Talk:Al-Ahbash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Al-Ahbash article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake.
Do not use this page as a discussion forum.
See talk page guidelines.
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
Archive

Archives
1 2 3

Contents

[edit] Al-Ahbash beliefs regarding the Qur'an

On the AICP website, they state "They keep following the methods for reciting Qur'an as these methods were originally conveyed by prophet Muhammad. The lineage to the prophet is extremely strong. From here, one realizes that it is impossible to tamper with Qur'an. From here, one realizes that it is impossible to tamper with Qur'an." [1] From that quote, I deduce that they believe in the totality of the Qur'an. Comments, suggestions? BhaiSaab talk 04:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe you have your answer :) Crono 22:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article by Nizar Hamzeh is not neutral

The article by nizar hamzeh is not neutral as it claims that al-ahbash engage in trances that unite them with God. This contradicts the belief of the ahbash which clearly states that nothing unites with God and God does not dissolve in the world. Their books such as Bughyat Attalib and others clearly state that they refute the belief of unity between created beings and God.

[edit] Proabivouac

I just want to chime in that this article doesn't have sufficiently important links to make a relatively prevalent conservative-ish Muslim site non-notable when speaking about the subject. Can you more fully explain your edits? You say it's not notable... but, being ranked 8,615 by Alexa is pretty important. AICP is 480,000... just for reference. I am not arguing that it is a particularly good or neutral source--it isn't. But I do think it represents a notable Islamic view about this subject. gren グレン 09:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There can be no problem linking to such rulings when they are signed by a particular scholar, whose notability we can then evaluate. Otherwise, it is to the best of our knowledge, just an anonymous non-notable opinion hosted by a notable site.
The first of the two fatwa links (the one that is there currently) is attributed to, "The Standing Committee for Academic Research and Issuing Fatwaas." Perhaps this does satisfy my objection. The second is attributed merely to "A group of Islamic researchers," and does not.Proabivouac 19:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
That is a good point. I really don't know if the producer of that fatwa is notable just because it's on a notable site. gren グレン 07:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected; please discuss disputes first

Hello everyone,

For now, due to the edit warring, this page has been protected from editing. It is not productive for everyone to keep reverting everyone else's edits. We should always discuss possibly controversial changes on the talk page, here, first. I know that not everyone agrees, but if things are discussed first, a compromise can be come to, and the edit warring will not have to continue.

I hope that productive discussion can take place so that the page can soon be unprotected, and left that way. Thanks for trying to work things out, -- Natalya 13:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, after my comments above I couldn't really protect. gren グレン 18:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I'll keep on eye on things, but since you seem to be more familiar with the situation, if it seems like things will be okay unprotected, let me (or anyone) know, and I'll take care of it. -- Natalya 04:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IslamQA and other links

IslamQA is a well known wahabi/salafi site and is completly biased in its outlook about AICP. It is far from being anything near traditional Islam. The link from Islam Online tells lie after lie. One needs to be objective. Moreover, why put links on Wikipedia that have no true basis.

The AICP is likewise presumably biased in its outlook towards itself, and some would say is itself far from traditional Islam. These are external links, and such bias is entirely acceptable so long as the source is notable.Proabivouac 21:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well those links also contain lies about AICP. It says that we allow free mixing and its ok for women to wear tight clothes? Thats unacceptable and its far from anything AICP teaches.

Please, feel welcome to come forward with a CRITICAL link which doesn't contain "lies" about AICP / Al-Ahbash. McKhan 00:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to post any "Critcal" links about Ahbash. However, I dont think its right to post links that contains lies about what the group teaches. Im not going to search the internet looking for links to post, and thats beyond the point.

I have been watching this page for years and had countless discussions with the adherents of AICP / Al-Ahbash and I haven't seen any CRITICAL link / content / material .etc which doesn't contain any "lies," "misinformation" .etc about the AICP / Al-Ahbash as per the adherents / proponents of Al-Ahbash / AICP. And this IS the main point here as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which aspires to maintain NPOV as well as the equilbirium and those links are simply part of that equation of maintaining the NPOV / Equiblibrium. McKhan 01:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can we consider unprotection?

Things seemed to have calmed down here since the article was protected. That also may have stemmed the discussion on the talk page, but I'm hopeful that this has given everyone enough time to cool off a bit, and can work together and edit the article without edit warring. Does it seem feasable? If we think so, I'll unprotect the page, providing the edit warring stays away. -- Natalya 04:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I hope the same. -- McKhan 08:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Seen As Heretical" - IS that really NPOV?

