmosphere of the late 19th Cent.) and the Wahhabi movement in 18th Cent. arabia (in a region which quite literally had no Ottoman territorial control) is intellectually flawed and embarrassing to even read. Moreover, to compare Salafism to Kharajiteism is another logical fallacy, they are antithetical to each other in terms of creed (the defining aspect of kharajites is their belief that great sins are tantamount to kufr, whereas this is not the case in Sunni Islam (and salafism). Furthermore, Salafis revere the Salaf, whereas some of the Kharajites even went so far as killing some of the companions of the Prophet (SAWS) such as Uthman (RA). In fact, modern day salafi scholars have written volumes on refuting what they percieve to be modern day kharajites! It is actually mind boggling how anyone can consider the two as being remotely similar. Muhammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab rh is a considerable influence on the Salafi movement as it exists today, however the premise that salafis follow Ibn Abdul Wahhab rh more than the Salaf is nonsensical - the movement ascribes to the works of Ibn Taymiyyah rh (who is by far a more influential figure) who predates Ibn Abdul Wahhab by about 500 to 600 years. In fact there are many points of contrast between these two figures. It is worthy of note that both of these key figures were Sunni Hanbali scholars, even more cemeting the position that Salafism is quite clearly a Sunni movement.  Sakimonk   talk  21:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, I hope it is quite clear that the editor is evidently (and vigorously) pushing the POV of the Barelvi sect which officially doesn't even recognise Salafis as being Muslim.  Sakimonk   talk  21:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I must concur with Sakimonk's comments above. The sources are legit, but they're all talking about Wahhabism, not Salafism, except for one: Islamopedia online, which is NOT a reliable source. I know that because I once actually asked about using it for historical citations at the reliable source notice board and it was shot down in a very justifiable, reasonable way. I'd say axe this whole section as it's an attempt to prove the demonstrably false precept that Wahhabism and Salafism are the same. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I fully concur with both Sakimonk and MezzoMezzo that most of the suggested edits are weak and that the sources are talking about Wahhabism, not Salafism. It is right that the proposed edits are discussed on this page, but I for one don't want to see the Salafi movement page changed to reflect that editor's viewpoint. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 05:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The leading sunni school Al Azhar has made it clear . Salafis not khawaij you say? Yes they do follow Ibn taymiyyah. Ibn Hajar al-Haytami said "Ibn Taymiyyah is a servant whom God forsook, misguided, blinded, deafened, and debased. That is the declaration of the imams who have exposed the corruption of his positions and the mendacity of his sayings. Whoever wishes to pursue this must read the words of the Mujtahid Imam Abu al Hasan al Subki, of his son Taj al Din Subki, of the Imam al Izz ibn Jama and others of the Shafi, Maliki, and Hanafi scholars... It must be considered that he is a misguided and misguiding innovator and an ignorant who brought evil whom God treated with His justice. May He protect us from the likes of his path, doctrine, and actions" There's a few choices you can ignore them and potentially die in a state of kufr or you can revert back to Islam. Misdemenor (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You can get banned for what you've written mate. I'd watch what you say.  Sakimonk   talk  23:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You can dodge the facts as much as you like. If it was up to you then Al azhar would be closed down. Misdemenor (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * this guy is a troll and provides nothing but hate speech across talk pages. It's best just to ignore him but if he tries to push any of his/her rubbish through edits, then those of us concerned for articles in this topic area should keep things monitored. Calling other editors infidels after creating an account only to harass people on the talk pages of contentious articles is grounds for keeping watch. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Misdemenor's statement that those who disagree with him can "potentially die in a state of kufr or you can revert back to Islam" is deeply offensive to me. Surely he can't be meaning that. Misdemenor, I want you to clarify this. ARE you calling other editors infidels? George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Whats with the pinging on multiple talk pages and users harassing me in my email. What I meant by "potential kufr" is a warning to anyone that does not follow Islamic Guidelines. I wouldnt be surprised if Sakimonk is trolling. I will attempt to ignore him as much as I can. Lay off the personal attacks User:Mezzo as you did on another article. It looks like you have a habit of personally attacking users. Misdemenor (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect, Misdemenor, I merely asked you for clarification. Yet YOU then attacked fellow editors. My hope is that you'll try to work WITH other editors, not against them. I for one want to see you succeed on Wikipedia, but this will involve understanding the concept of consensus. My regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Its not a forum. If you would like to discuss my decision then perhaps do it on my user page. Dont falsely accuse me of attacks either. Misdemenor (talk) 08:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Sakimonk|GorgeCustersSabre|Toddy1} this might be a case of not feeding the troll. Misdemeanor has been warned about Edit warring and Harassment and so far has only provided obnoxious insults while bringing minimal benefit to the encyclopedia. Even here, he seems to have some sort of machismo thing where he absolutely must have the last word in every exchage, even when he knows he's failed to make a point. But the reality is that such a person is now monitored, their pattern of edit warring and hurling insults is known and if they try to base any edits off of their POV pushing, they'll get reverted by multiple people. When they're ready to grow up and discuss things cordially with others then awesome; until then, I think it would be fair at this point to discount anything they say in these discussions as so far all they do is personally attack others and engage in forum debates, and when they're called out on anything they just accuse the person calling them out of the same thing, literally like "I know you are but what am I." This is probably obvious to all of you but it's a reminder to myself as much as you guys. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Madkhalism - politically-conformist
A new edit added the words "politically-conformist" before Madkhalism. I have checked the cited source (Salafi Ritual Purity: In the Presence of God, by Richard Gauvain, p41); it uses words like "pro-regime" to describe the Madkhalis, and says that Madkhali scholars were heatedly critical of people criticised the NDP regime. Most European people would find the additional words helpful to gaining a correct understanding.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

