Talk:Salafi movement/Archive 7

"Western European Imperialism"
In Response to User:Kautilya3's edits: Attempting to correct a glaring error in an article, a highly biased, propagandist "opinion", presented as a fact that is really a lie, and being prevented from offering a more balanced view of the issue by presenting mainstream opinions as what they are (opinions) is not edit warring. What you are doing is waging digital Jihad against western civilization on Wikipedia. You can do whatever you think the admins here will let you get away with, but one of two things is going to happen: 1. You are going to remove any claims that Salafist Jihad is somehow caused by "western European imperialism", or any insinuations to that effect, or 2. You are going to allow the other side of the argument to be spoken on this article, which is that a Western intervention after and prior to WW1 was necessary and appropriate to counter Islam's attempt conquer and enslave humanity and all of Europe, as it had already done in half a dozen European countries from the 13th to the 18th centuries. Pick one. You are not going to use this website as a platform to promote Jihad against Western civilization, which is exactly what you are doing.

First you prevent me from removing a false statement, which was actually an opinion that was stated as a fact, and that opinion was based on a false premise and is only a mainstream opinion among Jihadists, on the supposed grounds that the false claim was sourced, and then you remove contributions that were sourced which were far more mainstream than the content they replaced, and are generally accepted as well-established historical facts. You can't have it both ways, User:Kautilya3, and really, you can't have it either way. Stop spreading Jihadist lies on Wikipedia before you get someone killed, literally. The idea that Muhammad's disciples' quest to conquer all of mankind is somehow the fault of, or caused by, other civilizations is totally outrageous, and is the exact ideology that Salafists such as Bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi used to recruit men into ISIS and Al Qaeda to wage worldwide terror campaigns. If what the article said was true, that would be another matter, but very obviously it is not. Read the articles and the sources on the history of Islam, of Europe, of Greece, of Spain, of Italy, of Northern Africa, of Indonesia, of Kazakhstan and the rest. The undeniably reality is that Salafism was established by Muhammad and was always a part of Islam from that point forward. It was the same ideology that was practiced and promoted by the Ottomans and all prior Caliphates, when they taught their people that Allah commanded them to invade, conquer, occupy, forcibly convert and/or enslave Europe, India, Asia, Israel, the Black Sea region, Byzantium, Ionia, Persia, and North Africa. By no stretch of the imagination were these actions a reaction to Western anything, no more than they were a reaction to Persian imperialism, Egyptian imperialism, Babylonian imperialism, Indian imperialism, Chinese imperialism, or Mongol imperialism. There is one and only one reason why Salafists single out Western Europe as the reason for Salafist Jihad against mankind, and that is because they believe that Western civilization and the ideas, institutions, economies and militaries behind it, are the primary barrier to Islamic conquest of the world, which has always been the Salafist goal, since Muhammad declared that to be the goal of Islam in the Koran. This is well established fact. It was stated directly by the first Salafists, in the 5th century.

Unless you can absolutely prove that "Western European Imperialism" was the one and only reason for the Salafist movement (which is impossible because it was not), then you must remove the edit. immediately. I will remove it for you now. If you continue to promote global Jihad via Wikipedia, there could be severe consequences.

I should note to all who might participate in this case that User:Kautilya3 openly promotes the idea of eastern imperialism on his talk page. This appears to be his primary focus, and his raison d'être for participating in editing on Wikipedia. How he was allowed to obtain the power he has on Wikipedia reflects very poorly on the broader community.174.126.168.126 (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * When editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, it is called "edit warring".


 * To avoid edit warring, a best practice is the "bold, revert, discuss cycle. You first made the change 11:51, October 28, 2019‎. reverted your change. The next step would be to discuss the issue, not restore your change, which you did 13:17, October 28, 2019‎ and again. That is 3 changes in 24 hours, hitting the bright-line rule of WP:3RR.


 * I have restored the status quo version and placed a 3RR warning on your change. Please discuss the issue.