"Seen as Heretical" According to what source? If a view is to be posted, then it chould be made clear who holds that view. I think it would be better to say ..'"..and other beliefs, which according to <insert source> are seen as heretical" There is no unanimous agreement amoung the muslims that AICP teaches or holds beliefs generally seen as heretical..so i don't think we should make it appear so. 75.64.144.211 04:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It has already been discussed. Tearlach has already given the source which is right there: http://ddc.aub.edu.lb/projects/pspa/al-ahbash.html . Further, AICP / Al-Ahbash / Habashies are SEEN AS HERETICAL by mainstream Sunnis whether AICP / Al-Ahbash / Habashies accept it or not. McKhan 06:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

AICP, are mainstewam muslims..."SEEN AS HERETICAL by mainstream Sunnis whether AICP / Al-Ahbash / Habashies accept it or not." According to what source? Which orginaization gave such a census? Or are you talking out of your rear end? As far as wikipedia is concerned, this is hearsay you just made up. And your own opinion. Unless you want to cause another revert war, you better provide a source.

The link you posted doesn't represent the views of all muslims, it only represents the views of two supposed sufis. Sence you cannot provide a source where *all* the muslims on earth, unanimously agree that AICP's beliefs are heretical. I am going to revert the artcle back.75.64.144.211 13:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

By using profanity, "Or are you talking out of your rear end?," you are being impolite and uncivil and on the top of that you are threatening another "revert war" which is also irrational and illogical. Both are violations of Wikipedia guideliens. Having said that, under the Wikipedia Guidelines, it is about what INDEPENDENT and ACADEMIC sources say about the AICP / Al-Ahbash / AICP - NOT - what AICP / Al-Ahbash / Habashies would like to see on the Wikipedia pages about themselves. I think it is pure logic, reasonable and rational. Otherwise, each and every group will make sure to sanatize itself by calling them right and others wrong. In this context, http://ddc.aub.edu.lb/projects/pspa/al-ahbash.html constitute to an INDEPENDENT and ACADEMIC source. McKhan 14:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It is a perfectly acceptable source, see my comments below.Proabivouac 22:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you are talking out of your rear end, you have yet to provide a source that represents the views of every single sunni muslim, that states AICP beleifs are seen as heretical. What you posted was a artcle written by two random guys with islamic names.

Secondly, what i said about the revert war holds true....read the last 3 archived pages on this article, you have been involved in numerous revert wars, and have even been blocked several times for it. If anyone is in violation here, it is you. You are constantly pushing your own agenda, which is hindering this articles development. If this continues, i will have to report it.

It is in its current shape because every time someone makes an edit, you revert it. If you want to push your agenda this much, you will atleast follow wikipedia guidelines, by stateing the source of your opinions when you post them on the article. I have edit the artcle to further suit wiki guidelines by posting a source. "Seen as heretical" Is a one sided statement, made by those who oppose AICP, i certainly won't, and i hope the admins won't, allow such as statement to be present without the source of it being known.

It is like if i went to a base ball article and wrote about the Yankes "This team is generally seen as a bad team"

Also, you did not provide a source that states AICP teaches Shia Islam, according to thier site, they teach Sunni Islam, and Sufism, nothing is mentioned about Shiaism, thus there is no reason to mention it, unless you feel it significant enough. And if you do feel it significant enough, you WILL provide a source for it. On the article, where everyone can see it. 75.64.144.211 21:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Anon, see WP:CIVIL, also WP:RS - this is a great example of the kind of sources we need. McKhan, it would seem that this worthy article attributes the characterization of Ahbash as heresy not to "mainstream Sunnis," but to Islamists.Proabivouac 21:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There is NO source out there which will satisfy Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP

Please, go ahead and castigate all the following sources as "Wahabi," "Salafi," "Kaafir," "Islamists" .etc. Nevertheless, most of these sources are INDEPENDENT / ACADEMIC and / or RELIGIOUSLY AUTHORATIVE sources. The only thing which they lack of, obviously, that they don't say what the Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP would like to see.

McKhan 21:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

McKhan, there are no "religiously authoritative" sources on Wikipedia. If a religious scholar is notable in their own right, then their views can be included with attribution. Academic sources of the type discussed in the section above are preferred; as with everything, we must take care to characterize them fairly. News articles are also fine when discussing the events they cover.Proabivouac 22:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wether there is a source or not is not the point, in reguards to the "Heretical' Issue, what is the point is that you POST the source right there NEXT to the phrase, and let people review the soruce and judge for themselves if it is worthy or not. All sources should be available to the reader right then and there. It should be made clear who says what about AICP.

I deleted the references section, because there is no need to post 'A Sufi Response" in its own little section. Plus the fact that it IS an external link, i think it would better fit in the external links section. Also, I was thinking of fixing the article so we have a 'pro-aicp' section, and an 'anti-aicp' section. Sorta like the Salafism/Wahabism, and the Shia articles are written. AICP is infact a group of people within Islam, and i think the format should be the same as with all other sects. And also note, on the AICP website, there is hardly any mention of any political involvment, while i don't deny it, i feel it shouldn't be the main thing, and i feel this artcle would better serve under the Islam umbrella rather than Lebenon umbrella...also, AICP is a world wide thing, they have centers in nearly every country on earth, so catagorizing it as a 'Lebenon' type artcle is not very accurate, In my city alone is a center with LOTS of members. And this is the smallest branch. So it isn't really just a 'lebenon' thing.