aid/campaign/spending
Hi how is spending billions of dollars annually for decades merely "aid"? Any advertising effort involving this scale and duration would certainly merit the desription campaign. Checking my Collins Dictionary and Thesaurus 1987 edition it says "1. A series of coordinated activities, such as public speaking, designed to achieve a social, political or commercial goal". Has the definition of campaign changed much since? AadaamS (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi AadaamS, I hope you are well. Please don't take offence. There's nothing personal. We merely disagree. Aid is often in the billions. That's an uncontroversial statement. Anyway, "spending" is excellent. Thank you and best wishes, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi of course we disagree so please don't be frustrated or upset. So, I am still interested in hearing why you think campaign doesn't apply to a long-term effort. Kind regards, AadaamS (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources calling it a campaign?-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Salafi movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110713062049/http://islameye.com/%D8%AD%D9%83%D9%85-%D9%82%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%81%D9%89-%D9%84%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%89%D8%AE-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%89-t4699s150.html to http://islameye.com/%D8%AD%D9%83%D9%85-%D9%82%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%81%D9%89-%D9%84%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%89%D8%AE-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%89-t4699s150.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130630115735/http://ikhwanonline.net/Article.asp?ArtID=120 to http://ikhwanonline.net/Article.asp?ArtID=120&SecID=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Orthodox
The various ip addess's are correct in that Salafi movement is in no way orthodox and to paint it as such is POV. Why not exclude orthodox and leave ultra conservative part. The movement members claim to be conservative with their beard and sandal attire. "The Salafi Movement is an ultra conservative reform movement" Misdemenor (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"Ultra-conservative reformist"???
"Conservative" is an exact opposite of "reformist" - the former term designates one who calls for preservation of existing doctrines/situation/status quo; the latter advocates change (reform). The definition needs to be reworked. kashmiri TALK  16:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thats how Salafis define themselves. They called for reform and rejected at that time the tradtional Islam which involved mandatory madhhab following. They also claim to follow the first 3 generations of salaf which they self label as being conservative. Perhaps you can provide something better? Here are some refs     Misdemenor (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explanation. I believe here at Wikipedia we should rather stick to how they the subject is defined by WP:reliable sources, ones that are NOT affiliated with the subject, rather than rely on subjects' self-descriptions. In this instance, "ultra-conservative" might better be applied to not to the entire movement but to the values/ideals they preach. Something along these lines:
 * "The Salafi movement is a social and religious movement within Sunni Islam that calls for the return to what it claims as original religious practices of the first Muslims (as-salaf), rejecting all religious practices not mentioned in Qur'an. The Salafi doctrine is characterised by fundamentalist [or: ultra-conservative] approach to........"
 * The problem is I am not that versed in religious practices, so my initial observations were limited to English terms. Hope my comments will be of any use. Regards, kashmiri  TALK  23:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Evidence that the named scholars are Salafi
We can't just add names alleging certain scholars are Salafi without providing evidence on this page. So I've removed all unreferenced names and invite editors to add citations along with any names they want to include. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You are supposed to tag them as unreferenced instead of deletion. SpyButeo (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Read WP:BLPSOURCES. If uncited material is added alleging that a living person is a Salafist, it should be removed immediately.--  Toddy1 (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

On the usage of Salafism
Following a useful discussion between and  about the usage of Salafism to attribute a scholar, I copied the related information here:


 * Salafis are Sunnis and they are especially strict ones who oppose a number of practices that they believe are bid'ah, so if even Salafis accept taqiyyah, doesn't that show that taqiyyah is a valid practice in Sunnism? Besides, there is no contrary evidence to suggest that what the website has stated about taqiyyah in Sunnism is wrong. Even if you ignore references to islamqa.info, the permissibility of taqiyyah is confirmed by other scholars and sources who Seyyed and I have referenced. Regarding the block, I would like to make a small clarification: The site wasn't blocked in Saudi Arabia because of any issue in its content but because the Saudi government didn't want anyone other than their Council of Senior Scholars to issue fatwas. The section that you linked to was composed entirely of WP:OR. Basically a user had compiled a list of fatwas he/she personally found controversial; no secondary source has corroborated their view. —Human10.0 (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean that some Salafis sometimes take stances against what madhab traditionalists have established, for instance the famous Salafi Nasirudin al-Albani made many controversial fatwas that were all contrary to what madhab traditionalists said; Should we then say that just because a certain person is a Salafi (allegedly strict, and opposing many practices) then his stance represents the mainstream current of sunnism? There's also another point that should be made, in the words of Jonathan A.C. Brown:
 * Because the Salafi approach to Islamic scholarship centers on bypassing centuries of consensus-building among scholars and instead approaches the Quran and hadiths anew, it can produce divergent results. A set of Moroccan brothers who have proven the most adept hadith scholars of our time. Ahmad b. al-Siddiq al-Ghumäri (d. 1960) and his younger siblings 'Abdalläh (d. 1993) and 'Abd al-Hayy (d. 1995), followed the Traditionalist Salafi methodology. They felt entitled to reverse centuries-old rulings on the authenticity of specific hadiths and arrived at legal rulings that broke with a1l four Sunni schools of law. 'Abd al-Hayy argued conclusively that none of the founders of the four Sunni schools of law had access to all the necessary hadiths and that it was thus entirely acceptable to reject their rulings on the basis of hadith evidence. 'Abdalläh al-GhumäIi repeatedly wrote that 'taqlid never comes to any good.93 [...] Despite this similarity in approach to Traditionalist Salafis like al-Albani the Ghumäri brothers emerged with polar opposite positions. Salafis, both Modernist and Traditionalist, had consistently been deeply opposed to Sufism and intolerant of the Shiite veneration of Ali. The Ghumaris' analysis of the Quran, hadiths, and scholarty tradition, however has led them to embrace 'Ali as the best and most knowledgeable of all the Compamons (and in Ahmad's case, to declare Mu'äwiya an unbeliever) as well as to defend vehemently Sufi practices such as visiting graves and engaging in group liturgies not practiced during the time of the Prophet. (Hadith, Oneword publications, pp.259-60)
 * So one should be very careful when labeling every salafi's stance as representative of sunnism. However, in the case of islamqa.info, i would think -- and I know that many will disagree with me -- that it's perfectly valid to take their quotations of scholars and to incorporate them as references, i.e. for instance Ibn Taymiyya - Majmu' al-Fatawa 4/391 Quote: "lalalalal ..."
 * 12:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * I think it is clear what was being done. Regarding Brown's quote, I do not think it says that the Ghumari brothers were Salafis and that they later adopted Sufism; rather it appears to say that they followed an approach to Islamic scholarship that was similar to a Salafi's but arrived at quite un-Salafi conclusions. Surely you could produce a different source that explicitly mentions that the brothers were Salafis who adopted Sufism later in life. Regarding your last comment, I would like to inform you that Ibn Taymiyya's description of the Shia concept of taqiyyah is either a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of the concept by him. I have stated so in my very first reply above as well. Please read up on the Shia concept of taqiyyah for better understanding. —Human10.0 (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You have a very basic misunderstanding, which is that you think that salafism and sufism are mutually exclusive. The fact of the matter is that one can adhere to a salafi methodology (which is equivalent to being a salafi) and be a sufi, as Dr. Brown says:
 * Because the Salafi approach to Islamic scholarship centers on bypassing centuries of consensus-building among scholars and instead approaches the Quran and hadiths anew, it can produce divergent results. A set of Moroccan brothers who have proven the most adept hadith scholars of our time. Ahmad b. al-Siddiq al-Ghumäri (d. 1960) and his younger siblings 'Abdalläh (d. 1993) and 'Abd al-Hayy (d. 1995), followed the Traditionalist Salafi methodology. [...] Despite this similarity in approach to Traditionalist Salafis like al-Albani the Ghumäri brothers emerged with polar opposite positions. Salafis, both Modernist and Traditionalist, had consistently been deeply opposed to Sufism and intolerant of the Shiite veneration of Ali. The Ghumaris' analysis of the Quran, hadiths, and scholarty tradition, however has led them to embrace 'Ali as the best and most knowledgeable of all the Compamons (and in Ahmad's case, to declare Mu'äwiya an unbeliever) as well as to defend vehemently Sufi practices such as visiting graves and engaging in group liturgies not practiced during the time of the Prophet. (Hadith, Oneword publications, pp.259-60)

