Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunni Sufis and Salafi Jihadism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This discussion has changed from keep/delete to an editorial merge, that condition should continue of the appropriate talk pages. J04n(talk page) 21:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

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 then 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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Have crossed out the "unflattering" stuff.

Not sure "that Deobandis are, by definition, also Sufis; they just practice a different form of Sufism than Barelvis". That may have been true at one time, Or it may be true about some Deobandis, some who are not involved in attacks on Barlevi. More later --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Have to cross out that too. see http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/811/where-sufism-stands/ --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Merge with Sufism#Persecution

I'm afraid I'm going to have to back off my keep vote on the basis of new information ("Scores of Deobandi leaders and members of Ahle Sunnat wal Jamat (ASWJ, formerly the banned Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan) have been assassinated in Karachi in recent years. Police sources say that the Sunni Tehrik, a Barelvi organization, is behind most of these assassinations." http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[swords]=8fd5893941d69d0be3f378576261ae3e&tx_ttnews[any_of_the_words]=deobandi&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=39288&tx_ttnews[backPid]=7&cHash=d0c7b27bc23ab9f7c336e353f5c3a905) --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

To review, then, we have Shabiha with keep, Lukeno with delete, intinco oculi with keep, and BoogaLouie with merge. I still lean toward deleting this article, as given what I think both you (BoogaLouie) and I have seen, it covers multiple unrelated topics. Although, taking the sources here and merging them into other articles might work. Can we get a review by Shabiha, Lukeno and intinculus octi based on recent development? Further comments from other editors, obviously, would help even more. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• This basically confirms my original opinion of this being a badly-done content fork. I would stick with delete, but I definitely agree that a new, NPOV-compliant section (well, as NPOV-compliant as we can be) should be put into the Sufism#Persecution# article. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep.The Salafis is broader term includes with in it ,Deobandis,Ahle Hadees as well.Wahabis is only a common name given to this movement so on the basis of it the Article should be retained as it is.One example-Mawlid is supported by all Sunni Muslims except Salafi ,Ahle Hadeeth or Deobandi.They consider asking for Prophet Muhammad for help Shirk which is totally lawful for other Muslims.We need to understand their nexus.These all three movements share common faith and beliefs and oppose common Sufism.Msoamu (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Saudi Arabia follows Salafi ideology which promotes many movements like BokoHaram ,it is a Salafi/Wahabi movement [1] also see it [2] Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa is also Salafi[https://www.cpj.org/2012/09/islamist-militants-seize-and-rename-radio-station.php.Almost all Jehadist organizations are following Salafi ideology,there is no doubt that Saudi Arbia supports them likewise Deobandis works in close connection with Salafi organizations and have full backing with Saudi fund in Pakistan.Msoamu (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply

I'm sure some people use the term salafi as synonymous with strict, aggressive Sunni Islam. But "Salafis is broader term includes with in it, Deobandis, Ahle Hadees" doesn't explain sites like these:

https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+deobandi+and+salafi&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

• I wish Salafis and Deobandis could be closer
• difference between Deobandi and salafi Aqaid
• The problem with the salafi approach towards deobandis! --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll be frank, Msoamu and Shabiha are both strong supporters of the Barelvi movement. Part of the beliefs of this movement is that all their opponents - Salafis, Deobandis, Ahl al-Hadith - are conspiring against them and all form one monolithic bloc. That's part of my initial and continued opposition to this article even with the name change - it's designed specifically to put all movements other than Barelvis into one box, irrespective of dogmatics or even geography. To avoid this discussion dragging on longer than it needs to be: what is the next step? Can we have someone trusted (I would feel comfortable with either Lukeno or BoogaLouie) merge out the sourced content and delete the main article? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on a merger in my sandbox. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I 'strongly oppose any idea of its merger into any Article.Sufism and Salafism relations are noteworthy and should be there.I have removed total Deobandi -Barelvi linkage untill the issue is resolved.The article is very much neutral and objective.I have added information of relations between these movements in various other countries like Tunisia and Sudan,Afghanistan.Moreover MezzoMezzo's concerns have been addressed by other editor that Boko Haram andMovement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa, are part and parcel of Salafism. Shabiha (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Official website of Ahle hadeeth says,'The Ahle Hadeeth or the Salafis, popularly but contemptuously referred to as the Wahabis[3].So the attacks by Ahle Hadeeth terrorist organizations which are also banned in Pakistan are handiwork of Salafi.These organisations and movement are known as wahabi in the entire Muslim and Academic world.There has been discussion on merging Salafi -Wahabi Articles here on wikipedia which is still possible today.Deobandi-The puritan Deobandi sect was also an offshoot of the influence of Wahhabism in India. - See more at[4].This fact is also endorsed by Shia community.Salafi terminology is just like a beautiful name taken from first three generations.All are 'Wahabi in their ideology.I suggest the Article may also be redirected to Sufi-Wahabi relations.Msoamu (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Shabiha - nobody has demonstrated that Boko Haram or the Movement for Oneness are Salafists.