 * The article should reflect what independent reliable sources say. The issue is not what you feel is "correct". The article should neutrally report what the sources say. If what we say does not reflect what the sources say, suggest a more accurate summary. If the sources do not meet the criteria outlined at WP:IRS, discuss that issue. If other independent reliable sources conflict with the material, provide those sources. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * has said what needs to be said. The thesis that the Salafi movement was a reaction to Western European imperialism has been written with five academic citations [4], [6], [7], [8], and [9]. There is no way that it will be removed unless you can produce five equally good academic sources that disagree.
 * Let me also remind you that you are not allowed to make personal attacks. If you continue to do so, you will be reported. This talk page is to discuss the article's content, and all good discussion should be based on reliable sources.
 * I have told you all this on your talk page already, which you have inexplicably deleted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, I hope I can try help you out here, the issue here isn't that what you are saying is incorrect or correct, the issue here is the manner in which you approach this situation. What you are currently stated is a mix of both a personal POV and personal attacks towards another user. If you wish to challenge the current information and sources present on this article, you must approach it within Wikipedia's code of conduct.
 * Firstly, you must speak with professional etiquette, such are refraining from personal attacks, and argue objectively.
 * Secondly, you have to provide reliable and credible sources of your own to support the position with which you wish to argue. For example, as someone that has read about the Sassanian and Byzantines and their influence on the rise of Islam, or any of the other examples you gave, you are correct. Islam was a reaction to their Imperialism, however, this brings me to my third point.
 * Thirdly, regarding this current article, the context in which it talks about the Salafist movement and Imperialism, is the Modern Era. Further, I don't disagree and based on my research, Salafism and Wahhabism are the ideologies of nearly all "Islamic" terror groups, such as Al-Qaeda, Daesh etc. However, the radicalization of certain individuals is rooted in foreign intervention in their nations, which is essentially a formal way of disguising what is informally known as "Western European Imperialism", which is the point being presented by this article. I can currently provide you with another source, in combination to what has already been provided, by Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago that supports this. His book, "Dying to Win" analyzed the motivations behind suicidal terrorism, through comprehensive analysis of all 315 cases of suicidal terrorism from 1980 to 2003, and he concluded the following: "There is little connection between suicidal terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism or any of the worlds religions. Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorism attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territories which the terrorists consider to be their homeland" and "At bottom, suicide terrorism is a strategy for national liberation from foreign military occupation by a democratic state". These statements neutralize the relationship between Islamic fundamentalism, aka Salafism, with these attacks, and highlights that these acts are motivated by modern democracies with military forces, an unmistakable reference to American and Western European militaries. The latter is true, but a lot of the individuals in the cases were radicalized into Salafism, which was, whether their actions were for political purposes, influenced by what is informally known as "Western European Imperialism".
 * Now, if you wish to challenge and debate these, please provide sources to back up your statements, such as I have to further the current status quo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhakePakeVatan (talk • contribs) 15:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality
I don't have the citation handy, but this rings some alarm bells: "They believe that to engage in rational disputation (kalam), even if one arrives at the truth, is absolutely forbidden.[43]" From what I can tell, Kalam refers to a practice of taking note of other's analysis of scripture - somewhat analogous to judicial precedent. To equate this to being against rational discussion feels like a stretch. But again, I don't have the original source. Perpetualization (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The comment above is simply not the meaning of kalam, and it is yet more evidence that the people who contribute to the page of salafism simply do not know what they are doing. It was always and always will be "theological rhetoric" which was condemned by the earliest generations in the strongest terms. For further detail, refer to the books "Foundations of the Sunnah" (the English translation of Imam Ahmad's work Usool as-Sunnah), "Explanation of the Sunnah" (the English translation of Al-Barbahaaree's work Sharh as-Sunnah) and the contemporary site here http://www.aqidah.com/creed/assets/docs/hijab-kalam-falsafah-14.pdf