Edits by Saheehinfo
Saheehinfo made these edits on 13:55, 6 March 2016.
 * Changed this:
 * To
 * To


 * Bad edit. Corrupted the URL.
 * Bad edit. Corrupted the URL.


 * Deleted this citation, with the edit summary awful source.
 * ref>salafiyya About Atheism/Agnosticism
 * Maybe he/she has got a point.


 * Deleted this citation, saying
 * {cite web |title=أعزاءنا زوار وأعضاء الساحة العربية، ("Salafiyyah is not a sect amongst sects") |url=http://www.alsaha.com/sahat/6/topics/77466 |publisher=alasha.com |author=Shaikh Saleh al-Fawzan |date=2004-05-24 |accessdate=2013-05-19}}
 * I think the problem here is one of a dead link. The website has closed down, and all that is left is a notice saying that the site has closed down.  I have marked it as a dead link.


 * Deleted this citation, with edit summary what kind of source is this? and
 * This citation is a Pakistan video recording that is not in English. I have templated it.
 * This citation is a Pakistan video recording that is not in English. I have templated it.


 * Deleted this citation,
 * The Wahhabi Myth, H.J.Oliver.
 * I assume that this is a reference to The Wahhabi Myth: Dispelling Prevalent Fallacies and the Fictitious Link with Bin Laden, by Haneef James Oliver, pub T.R.O.I.D. Publications, 2004, ISBN 978-0968905852. I have expanded the citation and added a page needed template.


 * Partially removed a citation to, with edit summary website link doesn't even work, and
 * What is a Salafi and What is Salafism?
 * This appears to be a dead link. I have marked accordingly.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to improve the article by getting rid of some bullshit references and you put them back in. Way to go....
 * So you added back this: http://dunyanews.tv/index.php/en/pv/Hasb-e-Haal/3/ep-9906/ALL/2013-09-13. Now explain why this video of chit chat between some presenters and some Maulvis in a foreign language should remain in an encyclopedia.
 * You added this back: http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/islam/bldef_salafiyya.htm salafiyya. Now explain why a source from about.com should remain in an encyclopedia. Added to that, the link doesn't even work. Read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources/Archive_13#ABOUT.COM.
 * You added this back: http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/salafism.htm. The domain doesn't even exist. Now explain why this bullshit source should remain in an encyclopedia.
 * You added this back: http://www.alsaha.com/sahat/6/topics/77466. The domain doesn't even exist. Now explain why this bullshit source should remain in an encyclopedia. Saheeh Info 16:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Salafi movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131018044458/http://www.alsaha.com/sahat/6/topics/77466 to http://www.alsaha.com/sahat/6/topics/77466 -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070528060558/http://www.thewahhabimyth.com:80/salafism.htm to http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/salafism.htm -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

because I marked two of the citations as dead links, Cyberbot II recovered one of them successfully, and one unsuccessfully. See above.

Regarding the Pakistan news channel; it is probably a reasonable source, but it needs translating. I do not mind if you delete that one. But if someone translates what it says, and it is relevant I would support it being put back. "IF" is a big word though.

The link to http://atheism.about.com works just fine here. However the link you provided provided a clear policy-based reason to delete it as a source. So I will delete it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You didn't actually answer the questions I asked so I'll ask them again. Maybe try and answer them before you put your bullshit vandalism threats on my talk page.
 * So you added back this: http://dunyanews.tv/index.php/en/pv/Hasb-e-Haal/3/ep-9906/ALL/2013-09-13. Now explain why this video of chit chat between some presenters and some Maulvis in a foreign language should remain in an encyclopedia.
 * You added this back: http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/islam/bldef_salafiyya.htm salafiyya. Now explain why a source from about.com should remain in an encyclopedia. Added to that, the link doesn't even work. Read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources/Archive_13#ABOUT.COM.
 * You added this back: http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/salafism.htm. The domain doesn't even exist. Now explain why this bullshit source should remain in an encyclopedia.
 * You added this back: http://www.alsaha.com/sahat/6/topics/77466. The domain doesn't even exist. Now explain why this bullshit source should remain in an encyclopedia. Saheeh Info 07:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You did not read the above?-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I did read the above, but you decided to answer only part of my questions. I'll once again ask you to explain why you added the following sources:
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20070528060558/http://www.thewahhabimyth.com:80/salafism.htm. Explain why this bullshit source should remain in an encyclopedia.
 * http://www.alsaha.com/sahat/6/topics/77466 why is this still in the article when it wasn't recovered? Saheeh Info 18:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Some more dumb references. The article claims that: Salafis in Indian subcontinent countries like India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh etc., are known as Ahl al-Hadith. They think that people are not bound by taqlid (as are Ahl al-Rai, literally "the people of rhetorical theology"), but are free to seek guidance in matters of religious faith and practices from the authentic hadith which, together with the Qur'an, are in their view the principal worthy guide for Muslim

