Talk:Al-Ahbash: Difference between revisions

Al-Azhar Affiliation

I've read the article talk page archives and note that the sentence "[t]he AICP claims to run its Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar, a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar" has been the source of a lot of contention. The problem with this sentence, however, is that the second clause, i.e., "a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar", is a violation of WP:NOR. Specifically, it violates WP:SYNTHESIS in joining multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated in any reliable source cited and WP:PRIMARY in that the letter purportedly written by Dr. Hashem is a primary source of unclear provenance and is not "reputably published." The claim that the AICP runs schools in connection with Al-Azhar is supported by an article published in the International Journal of Middle East Studies, a secondary source that meets WP:RS criteria. Conversely, the five sources used to support the second clause are problematic and are listed below along with an explanation for why each source is not sufficient:

"Egypt arrests 22 men for corrupting Islam"- Reuters, 13 December 2007. ("The source said they belong to the al-Ahbash sect – which has a significant following in Lebanon and strong historical ties to Syria – and which is considered unorthodox by many Islamic clerics including the ones at Al-Azhar."

Comment: The source does not support the proposition for which it is cited. See WP:SYNTHESIS.

Dr. Ahmed Omar Hashem (August 28, 2001). "President of Al-Azhar's Letter / statement issued on the official letterhead of Al-Azhar (Arabic)". Al-Azhar University. Retrieved July 17, 2016. (Excerpts from the letter from Arabic to English regarding AICP or Al-Ahbash: "There is no single form of recognition/accreditation and cooperation between Al-Azhar University and them. All papers, in which what is otherwise claimed (by this organization) do not correspond to the truth. We reject all attempts to abuse the prestigious name of Al-Azhar University by this organizations..")

Comment: The source is not a secondary source. It is a primary source of unclear provenance and is not reputably published. See WP:PRIMARY.

Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America (AMJA) (April 19, 2013). "About the Abyssinians sect". Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America (AMJA). Retrieved March 27, 2017. {{cite web}}: External link in |author= (help) (Excerpt: "These announcements are embedded in the following literature and media: Professor Dr. Ahmad Omar Hashim`s letter, Al-Azhar University President, to Muslim World League`s Secretary-General in August 24, 2001.")

Comment: This organization's statement does not qualify as a reliable secondary source. It certainly can't be used as a source on anything but itself. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS.

Liz Fuller (September 14, 2016). "Analysis: Grozny Fatwa On 'True Believers' Triggers Major Controversy". Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty/RFE/RL, Inc. Retrieved March 27, 2017. (Excerpt: "Conference participants, who included Ahmed El- Tayeb, rector of Cairo's Al-Azhar Islamic University, adopted a fatwa stipulating that the sole true adherents of traditional Islam are those who abide by Kalam scholastic theology, belong to one of the four madhhabs (legal schools)......It identifies the Salafi strain of Sunni Islam professed in Saudi Arabia as a "dangerous and erroneous contemporary sect," along with the extremist group Islamic State, Hizb ut-Tahrir, and the Habashis.")

Comment: I'm not sure that this source meets WP:RS criteria. Even if it does, the text of the source does not support the proposition for which it is cited. See WP:SYNTHESIS.

"Exposing Abd Allah al-Harari and his sect the Ahbash of Lebanon ("Association of Islamic Charitable Projects")" (PDF). Markaz al-Nasr li Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaah, Jakarta, Indonesia / As-Sunnah Foundation of America. pp. 23, 24. Retrieved July 17, 2016.

Comment: As with the AMJA statement above, this organization's statement does not qualify as a reliable secondary source. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS.

Please provide at least one reliable secondary source, as required by WP:RS, that unequivocally states that Al-Azhar denies any affiliation with Al-Ahbash's schools. 2601:243:2200:60E:B1EC:F03A:76FB:7965 (talk) 06:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Expansion of Lead

Many secondary sources, such as the Guide to Islamist Movements stress the controversial aspects of the Al-Ahbash and the article has a large controversy section. This is missing from the lead. A brief sentence such as "The Al-Ahbash have been criticized for fringe views and for violence, claims that the Al-Ahbash have denied" may be appropriate. Thoughts? 2601:243:2200:60E:D0C9:C5D3:6655:BA57 (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a personal blog for the Al-Ahbash and/or its proponents

This user seems to be back since this edit. The Al-Ahbash can twist the Wikipedia guidelines all they want to fit to their agenda. The fact remains that I am not the sole editor who has been contributing to the Al-Ahbash page. There have been many other editors (i.e. @Softlavender:, @MezzoMezzo:) too. The truth of the matter is that the current version of the Al-Ahbash page is a huge compromise (i.e. RfC about Al-Ahbash and Al-Azhar) despite all the attempts made by the Al-Ahbash to push their POV on Al-Ahbash for almost 2 decades by hook or by crook.  McKhan  ^(talk) 23:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you able to address the issues with the sources raised in Talk:Al-Ahbash#Al-Azhar_Affiliation above? 2601:243:2200:60E:D0C9:C5D3:6655:BA57 (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

One's edits and persistence speak louder than what someone claims. Your above-mentioned "clear arguments" are a tantamount to beating around the bush as they have not only been discussed before over and ever again but also gone through an RfC.