This page has too many discrepancies!
Citing western news sources doesn't provide factual information about Salafism. It's pure orientalist propaganda, anything that doesn't align with western society is subjugated. Salafis have long warned against terrorism. They warned the west AGAINST supporting Jihadist groups. Terrorist groups are classed as Khariji or Khawarij. Islamic law states that Muslims MUST abide by the laws of the land which they have a "treaty" with. Scholars explain our passport, visa, asylum claim, plane ticket etc form a modern version of a treaty and we cannot attack the state which provided this to us. I suggest any future edits include citations from Muslims. It's wrong to a group holds a particular belief and then no cite where they say they believe that.Alif2020 (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I echo the remarks of Alif2020. Citing "journalists" as evidence is a pisspoor contribution. It's like using a UK tabloid newspaper as an authoritative historical source. Ever since 11/09/2001, there has been a steady stream of "experts" crawling out of the woodwork, appearing in TV and radio news, in print, online, and especially writing books. I have been Salafi since 2002, and the allegation that Salafis are supported by foreign governments, no matter how many times it is repeated, is something that is utter falsehood. It is a lie! Anyone who wishes to make the claim must bring their evidence, consisting of either documents or firsthand testimony (for example "I am an employee of foreign government X and I was responsible for making payments to citizen Y). Removing my edit is nothing but pettiness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.228.224 (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Carrying on further: footnote 17 of the article contains a wildly inaccurate statement, namely "At times, Salafism has been deemed a hybrid of Wahhabism and other post-1960s movements". The article written by Lacroix, however, says the following: "As opposed to Wahhabism, Salafism refers HERE to all the hybridations that have taken place since the 1960s between the teachings of Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab and other Islamic schools of thought." (capitalisation mine) Er, no. Salafism was deemed as such by one person. Once. In that article. For anyone who has ever bothered to read Foundations of the Sunnah, by Imam Ahmad, it will become crystal clear that any ragtag group might label itself Salafi, but not every claimant is true to his claim. To put it another way, British nationality is not acquired simply by someone loudly declaring "I am British". For certain terrorist groups engaged in what can only be referred to as banditry, the label "Salafi" means nothing if their speech and actions are at odds with the Salafi methodology as laid down centuries earlier. Yet someone reading this Wikipedia article will merrily assume that "Salafism" is some melange of that other misnomer, "Wahhabism" (I'll leave aside my objections to that, for now) and "other post-1960s movements". That is just one example of the utterly irresponsible writing in the article from various individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.228.224 (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 78.147.228.224 In your edit, you claimed there was no evidence. Yes there is, Magnus Ranstorp is an internationally reknowned expert on radicalization employed at the Swedish Defence University. Also you claim that the link "has vanished" is also not true, the content is available in the archive link. A Thousand Words (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Well thank you very much for making my task easier. Even in the archived article, there is STILL NIL EVIDENCE. I will not even blink about Magnus Ranstorp or anyone else being declared an "expert" - years ago I interacted with the administrator of a website in the arena of "international security" who was clueless about the Salafi methodology, exactly as appears in the article. So you expect a reader of Wikipedia to blindly accept the statement that you persistently want included in the article, while there is no documentary evidence and no firsthand testimony evidence but....because Magnus Ranstorp says so! Now, either you yourself are clueless about the Salafi methodology, or you have a personal agenda to spread misinformation. That statement will be removed again and again and again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.228.224 (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The archived article shows this what established experts in the field say. You have no basis for claiming that Ranstorp is not an expert in the field or is untrustworthy. A Thousand Words (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you crazy? OK, BABY STEPS here: 1. I did not claim that Ranstorp is not an expert; 2. I did not claim that he is untrustworthy. What I DID say is contained precisely in what I wrote. Clearly you are a simpleton. Grow a pair of balls and stop playing your childish editing games, constantly undoing and then finally making the allegation of disruptive editing. I'm done. Do what you wish. Mark my words: you will never EVER stop the true, pristine Salafi methdology from being victorious, free from the distortions of takfeeri kharijites, crazy sufis and hateful ignoramuses like you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.228.224 (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Removing material from WP:RS is a form of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing and violates WP:PRESERVE. This last post violates WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. A Thousand Words (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, what do you think about these last few posts by IP user? Also check the edit history of this article. Please advise. If you mind being dragged into this, please let me know. A Thousand Words (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Al Azhar should be removed from the lede
Al Azhar as an institution has historically opposed Salafism. Therefore it should not be in the lede. It is confusing and inaccurate. Jorgensen William (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC) Also, many references treat Salafism as synonymous with Wahhabism. This should be included in the lede as well that Salafism is a synonym of Wahhabism. Jorgensen William (talk) 12:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