and the references are :
 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rNrMilgHKKEC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=barelvi+sufi+deobandi&source=bl&ots=Sq0MTt2YJe&sig=8dBH1DYIqBlvlnv5H9Ug7W_LR1A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=H3MqUICrHIPZrQe_woCgBw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Ahl%20e%20hadith&f=false
 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Cu9eo1MFiYgC&pg=PA204&lpg=PA204&dq=barelvi+death+celebration&source=bl&ots=WzZ3iksFfB&sig=6KI2E4Y7t8OyhM9QmDzypJBWSwo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=W0EqUJykHe2XiAeQ2oHoCw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=barelvi%20death%20celebration&f=false

which don't even mention Salafi or Ahl-e-hadith let alone back up the claims in the article. In fact the links mention Barelvi. I am removing these too as they are irrelevant to this article. Saheeh Info 15:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Below are some more crap sources:


 * التجديد بمفهومية ("Renewal and its Understanding"), Shaikh Muhammad Aman al-Jaamee, Part 1.
 * صور من الجاهليات المعاصرة ("Glimpses From the Modern Jahiliyyah"), Shaikh Muhammad Amaan al-Jaamee.
 * سلسلة مفهوم السلفية ("Understanding Salafiyyah"), Shaikh Muhammad Naasir ad-Dīn al-Albaani, Parts 1–2, 6.

None of the above give publisher, print or isbn information. There is no way to verify the text at all. Further, the first one simply states "Part 1" and gives no page number. The second gives no page number and the third one states Parts 1–2, 6. What is this meant to mean exactly? Saheeh Info 18:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Confusing article
The article almost can not clarify the difference between Salafis and the other Sunni Muslims, particularly, those whose believe in Zahir (Islam) and literal approach to understanding Islam. As the article describes the issue, not only do Wahhabis believe in Salafism but also Ahl al-Hadith do.-- Seyyed(t-c) 01:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that some people believe that they are all Salafis. What are needed are a range of reliable sources that explain the differences.--  Toddy1 (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Is mention of a Swedish muslim student society too trivial to be included?
This edit added the following text, complete with citation:
 * Salafists have taken over the muslim student society Alhambra at Malmö University which subsequently has invited antisemitic and homophobic salafist lecturers such as Salman al-Ouda along with two other muslim community organisations.

The citation is:

The allegation that Salafis have taken over a student society at a university seems extremely trivial. I think it should be deleted as WP:UNDUE.

As for them inviting a speaker who preaches that homosexuality is wrong, well any Jewish, Christian or Muslim preacher who actually believes what his/her religion teaches them will believe that homosexuality is wrong.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think it is trivial. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The article says that three community organisations invited him, one of which is affilated with the student union of Malmö University. The others are a local syrian community organisation and a mosque. I'll reword. AadaamS (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's better now, thanks AadaamS. Regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I think it's better this way too. AadaamS (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Much confusion
There's much confusion between different meanings of the term "Salafism" in this article. Most of it is about Wahhabism/Salafism, although the references to origins in Egypt in the 19th century are actually referring to Modernist Salafism. The latter is relegated to "other uses", although it is the predominant usage in standard references, as seen from excerpts quoted below. So, just a heads-up: if you're see me making many changes, it's because I'm trying to clear up this confusion and give due weight to academic sources.

Name (derived from salaf, “pious ancestors”) given to a reform movement led by Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh at the turn of the twentieth century. "Salafi", The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, 2014

A reform movement founded by Jamāl al-Dīn al-Afghānī and Muḥammad ʿAbduh at the turn of the twentieth century, the Salafīyah has religious, cultural, social, and political dimensions. "Salafīyah", The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, 2009

SALAFIYYA, a neo-orthodox brand of Islamic reformism, originating in the late 19th century and centred on Egypt, aiming to regenerate Islam by a return to the tradition represented by the "pious forefathers" (al-salaf al-salih, hence its name) of the Primitive Faith. For definition, background, origins, doctrines and general aspects see ISLAH; MUHAMMAD ABDUH; RASHID RIDA. Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd, ed., Brill. "SALAFIYYA" Vol 8, p. 900, 1995

News reports often mention the “Wahhabi movement” or “Wahhabi Islam” without providing any context. This controversial modern Islamic movement actually represents part of a larger phenomenon in Islamic thought: Salafism. [...] Although this conservative and iconoclastic trend has always existed in Islamic thought, it is most commonly identified with two periods: the burgeoning of classical Salafism with the 14th-century scholar Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), and the Salafism of the 18th-century movements of revival and reform. This early modern incarnation of Salafism in turn gave birth to two trends in Salafism that have flourished until today. Despite their common use of the term Salafi, these two modern movements are in fact very different, and they will be referred to here as modernist Salafism and traditionalist Salafism. "Salafism", Oxford Bibliographies, 2009

Major figures in the definition of the salafi perspective and approach are Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 855), the founder of the Hanbali school, and Ahmad ibn Taymiyya (1263–1328). [...] Among those involved in the definition and establishment of the modern Salafiyya, the best-known are Jamal al-Din al- Afghani (1839–1897) and Muhammad Abduh (1849–1905). Abduh created the broad intellectual foundations for modern Salafiyya. [...] Throughout the twentieth century, individuals and groups built on and developed the modernist Salafi traditions in many different directions. SALAFIYYA, p. 608. Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World, MacMillan Reference USA, 2004