What you need to understand is that the topic of Al-Ahbash is very much contentious and controversial. I know very well that why the Al-Ahbash keep coming back to Al-Ahbash related pages on Wikipedia. It is NOT about respect for Al-Azhar or academic integrity, original research, sources, Wikipedia, its guidelines or anything else. It is basically all about marketing.

They keep coming back to the the Al-Ahbash related pages on Wikipedia because these are the pages which shows up on most of the search results on Google, Yahoo and other major search engines. Thus, it is very important for the Al-Ahbash to keep all good, positive and sanitized information being posted about themselves and their scholar Abdullah_al-Harari on Wikipedia in order to make sure that they are able to keep/retain their current adherents as well as recruit potential adherents.

That's where having the "affiliation" with Al-Azhar or using the banner of "Jamat Ahal Wa Sunnah" becomes handy and important because Al-Azhar being one of the oldest Sunni Institution and Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah being the majority of the World Muslims being Sunnis can really be good for marketing and to buy the clout and legitimacy. Otherwise, the Al-Ahbash couldn't care less about Al-Azhar or Jamat Ahal Wa Sunnah or the mainstream Sunni Muslims.

Each and every thing or word in Al-Ahbash or Abdullah_al-Harari articles have been discussed over and over and over again. You are not brining anything new to the table.

And last but not least, what you also need to understand is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a party between the Al-Ahbash and other (i.e. Whabis, Salafis) nor it is a promotional blog belonging to the Al-Ahbash where they can publish whatever they deem suitable or appropriate about themselves and/or their scholar Abdullah_al-Harari. What is needed here the most that the people like you to stop pushing their agenda (i.e. POV) on Al-Ahbash and other Al-Ahbash related pages using various IDs and rotating IP addresses.

P.S.: If you are not affiliated with the Al-Ahbash or proponent of them then why do you keep coming back after years and using the very same arguments and points which the typical Al-Ahbash folks and their proponents have been using for years, using various IDs, and rotating IP addresses, just like you.

Thank you.  McKhan  ^(talk) 00:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Consensus can change. See WP:CCC. The points that I noted above were not brought up in that RfC, which included only a handful of editors. I'd like to repeat the question from above: can you provide a single secondary source that meets WP:RS which unequivocally states that Al-Azhar has denied the affiliation? Also, I'd appreciate it if you could stop copying and pasting your posts from elsewhere. It's tedious to read the same content over and over. 2601:243:2200:60E:D0C9:C5D3:6655:BA57 (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Read the RfC very carefully as well as the previous discussions going back many years on the points you are raising. The answers are already there. Stop twisting the Wikipedia guidelines. Admins will see through it. It has already been answered over and over and over again. If you don't consider the sources provided as reliable sources and want to twist the Wikipedia guidelines then it is entirely up to you. It seems to me that you have already done your "homework" of canvassing, perhaps, that's why you keep on bringing consensus which has already been sought and done with.

With reference to the above-mentioned comments, I know the ultimate goal of the the Al-Ahbash is to somehow corroborate the statement printed in their books used in their The Islamic Education School (TIES), elementary schools, established by the Association of Charitable Projects (AICP) which uses other names, all fronts of the Al-Ahbash, and other material to "prove" that there is an "affiliation" between Al-Azhar and Al-Ahbash hence the neutral statement (i.e. "The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar, a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar.") in the Al-Ahbash article. That statement which used to be in the lead but now listed under "Controversy". NOW you are here to get red of that sentence altogether from the article. Why? Because it hurts the marketing of the Al-Ahbash on the Internet. If you will keep on asking the same questions then I will keep on copying and pasting the same answer.  McKhan  ^(talk) 01:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I've already read the talk page archives and the RfC. The points I brought up above have not been previously raised nor addressed. Keep in mind that the results of an RfC can be overturned if consensus changes. Do you have any specific objections to the points I've raised above? I'd like to get them out in the open before I proceed to seek help to get this dispute reviewed by other editors, if necessary. 2601:243:2200:60E:D0C9:C5D3:6655:BA57 (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

No, you haven't. You are simply here to push Al-Ahbash's years' old agenda of getting rid of the neutral statement of "The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar, a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar." and sanitize this article and other Al-Ahbash related articles as per their promotional material as it hurts their marketing and financial bottom-line. And the way you are talking and keep on referring to RfC and twisting the other Wikipedia guidelines, it seems that you have done your "homework" of canvassing and fully prepared. This will not be the first nor the last time that the Al-Ahbash are trying to have their way on Wikipedia. I will let the editors and admins see through it.  McKhan  ^(talk) 03:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)