On Salafi identity @VenusFeuerFalle
@VenusFeuerFalle Merzdad Izady is a Kurdologist. His occupation is that of an ethnographer and his main focus is on Kurdish studies. He creates blunders in his religious and sect view which is biased by his Orientalist Outlook. His area of expertise is only on language, culture and ethnicities. Religion isn't his area of jurisdiction and makes simple mistakes on his "statistics" on religions all across West Asia. Another practical reason is, Salafism isn't a "sect" rather a manhaj/Way. Many adherents to this Path/Methodology don't use it as an "identity", although some do make it as an identity in certain scenarios. All Salafis identify as "Sunnis" or "Muslims" and most of them emphasize only these two identities. So I hope I clarified why I deleted this earlier, I am deleting it again. If you have a doubt/confusion do reply. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * About the identity of Sunnism and whether or not Salafis are Sunnis or a seperate branch is something up to the Muslims themselves. Others also refer to Salafis as something seperate. Look for example at "Richard Gauvain" and his work "Salafi purity ritual". Especially since the Salafis are way too different from pre-Salafi Sunnism, it is necessary for reseach purpose to distinguish them from other strants within Islam or Sunnism. Differentiating between "a way of interpretation" or putting it in simple words of English language "sect" is ungrounded. (Also it is also referred to as a Movement within Sunnism. So the article already acknowledges your point) There is no dubt or confusion. I totally understand, that the self-identification of Salafis is, that they are Sunnis and that Sunnis are merely following Muhammad and the his closest companies. You don't have to "clarify" me about that. I udnertand, I just object it. But this is far from reality and not backed up by any serious study. If you need a closer look on what Sunnism is from the point of research, you can also just check Sunnism. The same issue we have here, is discussed overhere. I just translated this from German Wikipedia about a week ago. It was written by a researcher on Islamic studies. And Merzdad Izady seems to be totally in line with the rest of Researchers among Orientalists, Islamic studies and so on. Further, even if Salafism is "just a way of life" or "method", it does not chance the fact, that this "method" (we say "sect" ore "Movement" despite the negative connotation in everyday language, since it has no negative connotation in academic language) spreads through other contries. And Merzad is just making clear, taht Salafism "identity" (including their teachings) are spreading through the Muslim world. I do not see how this is wrong. Or even how your point makes this claim invalid. I mean, lets say Salafism is "a path". When, the "path" is spreading instead of "the sect" or "the movement". So what is your point about this? I also noticed you removed even more stuff and I misclicked. Of course I will restore the rest removed content too, as long as there is no grounded objection about this.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

If you are affirming the existence of a "Salafi" sub-identity within the Sunni Denomination, even then the statistics are totally wrong. The statistics say there are "50 million Salafis" across the world. This is simply untrue. There are about 1.6 billion Sunnis and out of that, just 0.05 billion "Salafis"???? This is hilarious. This is misrepresenting the statistics of those who adhere to the Salafi methodology. As I stated earlier, those who adhere to the Salafi methodology, most of them identify as ''Sunnis" or "Muslims", not explicitly as a "Salafi". So this is inaccurate. Also ,Izady thinks Wahhabism is synonymous with Salafism, another blunder. He writes in his statistics Salafi/Wahhabi. Incorrect. Majority of Sunnis view "Wahhabi" as a Sunniphobic slur. And, not every Salafi may be influenced by Ibn Abdul Wahhab. This statistic is just a blunder, totally out of touch with reality Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * and do we know where the stats here come from exactly? Were there surveys conducted in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, or does this come from a census? Secondly, the source seems to believe that Salafis and Wahhabis are exactly the same, but there are sources that say that Wahhabism is a particular orientation within Salafism.VR talk 16:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I see, this is a good point. When he equates Salafism with Wahhabism when the statistics are too low. We should elaborate the source further and maybe adjust the terminology (hanging Salafis to Wahhabis?).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea from where Izady got his sources. Izady makes many basic mistakes in his religious surveys I can show many examples, such as in his surveys in Syria. I think he's just assuming what he knows and putting it into a map. Since government surveys as well as other international surveys contradict this as well. If he is referring to "Wahhabis", no supporter of Ibn Abdul Wahhab would identify himself as "Wahhabi" since Ibn Abdul Wahhab's core teachings involved not being attached to mortal personalities. If he's referring to other various Salafi grps such as Ahl I Hadeeth, or Salafiyya in general they too would shun the word "Wahhabi". And they use the word Salafi in so far as to distinguish their methodology from other General Sunni currents such as Deobandism, Barelwism, Maturidism,Asharism, etc. To suggest Salafis are opposed to Sufism/Science of spirituality is equally misleading. The other currents say they are the "true Sunnis" while Salafis would insist that they are the correct Sunnis upon "the way of the Predecessors". It is just an internal slogan, but in front of non-Muslims their first identity would be "Muslim" and "Sunni Denomination". These are very misleading surveys and to suggest "Salafi" trend is just 7000 in Morocco is hilarious. Out of 1.6 billion Sunni Muslims I would say a billion are Salafis whether they identify as such or not. In general it is confusing in laymen terms since most laymen listen to all scholars Asharis, Maturidis or Salafis. Most of them view this as a academic dispute not as a daily life/cultural difference such as Sunni/Shia or Christian/Muslim or religious/irreligious etc Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle You stated on reaching an agreement Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes we should reach a consensus here. I am now inclined to agree with you. Let's try to find some sources which go into more details. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to do it myself. Let me further investigate that exactly the author did. When I come to the same conclusion, I agree to remove it.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I see, some souces use polls from 2009. This is clearly outdated, since Salafism increased significantly over the last decade. You are free to remove them (in my opinnion).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

ALERT: page under constant Vandalism
The page is under constant vandalism for the past few days by various IP addresses and trolls. I had to undo many of them. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Shadowwarrior8, page has been Protected for a period of one month. Kiro Bassem (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