Eperoton (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Unitarian Wahhabism (saudi), Salafism (egypt modernism), and classical salafism (Ibn tamiyyah) have alot in common. Wahhabism/Salafism emerged during the years of ottoman decline within Najd and Egypt. Ibn taymiyyah also took advantage of the fall of abbasid caliphate to pursue this rigid form of islam. The wahhabis used the ruling set by ibn taymiyyah to attack other muslims by labelling them infidels.  All those groups call for a reform as they see the status quo as "deviance". Ibn taymiyyah and Abdulwahhab both rejected the traditional sunni schools of law and made their own fiqh and theology while using the "salaf" as their basis. The well known salafi scholar albani attacked wahhabis for still following hanbalism


 * "In the late Ottoman period, modernist Salafis outside Saudi Arabia defended Wahhabis against their critics by referring to them as Sunni adherents of the Hanbali law school. Then, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Wahhabism's defenders began to call it Salafi. Finally, in the 1970s, Saudi religious scholars adopted the Salafi mantle." Misdemenor (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Sunni designation
Please review WP:RS. Wikipedia doesn't take sides in the religious polemics and it doesn't present declarations by religious figures about who is and isn't proper Sunni or Muslim as statements of fact. The designation in the lead refers to usage in academic sources, where the word "Sunni" is used in contrast to Shia and not as a marker of orthodoxy. Now, it's certainly true that there are non-Salafis who deny that Salafis are Sunni. If you can find an academic source or another type of neutral, reliable source that discusses this phenomenon, we can mention it in the article in an objective manner. As for citing the CNN article where al-Azhar hastily denies the report, that's blatant source misrepresentation. Eperoton (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Polemics
The section below needs to be removed as it is nothing more than polemics. None of the sources are by Abu Hanifa, Malik, Ahmad ibn Hanbal or Shafii raziAllahu anhum. They are by people who lived hundreads of years later and the point of adding this is to try and convince the reader that the 4 imams held a particular view.

Statements of early Imams of the early Muslims support this view. For instance, Abū Ḥanīfa prohibited his students from engaging in kalam, stating that those who practice it are of the "regressing ones".[32] Malik ibn Anas referred to kalam in the Islamic religion as being "detested",[33] and said whoever "seeks the religion through kalam will deviate".[34] In addition, Shafi'i said that no knowledge of Islam can be gained from books of kalam, as kalam "is not from knowledge."[35][36] In addition, he said that "It is better for a man to spend his whole life doing whatever Allah has prohibited – besides shirk with Allah – rather than spending his whole life involved in kalam."[37] Ahmad ibn Hanbal also spoke strongly against kalam, saying that no-one looks into kalam unless there is "corruption in his heart."[38] He prohibited followers to sit with people practicing kalam, even if the latter were defending the Sunnah.[39] He instructed his students to warn against any person they saw practicing kalam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.251.153 (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

History
I have reworked the History section of the article to remove the original research section (per WP:LONGQUOTE) which was using dubious sources and instead use the scholarly work by Lauzière entitled The Evolution of the Salafiyya in the Twentieth Century through the life and thought of Taqi al-Din al-Hilali. This is a dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in 2008 and spends about 10 pages (p 56 - 68) dealing with the alleged historic usage of the word "Salafiyya". MontyKind (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Getting rid of OR in that section was a step in the right direction, though I think that particular argument of Lauziere's would be better suited for a Terminology section. I've read his book based on the dissertation, and, if I recognize the passage you quoted correctly, he's saying that the term salafiyya in pre-modern literature appears only as an adjective rather than abstact noun. He also has a lot to say about the history of the term in reference to modernist Salafism. This is different from the sort of content I would expect to see in a History section. In fact, given the lack of academic consensus about the relationship between pre-modern Salafi theology, modernist Salafism, and contemporary traditionalist/purist Salafism, I'm not sure it's advisable to attempt a unified historical narrative here, rather than a section for each one, with a separate comparative discussion. Most RSs don't discuss them together, and The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World goes as far as to have two separate articles, one on classical Salafi theology and modernist Salafism (Salafiyah) and another one on contemporary Salafism (Salafi groups).


 * I've been doing some reading on Salafism(s) after noticing the poor state of this article a few months ago (my original comment has already been archived), but haven't yet found the time to start rewriting the article. Perhaps you'll inspire me to finally get to it soon. Eperoton (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this article needs a lot of rework and a terminology heading would be a better than history for the section I reworked. MontyKind (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Lead
I added cited content to the lead and a user keeps removing it without explaining. It has been sourced from Harvard University Press, Routledge etc... Explain why you don't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MontyKind (talk • contribs) 11:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I neither like or dislike it. What I regret is that an editor consensus emerged on this page, and that you have not even tried to seek the views of other editors before making rather substantial changes. That's why I recommended you bring your proposed changes here for discussion. Even now I respectfully ask you please to explain what it is you're trying to do. Regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Anybody is allowed to edit on Wikipedia. If you read this introduction you will note that it states that Don't be afraid to edit – anyone can edit almost every page, and we are encouraged to be bold!

I therefore don't need your permission to edit thank you very much.

The changes I added are not "substantial" as you claim, they consist of the addition of 2 words ("or sect") and are sourced from Harvard University Press, Routledge etc...

Given that you reversed my changes 4 times in one day I am directly asking YOU why you disagree with it. What policy reasons do you have? If you have none then there is absolutely no reason to remove my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MontyKind (talk • contribs) 13:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There's a big ("substantial") difference betwwen sect and movement. Other editors may have an opinion. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