Please review my suggestions and get back to me when you can. This article needs work badly, and over the summer, i plan to rewrite it and post it, and once everyone agrees, we will post the new article on wiki.

Also, its Habash, not Ahbash. The group gets its named because the head shiekh Abdullah Hariri is from Habash, in Eithiopia.75.64.144.211 23:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been watching this article / page since the day it was created. I have had several "discussions" with the proponents / adherents of Al-Ahbash / AICP / Habashies. I have been accused of having an agenda numerous times. If I had an agenda, this article would have been totally different. But I have been trying my best for the past several years to keep this article neutral despite several attempts by the adherents / proponents of Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP to malign me personally and / or trying to sanatize themselves on this very page as well as on the article page by itself through edit-wars. I cannot help but to point out to everybody who is reading these lines that this page was Protected for at least 2 weeks but NO proponent / adherent came forward to discuss anything on the Talk Page. But as soon as, the page got unprotected, 75.64.144.211 has already started an edit-war. This is the typical attitude which has been demonstrated, quite consistently, by the proponents / adherents of Al-Ahbash / AICP / Habashies. Having said that, all I have been doing is to insist on the version of Tearlach, an independent, who wrote this version on his own without having any agenda. Most of the points raised by 75.64.144.211 has already been discussed OVER and OVER again and I find it quite redundant to reiterate the same information again. Since 75.64.144.211 is the propoent / adherent of Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP, all I can do for him is to sympathize with him as there aren't any INDEPENDENT / ACADEMIC sources or statistics available which justify the claims made by him regarding AICP / Al-Ahbash / Habashies being the "World-Wide Movement" (Having centers in many parts of the world doesn't constitue to massive population of adherents, specially, when that cannot be verified through the INDEPENDENT / ACADEMIC sources) and / or that AICP / Al-Ahbash / Habashies should be treated as any other major group like Wahabis / Salafis / Shias .etc as there are plenty of mainstream Muslim (INDEPENDENT / ACADMEIC / religiously authorative) sources which points to otherwise. 75.64.144.211 is more than welcome to presnet his arguments or anything else WITHOUT starting an edit-war on the main page and WITHOUT discussing it on the Talk-Page. McKhan 00:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I made an edit, you reverted it, if a reveret war happened, it was because of you. And the fact is, YOU are the one who has been proscuted many times for causeing problem on this article. Personally, you shouldn't have any access to this article ever again. And that fact that YOU are the only person satisfied with the page, whilst EVERY other person isn't, is obvious of your agenda, you want the page they way YOUR views fit. Well, i'm sorry, Wiki doesn't work based on what you consider to be NPOV. every edit that has been made has been specificly made to fit your view. And every single person affiliated with AICP,who has made any edit, has had thier work reverted by you. its not your article, you don't control it. And sence its creation, you have done nothing but hinder its development. With what YOU consider academic resources. Many of which arn't even valid as citation according to Wiki.

Teearlach wrote this article with the guidence of who..You?

As i said, Sence the begining of this, the article has been specificly tailored to fit your view, and yours alone. IP7564144211 05:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I NEVER EVER gave any guidance to Tearlach NOR I gave him ANY sources. Anybody is welcome to ask Tearlach. Having said that santizing one's group through selected / partial sources as well as twisting the Wikipedia guidelines doesn't constitute to "devleopment" per se nor it satisfies the Wikipedia which aspires to be NPOV. You are more than welcome to bring-forth your INDEPENDENT / ACADEMIC sources as long as you refrain from reverting the article to fit to your agenda. In the meantime, I would like to take the liberty to reiterate what Tearlach had to say in 2005 about the very same argument / points which you are making / raising in 2007:
Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP's Objections: "an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunni and Shi'a theology with Sufism"[1] ? + "anti-Salafi, and with Sufi and other beliefs seen as heretical"[2] ?
NPOV / Tearlach's Response: It was an attempt to summarise and merge the descriptions at the three cited sources: their own promotional website; a critical description; and what appears to be a fairly balanced and properly-sourced paper in an academic journal. It incorporated other academic sources such as Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context. Tearlach 15:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC) + Read NPOV. I chose those links because they represent a spread of views: one well-referenced and (as far as I can tell neutral) academic article; one from the official AICP site, which is completely uncritical of Al-Ahbash; and one fairly representative of what its critics say about it. Tearlach 02:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
McKhan 06:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The page is ok now, but, in the summar, we are still rewriteing the entier article. It is still incomplete IP7564144211 13:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to ask from where did the claim that 'AICP teaches and spreads "Shia" Islam' came from? That is a blatant lie. Anyone who has studied under their scholars and has been to their masjod, or even the website knows that is NOT the truth.

Once again, it is right there in A Sufi response to political islamism: Al-ahbash of Lebanon:
McKhan 12:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it amusing that people attempt to vandalize the page by saying we are kafirs and we "never pray" and we teach that "rape is good." Some people are just downright disgusting.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/l/-/Talk%7EAl-Ahbash_c65c.html"