Talk:Salafi movement

Persistent undoing of edits in the Sweden section

I have better things to do with my time than creating a Wikipedia account and becoming an "editor". The user 1Kwords has persistently and spitefully undone a legitimate edit of the section on Sweden, hiding behind Wikipedia policies of one form or another. The claim "Salafists in Sweden are supported financially by Saudi Arabia and Qatar" is utterly devoid of evidence. Nothing! "It was said in a newspaper article so it must be true because a newspaper article is the source in this case" is the sum of the position evident from 1Kwords' persistent, petty undoing of edits. First of all 1Kwords claimed that "Magnus Ranstorp said it" - NOT TRUE. Next, 1Kwords attempted to protest that Magnus Ranstorp is an "expert" (irrelevant). If anyone anywhere in the world wants to make the claim that Saudi Arabia or Qatar financially supports any Salafis anywhere, let them bring one of two things: either a verified document proving the transfer of money, or a person who would swear in court on oath 'yes we received money from so-and-so'. Failing that, "a newspaper said it" is a pathetic, untenable position. This whole farce serves to underline Wikipedia's junk status, and that Wiki editors are pretentious pedants who hide behind absurd policies and use said policies to pursue an Islam-hating agenda.

An article by some crazy "NewageIslam" website states: "Saudi Arabia has funded the construction of some mosques in Sweden [where? name them!]. There had also been rising number of Salafists in the country." Yet again, the claim of "financial support" is made and....there is no evidence for it. None, nothing, nil.

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)

Please define Salafi movement

Defining the Salafi movement is necessary to speak about it. Without a clear-cut definition the article would not convey any meaning. Neutralhappy (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Where is the definition missing? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

With a proper definition we would be able to identify which groups belong to the Salafi movement. For that what criteria has to be met to be categorised as a group that belongs to the Salafi movement should be included in the definition.

Moreover the differences or similarities between Wahhabism and Salafism has to be included. This will help identify Salafi groups easily. Preparing a chart would be highly useful.

In the page for Wahhabism, we see several definitions for Wahhabism. Neutralhappy (talk) 07:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Hanafi view on music, drawing, pictures, etc

@VenusFeuerFalle

It wouldnt be accurate to assume that Salafis have a homogenous take on "music, drawing, etc". There are internal disputes within Salafi scholars over these issues. For example, the Salafist clerics like Shawkani asserted that music was permissible. Rashid Rida believed that drawing pictures of animate objects was permissible, etc.

Nor is it academically fair to imply that there is a homogenous take on music, drawing, etc. within the four schools either. However, the vast majority of positions (including the mu'tamad ,i.e, official posotion) within the 4 traditional madhabs prohibit music.

These are primary sources, and I am linking some popular Hanafite (non-Salafi) fatwa websites: 1 (states that music is prohibited in Hanafi madhab) 2 3 4 (clearly states that drawing animate objects is prohibited in Hanafi madhab)

The statement that these positions have "legal precedents within the 4 madhabs" are factually correct. That is not to suggest that neither Salafis nor the 4 madhabs have a unanimous view on these issues. This implies that these are legal differences of "Ikhtilaf", and not a doctrinal point of contention.

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

True, it might be a prejudice and the source, after rechecking, is merely an interview about a woman who adheres to this interpretation. I would be fine if we remove this source altogether. It doesn't seem to contribute anything significant nad might create artificial sharp distinctions between Salafism and Sunnism. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)