So, to clarify, your reason for undoing my changes is that the word "sect" is different to the word "movement". And which Wikipedia policy does this come from? I have provided sources for the use of the word "sect" from Harvard University Press, Routledge etc... What policy reasons do you have for rejecting this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MontyKind (talk • contribs) 14:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sign your posts please. As I have explained many times, the consensus was hard to establish. You aren't interested in that, apparently. See WP:CON. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Desist from making personal attacks please. It is unnecessary. There is nothing in WP:CON which states that articles can't be edited. You need to provide specific reasons for reversing my change or at least provide an alternative. So far you have simply stated that the word "sect" has a different meaning to the word "movement". This is not a policy reason. I have provided sources for the use of the word "sect" from Harvard University Press, Routledge etc... What policy reasons do you have for rejecting this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MontyKind (talk • contribs) 14:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Please, familiarize yourself with the 3RR rule to avoid further violation. A qualitative description, for the movement reflect an opinion, and should be avoided, especially in the lead. Furthermore the supporting literature is issued of either newspaper articles or books which subject is neither salafism neither religion studies, so could note be considered as strong enough - the vocable "sect" also infers a legal meaning in many European countries and Canada: salafism is not legally considered as one by any known government - see also section 4. It doesn't mean an opinion shouldn't be mentioned in the article, and the addition of MontyKind is preserved in a note, thought the "criticism" should be the natural receptacle to reflect such a opinion. Thanks to try to reach  consensus on this page and not stubbornly try to impose your viewpoint. Vivepat (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense. What policy reasons do you have for rejecting the sources I provided? Harvard University Press is completely acceptable. MontyKind (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, how is the book Legal Integration of Islam by Harvard University Press not about "religion studies"? And how is it that you have no problem with the phrase "ultra-conservative" in the lead when this is not sourced to a book about "religion studies". Also, how is this an opinion? None of the sources I provided are opinion pieces. They are scholarly works from academic institutes. Also, how is the phrase "sect" a criticism? You seem to suggest that the word "sect" is bad. MontyKind (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

MontyKind: You seem to suggest that the word "sect" is bad: Well you just have to check a dictionary or just google "sect" to get confirmation  the word convey a negative meaning in common English. It is possibly the word has a different meaning in the sociology field (the book you mention), and even there if you just read the page 26 of the book you mention, you will see that can infer a specific church-sect typology: I guess it is also what talk was inferring, so if that was not your intention, what was it? The word "sect" is not used by most of the literature having the salafism as subject, I could cite Henri Lauzière, (The Making of Salafism: Islamic Reform in the Twentieth Century, New York City, Columbia University Press, and many of its peer reviewed papers), Global Salafism: Islam's New Religious Movement, Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press edited by Roel Meijer,  (notice the title)... numerous paper by Quintan Wiktorowicz, such as the frequently cited « Anatomy of the Salafi Movement » in peer reviewed publication...furthermore, the report to congress "The Islamic Traditions of Wahhabism and Salafiyya" explicitly states "Salafiyya is not a unified movement, and there exists no single Salafi “sect.” " (quotation mark surrounding the word "sect" as is in the original text). So your addition clearly doesn't reflect a consensus. You have not only added the word "sect", but also suppressed the word "sunni": The both actions dramatically change the characterization of the movement, and clearly some people are not comfortable with the new definition (which is less informative and more opinionated): As noted by GorgeCustersSabre, the exact terminology has been the result of a consensus equilibrium. For example the reason for the "sunni denomination" has been provided in 4. You have ignored the previous consensus and have not substantiated your motivation for your edit...furthermore, even after several warning you have continued to violate the wikipedia rules such as the 3RR rule and ignored others such as the WP:CON. You seem to not even read the offer of compromise (I have also placed the "ultra-conservative" denomination in footnote, thought that doesn't have the same negative connotation as the word "sect", however it is beyond the point, what is at stake is your edit, not the legacy). Again please refrain to impose your viewpoint in the article. I will revert the lead on the previous consensus with the offer of compromise. try to explain your view point here first before imposing for the n+1 time the same thing. thanks to try to participate constructively (Vivepat (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC))


 * Your command of the English language is poor so unfortunately I cannot understand all the points you are making. According to Wikipedia the definition of a sect is "a subgroup of a religious, political, or philosophical belief system, usually an offshoot of a larger group." How is this bad? Every religious person of some form belongs to a "sect". Also, the wikipedia article on sect actually confirms it's use for Salafism. According to this article The Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali Sunnis, the Twelver groups, the Ismā'īlī groups, the Zaydis, the Ibadis, and the Ẓāhirīs continue to exist. In addition, new sects like Ahmadiyya movement, Black Muslim movements, Quranists, Salafis, Wahhabis, and Zikris have been emerged independently.
 * Even if you did feel that this was bad, then it still doesn't justify it's removal given that numerous sources use this term. You still haven't given a reason why the book Legal Integration of Islam by Harvard University Press is unacceptable. There are many other sources aswell such as Routledge etc.. that also use the term "sect". I have found even more but didn't want to clutter the article.
 * The fact that certain sources haven't used the term "sect" doesn't mean that they consider it inappropriate. Certain sources haven't used the term "reform" or "ultra-conservative" so should we remove this also?
 * The "compromise" that you have suggested involves hiding relevant sourced material. This isn't compromise but censorship. Also, it's bizarre that you mention 3RR (something I was unaware of) when you have yourself reverted 3 times and your colleague has reverted 4 times in less than 24 hours. MontyKind (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There's a history of discomfort among WP editors regarding the word "sect", because it has both a neutral and a derogatory meaning (see e.g., ). In academic literature generally, and particularly in Islamic studies, it is used synonymously with "branch" or "denomination", while in some popular usage it is a term of abuse, and some governments use it with connotations similiar to "cult" (see e.g., Governmental lists of cults and sects). So, even when it is formally used correctly, there's concern that it will be perceived as a WP:LABEL by some readers. I share this concern to some extent, though I perhaps don't feel as strongly about it as some others. There's some substantive distinction between the terms sect, branch, and denomination on one hand, and movement on the other, as vague as all these terms are. So, a compromise solution may be to replace the term "sect" with "branch", which is also used in many RSs in reference to Salafism. Eperoton (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reasoned suggestion. Based on your explanation I think "branch" might be better then and so will change the word in the lead. I will however keep the references and quotes from the sources. MontyKind (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . We should also cite a source for the term "branch", then. There's no need to cite more than one source for each term and excessive refs clutter the text. I'll keep the first one, which is a strong source and is enough to satisfy WP:V. Eperoton (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