Msoamu, the only people proposing the merger are you and other Barelvi editors. The established scholarly consensus in addition to the established consensus on Wikipedia is that Wahhabism, Salafism and Ahl al-Hadith are all distinct movements. If you would like to oppose such consensus, then you have a mountain of discussions lying before you on the talk pages for all the relevant articles, and it will take more than a handful of links to prove that all the academic world has had it wrong on these groups for the past century or so.

I'm looking forward to see the relevant content being merged to where it belongs. Perhaps five or six years from now, mainstream scholarship from places like McGill University and Brill Publishers will put out enough material on Sufi-Salafi relations to make this topic notable and deserving of its own entry on Wikipedia, but as it is, this is just a hodgepodge of sources all addressing completely different topics. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I can understand your pain from your language in which you have called me Barelvi twice.This is a derogatory term which is used to show Sufi movement in poor light.You disliked when others called you Wahabiwhich is widely used term by academicians and scholars around the world.Editors are not here to satisfy individual's argument.After removing Barelvi-Deobandi links,It can be said that complete Article reflects actual relationship between both Sufi-Salafi relations.I will engage in fruitful positive discussion not in attacking/targeting editors personally.Ahle Hadith officially accepting that they are Salafi/Wahabi movement.It should be enough for all.Read Wikipedia:NPAWikipedia:Civility Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Boko Haram-Boko Haram, is a Salafi-jihadi Muslim group from northeastern Nigeria, has been in the headlines recently,blamed for a string of recent attacks against the Nigerian government,UN peacekeepers and Nigerian Christians. .Homegrown Salafi-jihadi group that could destabilize Nigeria.Here

Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa-Wikipedia Article of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb establishes it is Salafi splinter group.In late 2011, the splinter group Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa was founded in order to spread jihadi activities further into West Africa.Their military leader is Omar Ould Hamaha, a former AQIM fighter.I think these are enough for objective editors to know that there is no doubt these movements are Salafi. Shabiha (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

New Edits

I have added relevant info related to Sufi Salafi relations and hope to see positive contributions on this very important topic.I am trying it to look neutral and objective.For those who want to understand difference between Salafi/Wahabism this Article would be helpfulFreedom of religion in Saudi Arabia. Shabiha (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The vast changes you made have been entirely undiscussed, and aren't relevant to this deletion discussion anyway. The article is still a hodgepodge of unrelated sources. Let's wait and see the merge which BoogaLouie has planned.

As for claims regarding Barelvi being a derogatory term, then please don't bring the conflict currently ongoing at WP:ANI over here. Be objective and focus on this topic, not your attempts to build a case against me personally, which is obviously what you're trying to do. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Thanks Sandstein,I have tried to give a clear picture of relations between these two movements.Now the Article is clear about Sufi Salafi relations.I have added heading of differences in their Beliefs and Practices.History section may also be improved. Shabiha (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Again Shabiha, this article is still a representation of how Sufis in general and Barelvis in particular wish to be viewed - it's still your own POV being pushed. The section on the destruction of sites is all that's relevant. The lead contains attempts by you to paint all Salafists as literalist and puritanical (both matters of opinion, not fact) and all Sufis as merely existential spiritualists (again, merely an opinion). The section on countries, again, contains some information on Sufism in general, information on attacks on Sufi shrines regardless of the perpetrators being Salafi or not and a small amount of information on actual conflict between Sufis and Salafis.

There are numerous instances of blatant attempts at inserting Barelvi polemics and conspiracy theories as objective fact rather than subjective opinion - the ridiculous claim that Deobandis and Ahle Hadith work together being the prime example. The section on differences in beliefs and practices contains some actual sourced differences but mostly material which isn't directly relevant or merely original research on your part; the background section is unsourced and mostly pointless; and the introduction section has some relevant info on Sufi-Salafi relations in Egypt (though not quite enough to justify a separate article) and just more conspiracy theories.

It's clear from your frequent edits and running back here that you're fighting tooth and nail to keep this article up, which seems to be even further proof that this is just your attempt to present Barelvi doctrine as reality. The article hasn't been improved one bit in terms of the fundamental nature and design of it being a POV fork resulting of original research and dogmatic religious belief - the original reasons why I nominated it for deletion as an unsavable, un-improvable entry. I strongly advise that we wait to see this merge suggestion above, as this entry is clearly presenting a religious movements dogmatic beliefs as objective fact, thus turning Wikipedia into a vehicle for promoting such beliefs. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The merge which I (BoogaLouie) have planned will not be ready until next week. I thank anyone who's waiting for their patience. Got a bit sidetracked. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

One again your language is going from bad to worse.You personally targetting me and accusing me falsely rather than counting the merits of this important Article.I am not here to satisfy you or any one else.The Article is on recent developments ,your claim that it is not widely covered by academicians is totally lie.The fact is that Salafist Sufi relations have deteriorated in recent years and has been acknowledged by prominent authors.The issue has become a topic of debate in academicians.Salafis/Wahabis worked with different names in various countries.Ahle Hadith are doing it in South Asia with the support of Deobandis.Boko Hamaram and movement for oneness are just examples of Salafi movments.You said,the ridiculous claim that Deobandis and Ahle Hadith work together being the prime example-My anser is that both have received huge funds from their ideological father Saudi Arabia.It is fact like sun light that they are common in their agenda.Article is fine now. Shabiha (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

1. I did discuss the merits, or lack thereof, within this article; this was in addition to expressing my perception that this article is an attempt to push a certain point of view. I didn't neglect either point.

