Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunni Sufis and Salafi Jihadism

Sunni Sufis and Salafi Jihadism

Sunni Sufis and Salafi Jihadism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that this article is made solely to attack and slander several religious movements - Salafi, Deobandi and Ahl al-Hadith among them - and expressly promote the views of another movement - Sufism, specifically Barelvi - is enough in and of itself. On top of that, the information here is already contained largely on articles for Salafist jihadism as well as articles for the various Muslim religious movements which this article seems designed to portray in a negative light. The article's topic itself has not been the subject of enough scholarly or academic discussion or media attention to warrant a separate article, and indeed the title as well as the content insinuates that followers of the Salafist subcategory of Sunni Muslims aren't even Sunnis at all. Such a biased, overtly negative article cannot possibly be edited or sourced in a way that would ever make the tone neutral given the "topic," so to speak. This article falls into criteria number six at WP:DEL-REASON, in addition to being a WP:SOAPBOX and containing a great deal of Wikipedia:No original research which could never be sourced and would result in cutting down most of the article. That would be after, of course, the theoretical title change to something less accusatory and inflammatory and the removal of what this article is essentially about. It's a blatant attempt to slander and insult several movements at once, and the only reasons I am brining this to AfD instead of speedy deletion is 1. I expect the creator of the article to want a discussion first, and 2. it was brought to my attention recently that I am not the most informed editor at this time when it comes to deletion policy and I don't want to be hasty. In a clear attempt to slander religious movements, however, a mere talk page discussion isn't enough. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Strong Keep

• Need of Article-Salafist Jehadism Policies on Sufis have created a deep divide in Islam across the World.

1.Salafist view Sufis as heretic and do all attempts to destroy their Tombs and Shrines.They are involved in large scale Killing their Prominent Scholars in 2.Pakistan,Chechenya,Afghanistan,India,Somalia,Kashmir,Mali etc. 3.They are destructing their Islamic heritage. 4.This Article does not try to Potray them in negative lights,the tone is very much neutral and it can be edited.Calling some one Sufi Sunni does not meant that others are not Sunnis.It is about Sufis who are Sunnis. 5.Voices are going loud by Sufi Sunnis day by day.Sufi Scholar Kichowchhwi has warned Indian Muslims previously of Wahhabi infiltration of their institutions. Early last year he called on moderates to "liberate our properties"—referring to 10,000 shrines, mosques, and madrassas invaded successfully by the radicals in Uttar Pradesh,India.

For ex- 80% of Indian Muslims followed the Sunni Sufi tradition. AIUMB, a Sufi body also released a memorandum urging the external affairs ministry of India to ask the Saudi Arabian government to stop "destroying historical places and preserve sites associated with the Prophet, his family and his Sahabas (companions)".

• Kashmir-Changing discourse Prominent Sufi Shrine was set on fire by SalafisThe Dastageer Sahib shrine in Srinagar caught fire last June. Its destruction led to tensions with the Salafis.

India-Sufi clerics issue call to reject hardline Wahabis.-

• Pakistan has witnessed hundreds of Attacks on Sufi culture by Salafist and their associates.See Article
• Mali-Posted on Friday, 21 December 2012 19:12-Sufism and Salafism, Mali's deep religious divide.
• Egypt-Situation has worsen here after changing of Government-The Islamic Research Centre, led by Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Ahmed El-Tayeb, has also sharply renounced the attacks on the shrines. Gaber Qassem, deputy of the Sufi Orders, stated that around 14 shrines have been violated since the January 2011 revolution. Again as reported by al-Ahram, the Sufi community is mobilizing a unified front to protect the hundreds of shrines across Egypt. Sheikh Tarek El-Rifai, head of the Rifai Sufi Order, said that a number of Salafis have also allegedly prevented Sufi prayers in Al-Haram. Sheikh Rifai said that the order's lawyer has filed a report at the Al-Haram police station to that effect.

Salafis have been fighting Sufis for ages. They accuse them of polytheism and unbelief for revering the Sufi sheikhs and building mosques at their shrines. The recent dhikr ban is not the first victory for Salafi thought over moderate Sufism. They regularly call for the banning of all moulids and dhikr ceremonies, and succeeded in this respect last year when the moulid of al-Sayyida Zeinab, the prophet's Muhammad's granddaughter, was banned.

Salafi destruction of shrines and public property unacceptable-Mufti Ali Goma Numerous reports have been given by sources maintaining that some shrines have been destroyed by elements from the Salafi groups sparking angry demonstrations in Alexandria.

• Libiya-Democracy Arrives in Libya: Sufi religious sites attacked and destroyed by Salafis.

• UnescoThe United Nations cultural agency Unesco has urged Libyan authorities to protect Sufi mosques and shrines under repeated attack by hardliners who consider the traditional mystical school of Islam heretical.

• Dagestan-Sufi scholar, 5 others killed in Dagestan suicide bomb attack.

As a cleric in the Sufi Brotherhood, Afandi was a key leader in the sect of Islam traditionally popular in the North Caucasus but despised by Islamic fundamentalists, who practice a puritanical form of Islam known as Salafism. While Sufis incorporate the worship of saints and highly theatrical ceremonial prayers into their practice, Salafis condemn what they regard as idolatry and any non-traditional forms of worship.