 * Wiley's The Muslim World journal has a special issue on Salafism this month. From their "Introduction" article:
 * "Academic literature generally divides Salafis into Puritanical and Modernist Salafis. Modernist Salafism started in the late nineteenth century and was led by individuals such as Jamal al-Dı¯n al-Afgha¯nı¯ (d. 1897), Muhammad : bAbduh (d. 1905) and Rashı¯d Rida: ¯(d. 1935)...Although Modernist Salafis eventually demised as a group, they paved the way for Puritanical Salafism which is the more popular form of Salafism today. What they have most in common with Modernist Salafis is their criticism of taqlı¯d and call to return to the ways of the earliest Muslim generations."
 * "Henri Lauziere provides an excellent overview of the historical usage and origin of the term Salafism in Western academia, see H. Lauziere, The Making of Salafism: Islamic Reform in the Twentieth Century (New York: Columbia University Press, 2015)."
 * Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yep, I'm reading Lauzière's book right now. I have a slightly different proposal, though. I think we need this article to provide an overview of the different versions of Salafism discussed in RSs, and the various theories about their relationship. These are:


 * 1) The pre-modern Salafi current, which is essentially synonymous with Traditionalist Theology (Islam). Lauzière argues that using the terms Salafism and Salafiyya for it is anachronistic, but this usage is found in some standard references (see Traditionalist Theology (Islam)) and we need to reflect it.
 * 2) Modernist Salafism, which seems to be the predominant term in the RSs that discuss it together with the "other Salafism".
 * 3) Traditionalist/purist/etc Salafism. In the RSs I've seen so far, "traditionalist" seems to be the more common term, though Lauzière prefers "purist". I haven't come across a source that prefers "puritanical". We can estimate the relative prevalence of these alternatives more systematically later.


 * I'm planning to expand this article in the next week or two with sections on the two missing currents. Then I think we'll want to spin off detailed articles for each of them. Traditionalist Theology (Islam) already exist, "Traditionalist/etc Salafism" needs to be created, and "Modernist Salafism" needs to be either created or adapted from Islamic Modernism. These two terms are identified in the lead there as synonymous, but that's not right. I've seen "Islamic modernism" being used as a gloss for "modernist Salafism" in running text, but if you look at encyclopedic entires like Modernism (The Oxford Dictionary of Islam) and Modernism (The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World), and Islamic Modernism and Islamic Revival (Oxford Bibliographies), you see it treated as a much broader (and vaguer) category that may include anyone from Ataturk to Iqbal to Mawdudi. So, "Islamic modernism" and "Modernist Salafism" should be two different articles.


 * What do you think? Eperoton (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * To my mind the work by Henri Lauziere is by far the most detailed on the subject. He devotes about 50 pages in a chapter entitled "origins, history and meanings of the Salafiyya" and explains clearly that the word "Salafiyya" and its derivatives are not commonplace in medieval and pre-modern literature and that "[Salafi apologists] have yet to produce a medieval primary source in which the noun “Salafiyya” is used". That being the case, I'm not entirely sure what the so-called "Traditionalist/etc Salafism" article should include other than a discussion regarding whether the term was used in the first place. Can you clarify?
 * Regarding "modernist" and "purist" Salafism, Lauziere seems to suggest that the former evolved into the latter. He states that, "One of the arguments underlying this dissertation is that the evolution of the modernist Salafiyya into a puristic form of Islam was concomitant with the development of a transnational and generic Islamic identity" and regarding the Salafi Rashid Rida he states that "In the end, however, his (Rida's) efforts favored the transformation of the Salafiyya from a movement of Islamic modernism into a more puristic understanding of Islam." Should we therefore have separate articles for "modernist" and "purist" salafism when they seem to be strongly interlinked? Saheeh Info 11:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The term "traditionalist/purist/puritanical Salafism" is normally used for the contemporary Salafi movement, not the pre-modern one, so that a new article on the former would be used to offload some of the details currently contained in this one. Just the usual process of spinning off articles for sub-topics when their coverage becomes too detailed for the original article. This is looking a bit into the future, though. This article currently treats the subject as if "salafi" is essentially synonymous with contemporary traditionalist Salafism, so it's not ready for spin-offs yet. Eperoton (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * In theory, splits could be done if substantial more material specific to the different branches/forms/mutations of the movement is added. It would be a lot of work, but by this point, I suspect that there might be enough secondary sources to eventually beef up different sections of the existing, especially history on historical ties among the geographic manifestations (i.e. influence of Yemeni muhaddiths on Indian muhaddiths in the 1800s, opposition of the Yemenis to the Wahhabist movement, etc.). That could actually make for more than one rather robust article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * We should make one article about actual Salafism representing most Salafists then at the bottom of the Article, we can mention the "puritanical" or "deviated" part of it that people twisted and ended up following. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammooly (talk • contribs) 04:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Not possible. This is an encyclopedia; the information we present here needs to be impartial. Terms such as "actual," "deviated" and "twisted" are value judges which we as editors can't make. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my word usage, what I mean is that instead of making two articles, speak about general Salafism in the article (the denotation) then mention the extra information as its own subsection in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammooly (talk • contribs) 22:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * oppose split, I am not seeing enough sources making this distinction to warrant a split.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * oppose split I don't think the article is too long. AadaamS (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I think we can call this a no-consensus for split. To my embarrassment, I still haven't gotten around to fleshing out the various senses of Salafism in this article as I promised a few months ago. I've collected the sources, but keep getting sidetracked by other priorities. Eperoton (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Issues with the Lede
The lede is over sourced and overly detailed. It enters into debates and contentious areas of the subject, detracting from a concise summary of the article's subject. It would be a good idea here to employ the convention of providing a basic summary in the lede without citations and move the citations and in-depth material to relevant areas of the article. As well as being in keeping with Wikipedia's stylistic conventions, this generally has the beneficial effect of dissuading flyby editors who want to add their thoughts or POV to contentious areas of the lede of the article. Edaham (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

incomplete first sentence in first paragraph
The first paragraph says "The Salafi movement or Salafist movement or Salafism is an ultra-conservative[1] reform[2] branch[3][4] or movement within Sunni Islam[5] that developed in [6][7][8][9] " and then ends with no period to begin a new sentence. Please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1313:4258:299A:FAC5:141B:2056 (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Introduction
I updated the intro to reflect the material and sources in the rest of the wiki with regard to Salafism's origins. The intro previously seemed to describe the origins of Wahhabism in Arabia, for which there is a separate wiki, despite the page later (correctly, based on the sources) describing its origins in Egypt. Please refer to the talk page for any further proposals for editing the page, so as to avoid any confusions as this page relates to the Wahhabism page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christoph Bremmer (talk • contribs) 03:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Problematic sources in Saudis-under-the-bed "extremism" paragraph
Currently, we have a section which tries to link the form of Salafism supported by the government of Saudi Arabia to various terrorist organisations around the world. This is not only contradicted in other parts of the article, which explains that politically quietist Salafists are favoured by the governments of the Gulf States, but the sources used have a direct conflict of interest.