👌 Okay, User:Kiro Bassem Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

IMPORTANT
Message to those who want to have influence on the shape of this article Follow these simple instructions: AnonMoos 03:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Please get a Wikipedia account and log in before you perform your edits.
 * 2) If you plan on making major edits, please discuss them here first BEFORE you make your changes.
 * That's good advice in general, but there do not seem to be any special conditions regarding the editing of this page. Normal wikipedia guidlines apply here and unregistered users may edit the article and expect their contributions to follow the wp:BRD guidelines. Edaham (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You can archive this if you want -- it refers to there being a high number of "drive-by" editors at the time (many with limited English skills)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

ALERT: page under constant vandalism
Page under constant vandalism by various trolls and users, at present one named Tun9966. Constant disruptive edits.

User:Diannaa User:Kiro Bassem

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The page is semi-protected. Removing the admin help template as there's nothing more for an admin to do. In the future, please report vandalism to WP:AIV. Katietalk 16:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Innovation
On this page, there is a section called innovation. The content present in that section is not written explicitly or rather anywhere near it in the reference given below. The reference is a question answer of Salafi site, in which also no clear mention of things written in the content is present. The way it was written is a totally self styled definition which is prohibited according to wikipedia guidelines. The reference should be a material in which these things are written explicitly. Then only one can provide the information on wikipedia. I am going to remove it if it doesn't get any proper reference. If anyone has problem then talk. Thank You Khalidwarrior (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 21 June 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. No such user (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Salafi movement → Salafism – The term Salafism is much commonly used than Salafi movement in WP:RS sources. In the Google Ngrams results, Salafism overcomes Salafi movement, Salafist movement and Salafiyya combined. The much-more reliable Google Scholars shows only 1,430 results for Salafist movement, 4,900 results for Salafi movement, and 7,210 results for Salafiyya. However, Google Scholars shows 20,000 results for Salafism, which alone predates Salafi movement, Salafist movement and Salafiyya in Google Scholars as well. Thus, it can be concluded that Salafism is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME. TheArmenianHistorian ((talk), 22:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Spekkios (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support In addition, Salafi movement excludes consideration of the ideology itself, as opposed to just its adherents Galagora (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This move was requested by a sockpuppet which has subsequently been blocked. A previous request to move to the suggested title with a great deal more discussion can be found at Talk:Salafi movement/Archive 5. Dekimasu よ! 06:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose Primarily because Salafiyya is not a monolithic ideology and there are Salafis of various orientations who differ with each other over a broad range of religious issues. It is a trans-national religious movement with certain similarities but also significant divergences. In addition other religious movements like Deobandi, Barelvi, etc. are not named as "isms" in wikipedia. shadowwarrior8 ((talk), 8:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Ex-Salafis section?
There’s a section titled “Ex-Salafis”, in the plural, with one singular name, and he is given a paragraph of his explanation for leaving the Salafi movement? This doesn’t make much sense, especially as the section on prominent Salafists simply lists their names and a brief background. 2600:4040:2867:EB00:B489:D546:BF0B:5FC8 (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. That material was heavily undue. I've removed it and relocated a heavily summarized version of applicable material in the relevant criticism section. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Problematic tone changes
The changes introduced in this series of edits and this later edit are problematic. I've reverted the latter and am of half a mind to revert the former, though the problems there are not so severe. Overall, these edits are clearly indicative of efforts to gentrify the Salafi movement and denigrate other Islamic groups in a way that distinctly shifts the page away from neutrality. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, this edits are hardly covered by historical evidence or scholarly conensus but a reflection of Salafi-Self identity. Have overlooked this. I also revert the first, since it is not even suitable for the section. The section poitns out the differences, while the edit tries to show how much ibn Taimiyya would be a celebrty and hero in "protecting Islam". For example: "Proponents of the Salafi movement emphasize the need for Islamic civilization to revive its robust corpus of Islamic knowledge that expands over a millennia, a knowledge they believe has been woefully neglected and responsible for its civilizations decadence during, and since, the colonial era." is a true statement, but this section isn't about the self-perception of Salafism. "who was wildly popular among the masses for playing a key role in defending Damascus from the Mongolian invasions of the Levant", maybe in Damascus, but Damascus was at this point clearly outbnumbered by Muslims around the world.Other statements are clearly false "Many folk rituals related to worship of the spiritual world practiced ", they are not worshipped, this is a Wahhabi-acusation (btw often used to justify genocide). These edits too, are severly problematic. However, I have to revert them manually. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)