Comments-Salafis have tried to impose their version of Islam Where ever they could do.They also call for the establishment of Islamic rule.In this regard they are killing Sufi Scholars and destroying Sufi shrines across the world.They are banning Sufi Practices by calling them Un Islamic.The relation between the two have worsen and have taken ugly turns.Moderate Sufis have not formed their militias to fight Salafis.The Article is on notable subject which is a subject of huge debates.Only Some supporters would deny this fact. Shabiha (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"Only some supporters would deny this fact"...is that really necessary? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to improve it.I think established facts should be accepted though i m not insisting on support or oppose.Yet It is not necessary. Shabiha (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

My position is to delete, still. The article is made for the purposes of putting down one movement and painting a rosy red picture of another, not to mention the fact that I don't know of current trends within research of Islamic sects which would consider such a thing an actual topic of discussion. I'm looking forward to seeing what other editors have to say. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - seems to me like a content fork done badly. Information in this article (in NPOV form) should be in the appropriate sections of either Jihadism or the appropriate religious groups' articles. Also note there is a duplication of Salafist jihadism, so that should be removed - maybe then a Sufi jihadism article could be valid. I fail to see the point of this article, to be brutally honest - they're conflicting groups, therefore they should NOT be grouped together, in my opinion. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment-I have moved page to more Neutral title Sufi-Salafi relations.This title and present content may be improved,sole purpose is to present a relationship and its effect between competing movements.Sufis are continuously facing violent form of Salafist Jihadism in many parts of the world.Subject is totally notable and tone is neutral.Sources are verifiable. Shabiha (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Now the Article is very much similar to Article Shia-Sunni relations. Shabiha (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• The article title is now neutral, yes - but the article itself still appears to focus on the jihadism and such, it needs broadening into a general relationship between the sects. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - Obviously it needs to be rewritten and de-POVed but there seems little doubt the conflict between Sufis and Salafis is significant. (Full disclosure: the creating editor -- Shabiha -- asked me to comment.) --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

am currently attempting to remove POV from the article --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep under new title - but rewrite needed to address legitimate concerns about WP:NPOV and attack. This initially looks like is going to be more difficult to keep a level ship than even Turkish-Armenian and similar en.wp flashpoint articles with 1RRR status. Unfortunately beyond seeing that, not in a position to help. A strange recommendation perhaps but editors like Jayjg or JohnCarter from WP:Religion might be invited to tag evidently inappropriate content. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• Not sure if keep or delete - in brief: an article on Sufi-Salafi relations is a novel idea. This article, however, isn't about that. Aside from the content of the article still being a persuasive essay convincing the reader to like Sufis and dislike Salafists, a lot of the sources given are not directly related to the topic of Sufi-Salafi relations but rather still to the comments bashing one movement and promoting another. I'm not sure whether to categorize this comment of mine as "revised weak delete" or "keep title and not content." MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm thinking exactly the same, hence the lack of a change - the problems are WP:SURMOUNTABLE, but that would, probably, be best achieved by being deleted and restarted from scratch, preferably by a draft where multiple users contribute. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
• Like I said above, the title was only part of why I felt this article deserved an AfD; the content seems deliberately written to push a certain POV. I would be willing to retract my deletion support if several users would pledge to help do a total rewrite of the content and help make a real article about Sufi-Salafi relations. As ironic as this next comment is considering that I am a Muslim, if those editors happen to be non-Muslims, it would be better - this is a subject which is in the news and obviously creates strong opinions in the Muslim world. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment.

1. I can't agree that content unflattering to salafis is grounds for deletion. If there are a great many sources describing Salafi attacks on Sufis and their shrines, and none about Sufi attacks on Salafi, that does not mean the article relating this information is biased or bashing Salafi.
2. What I can agree with, having been doing research on the issue to make edits in the article to make it more "encyclopedic", is that in the one region where there has been a lot of violence against Sufis (specifically Barelvi Muslims) -- Pakistan -- the doctrinal heritage of the perpetrators is not Salafi but predominantly Deobandi. To correct this the title could be changed from salafi to something more inclusive of those Muslims who believe Sufi veneration of "saints" is Shirk, but I'm not sure what that label would be. "Fundamentalist", "militant", "puritan" are all problematic. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I never claimed that content unflattering to any religious group is grounds for deletion; my contention was that the article was designed to push a certain POV against one religious group and in favor of another. That's what I felt were grounds for deletion The title change helped, as did the massive amount of edits you (BoogaLouie) undertook but I would also point out that your edits changed the fundamental subject and nature of the article.

As for Muslims who oppose veneration of saints, then I don't know of any term. Remember that Deobandis are, by definition, also Sufis; they just practice a different form of Sufism than Barelvis. In the Arab countries like Libya and the sub-Saharan African nations, it's more clear cut. But if this article remains as merely "Sufi-Salafi relations," then removing content relating to Barelvi-Deobandi relations isn't the end. Keep in mind that the Ahl al-Hadith movement in South Asia, while being similar to Salafism, is still a distinct movement. Even the Mali section might not warrant a specific place in such an article; two of the belligerent groups, Boko Haram and Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa, have nothing to do with Salafism; about three other groups do; and one of the belligerent groups adheres to secular nationalism.

The article as it stands now would need to be gutted. Sufi-Salafi relations is a legitimate topic but we would really only be able to retain the sections on Somalia, Egypt and Libya; the rest doesn't belong in such an article. I cannot retract my support for deletion as the article currently stands, because again, it's designed to paint Sufis as victims everywhere and accuse Salafism as being responsible for all violence against Sufis internationally, when that simply isn't true, as BoogaLouia and I'm sure the rest of the editors have noticed. This goes back to my initial comments that the article's overall subject (Sunni Sufis and Salafi Jihadism) was inappropriate, without real purpose and highly POV. BoogaLouia has de-POV'd it but we are now left with an article containing huge amounts of material with no relation to the subject. I can see a Deobandi-Barelvi relations page being notable, but the other information would need to be moved to different pages, and ALL of them would need to be watched for POV; the controversy apparent on Talk:Barelvi demonstrates what I mean. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)