We cite Ed Husain, who works for Tony Blair and the Council on Foreign Relations (as well as having a direct religious conflict of interest, as somebody who is both hostile to the Saudi-government and non-Sufi forms of Sunni Islam). The other source we use is just as bad; Thomas Friedman, writing in the New York Times. Mr. Friedman is a Jewish neoconservative ("Liberal hawk"), who is best known as a staunch supporter of the Iraq War and according to our article on him "Friedman entertained the idea of supporting the Kurds and Shias in a civil war against the Sunnis." Nice guy.

"Salafism is sponsored globally by Saudi Arabia and this ideology is used to justify the violent acts of Jihadi Salafi groups that include Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, and the Al-Shabaab.[76][77] In addition, Saudi Arabia prints textbooks for schools and universities to teach Salafism as well as recruit international students from Egypt, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Africa and the Balkans to help spread Salafism in their local communities.[76][77] "

For such an incendiary claim on a major regional power and a major world religion, we need better, more objective sources than the current subversive, inherently bias individuals currently cited in that paragraph. Either reliable, NPOV academic sources need to be found or the paragraph removed. Ishbiliyya (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * We can't use OpEds for statements of fact, and especially not OpEds by these two gentlemen who aren't academic authorities on the subject. Also, this passage is largely off-topic for the section, which is about Salafi views on extremism. In fact, it's basically about views on violence, and should have a clearer title. "Views on extremism" is a rather odd title for a section discussing extremist views, since extremists generally don't view their own views as extremist. Eperoton (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

German Civic Education guide
, please note that all new content is subject to WP:CONSENSUS, and reinstating your precise version without discussion would constitute edit-warring.

Looking at the copyedits that you have reverted: Being "faithful to the source" does not mean replicating everything it says, but rather ensuring that we do not introduce WP:OR or WP:editorializing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to want to keep "but not all Salafists are terrorists". That clause is silly. It might be useful to say in a Civic Guide, but Wikipedia is not a civic guide. It is insulting the reader's intelligence.
 * The wording "should not only be evaluated on the actions by Salafists" is also of similar kind. We are not in the business of evaluating anything over here. We should focus on stating facts.
 * "ideological framework of Salafism..." is fine. I have no problem with that.
 * The copyedit was primarily reverted because even though Salafism by itself does not promote terrorism couldn't be readily found in the source - do you have an exact quote for it in the BpB article? The BpB article is authored by Prof. Dr. Armin Pfahl-Traughber who appears to be a merited academic expert in the field.
 * Bullet 1: that quote was authored by an expert and published by WP:RS. The counter-argument that it is "silly" is not a useful one per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Per WP:AUDIENCE, subjects should be explained in a way understandably to a layman reader.
 * Bullet 2: this is a fair point, that needs rephrasing
 * Bullet 3: ok, glad we agree.
 * The source article is many times larger than the paragraph added. If anything, there is plenty more material to use in this and other articles. All the best, AadaamS (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Re. Bullet 1, I believe it is already explained in the article, e.g., under #Description. As an Encyclopedia, we don't preach, we only inform. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please provide the source quote which lead to the deleted "even though Salafism by itself does not promote terrorism" which was in the reverted copyedit. AadaamS (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, upon reflection, "not all Salafists are terrorists" may be ok (even though I don't like the negative aspect of it), because a certain segment of Salafists do promote and follow jihadism. I am not confident that jihadism and terrorism are to be equated, but that is going too far into the nature of things. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Section on "Prominent Salafis"
The section on "Prominent Salafis" is unnecessary. There are a lot more Salafis that are currently in that section. Listing all the notable members of a widespread sect in impractical for this article. Propose that notable members of the sect be simply tagged with a category "Category:Salafis by nationality" and the section here be removed.Bless sins (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Lists of this kind are common on WP, and though I agree that they aren't helpful, they tend to attract contributions from casual editors and regenerate themselves. Normally, they are spun out into a separate article, and I think we may be ready to spin out a List of prominent Salafis. Eperoton (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't there be a sub-topic called like "Similarity between Salafi and other branches of Islam" (like Ahl-e-Hadith, Wahabi, Hanafi, Shafi, etc) ? Verycuriousboy (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

protect the article
Frequently non-registered users try to remove large chunks of material from this article. Is there any possibility to put some kind of protection in place? AadaamS (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about such conferences and seminars below where brothers call each other disbelievers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_international_conference_on_Sunni_Islam_in_Grozny and then later on considers the sisters to be war booty. e.g- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide Verycuriousboy (talk) 06:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

"hat developed in Egypt in the late 19th century as a response to Western European imperialism."
Hi

It is false. Another defunct movement, who has no link with the modern salafism, have been called salafism. It is not the same. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Lots of references without credibility
There are lots of references in this article that come from authors who are either not Islamic Scholars, Novices or Western Academic Orientalists who are weighing in and perpetuating western misunderstanding of what a Salafi is and its undermining the accuracy of this article.Nasiralamreeki (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia deals in wp:reliable sources not supporters of the cause. --BoogaLouie (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality
Until the article acknowledges the contributions of Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905), Jamal al-Din al-Afghani (1839-1897) and Rashid Rida (1865-1935) it will be lacking in neutrality.

This paragraph was deleted (some time ago). It needs to be restored:

''Academics and historians use the term to denote "a school of thought which surfaced in the second half of the 19th century as a reaction to the spread of European ideas," and "sought to expose the roots of modernity within Muslim civilization." However, contemporary Salafis follow "literal, traditional ... injunctions of the sacred texts", looking to Ibn Taymiyyah, rather than the "somewhat freewheeling interpretation" of 19th century figures Muhammad Abduh, Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, and Rashid Rida --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)