2. Yes, the article is on recent developments, hence why it does not yet have wide academic coverage. This is a factual claim; if I am incorrect, then bring reliable sources to inform me that I am mistaken, instead of just accusing me of lying. This is a battleground type attitude being displayed, not a collaborative one.

3. Salafism and Wahhabism are two different things, not to mention Ahl al-Hadith. Again, please refer to the established consensus on thos articles.

4. Deobandis and Ahl al-Hadith have both received funding from Saudi Arabia, yes. So have Sufis such as Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki, who certainly isn't either. Saudi Arabia contains 25 million people, funding from the same general region doesn't prove any sort of cooperation. This is merely another conspiracy theory, and one which is disproven by the heated, polemical debates between Deobandis and Ahl al-Hadith anyway.

5. The article isn't fine at all, as proven by the concerns expressed here. Please calm down and let things cool off until next week as the editor above requested. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Salafism and Wahhabism are single movement.There are no differences in their faith and beliefs.it has been reconfirmed by authentic researches many times.i need not to say it again.sorces are already there to prove this fact.Ahl al-Hadiths are smaller movement of wahabism in south asia.saudi funding means in media,funding to spread its official version of islam ,Salafism.The topic has already been discussed by scholars n their researches [[5]]

Shabiha (talk) 10:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Shabiha, academic research has shown multiple times that Salafism and Wahhabism are not the same and you will see this reflected on the Wikipedia articles for both. I really don't know what you're trying to do here - you've edited both Wahhabi and Salafi over the years and are obviously aware of these views. It's very easy for users to go to the entries for these movements and see information contrary to what you're saying, so I'm a bit confused by your comments.

As for Jonathan Brown's article which you linked to here, then I'm assuming you Googled that after you read my comments on User talk:BoogaLouie. Shabiha, what is your goal here? Do you think I would quote a research paper which contradicted my claims of scholarly consensus? To do so would be to shoot myself in the foot; it doesn't make any sense.

Furthermore, I don't think you've actually read Brown's article. I obviously did because I was mentioning it as one example (the only scholarly example I know of focusing primarily on contemporary relations between Sufis and Salafis) and I'm basing what I'm saying on the media research he has provided. He does not hold the view, as you claim, that Salafism is the official version of Islam in Saudi Arabia, nor does he hold the view that Saudi Arabia intentionally spread Salafism in Egypt; on page four of the document, he merely states that contact with the country and its lifestyle helped the spread of Salafism, not any concerted effort on the part of governments.

I'm really not impressed with your above comments, Shabiha. I get the feeling that you're treating this discussion page as a battleground between the two of us. Your attempt to simply drop a source I quoted, which you really don't seem to have read at all and which doesn't even remotely support what you're saying, isn't adding anything positive to this discussion.

Like I asked you before, please wait for BoogaLouie to finish his merger proposal. All of us our busy editors and we have an uninvolved, respected editor who volunteered after you requested that he do so on his talk page. The least you could do is wait and see what he has to offer before furthering the discussion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

as discussed on Talk:Wahhabi, wahabi and salafi are now synonym terms..yes at one point there was a distinction but not anymore…overall the people involved in the salafi movement are called wahabis because its a popular term & their opponents don't want to refer to them as salafi..seeing a salaf are the early muslims of the first three generations..as you wrongly thought wahabi meant "extremism" alone…they are called wahabi for their beliefs as their opponents view them as followers of a new madhab, outside the traditional sunni route..in this case they accuse them of following ibntaymiyah/abdulwahab schools rather then the a salaf as they claim. Baboon43 (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

merged article

Here is a merger of Sufism#Persecution section and Sunni Sufis and Salafi Jihadism article. ... or at least a draft, I'm sure there are improvements to be made. It is essentially a greatly expanded Sufism#Persecution section, expanded with info from Sunni Sufis and Salafi Jihadism, though with considerable rewriting. I've tried to improve it with sources and de-POVing. Much of the mention of Salafis has been removed. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
OOPS. Merger is now posted. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Awesome work, especially the de-POVing - I'd imagine that was the most time-consuming part. It's almost looking like "Persecution of Sufis" might become it's own article one day sort of like "History of Sufism" did, though not now.

There is some other material that, while not related to "Sufi-Salafi relations," could be saved by a merge elsewhere. The "difference in beliefs and practices" section contains a few sources which could beef up the articles for Mawlid, Urs and Ya Muhammad.

The issue of the destruction of holy sites is another one. I think there's already an article for that somewhere, and that section here contains two sources.

Probably a few more that could be moved elsewhere, though I haven't checked if these sources were already available on those articles. Either way, good initiative on BoogaLouie's part. I don't know much about the process of closing, though...what comes next? We had more comments early on but that was before massive efforts and later failure to save this article, and before the extensive merge. Is there a way to generate more comments without canvassing? MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.