Lebanon Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

based on the archives it seems other people have pointed out the errors of this article several times...where is the first lines of this article coming from? ahbash and aicp are the same thing so how can they be ahbash and represented through association of Islamic charitable projects politically? ahbash is a NICKNAME..ahbash is not a sect nor are they shia, neither do they see sufism as heretical..these lines are taken off one source when the majority conflicts with it..the whole gabriel thing is irrelevant when on wiki it clearly states on the quran article "Muslims believe the Quran to be verbally revealed through angel Jibrīl (Gabriel) from God to Muhammad gradually over a period of approximately 23 years beginning in 610 CE, when Muhammad was 40, and concluding in 632 CE, the year of his death" so how is that any different from ahbash's view? the wiki french article of ahbash is NPOV and accurate...one does NOT have to seek consensus before editing, anyone is free to edit wikipedia Baboon43 (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed that already that I am not the author of this version but Tearlach. According to Tearlach:

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) [reply]

"If put more neutrally - "that the web presence downplays the Sufi elements"? - I'd have to agree. This journal article Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context from ISIM (which looks a respectable University of Amsterdam source) supports the view that Al-Ahbash presents itself on the web as simply "Islamic", with a covert agenda at times. For example, TalkAboutIslam.com claims on the front page to be an unaffiliated group of Sunni scholars - until you click the link the true teachings of Islam and the true islamic doctrine and find it's an AICP site." Tearlach 20:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It is important to note that this link was removed upon the insistence of the proponents of Ahbash / AICP.

As per mainstream Muslims' belief, there is NO "alleged" interpretation of the Quran by Gabriel as that's what Abd Allah Hariri preached which can be found in Shaykh Abdalla's lecture, 26 January 2003 and wrote about in his book, Bughyat al-talib which is not fully compatible with the consensus of ahl al-sunna as highlighted by Mustafa Kabha and Haggai Erlich in their article, "Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam,", International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 38, No. 4 (Nov., 2006), pp. 519-538, Published by: Cambridge University Press as well as by Tariq Ramadan on the Page 234 of his book "Western Muslims and the future of Islam," (ISBN: 019517111X, 9780195171112, Publisher: Oxford University Press US, 2004.

Please, read this talk page as well as ALL the academic articles (Muslim and non-Muslim) sources provided herewith very carefully and thoroughly as each and every point you are raising has been discussed over and over again. All the citations are there. Please, also read WP:5P, WP:DR, WP:EW, WP:RS, WP:SOCK and WP:CONSENSUS. McKhan (talk)

it doesnt matter if it was discussed, it doesnt change the fact that the whole article is INCORRECT...Tearlech did not do any extensive research which is why he left it as a stub article...if you actually think these 5 lines is a good representative of ahbash on wikipedia you are WRONG...the link you mentioned is from the opponents of ahbash and mainstream islam so why would it be on there? why didnt the other academic sources list the alleged Gabriel interpretation belief of ahbash?? Thomas piet has the most accurate description of ahbash so dont try to put one academic source behind you...i dont take advice from those who break the rules themselves on wikipedia and get BLOCKED. Baboon43 (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "i dont take advice from those who break the rules themselves on wikipedia and get BLOCKED," please, see here and read WP:CIVILITY. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The contention on the word "sect" is quite IRONIC as the Sunnis (of which the Ahbash / AICP to be claimed of) as well as Shi'as are also classified as "sect" under Islamic Sects within Islam. Nevertheless, I have added "movement" next to the "sect" while providing citations from the academic sources as per WP:Verifiable and included literal meaning of Ahbash. Please get CONSENSUS (See WP:CONSENSUS) from the other editors BEFORE making any edits. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

on the contrary, one who knows the guidelines of wikipedia does not edit war with a new user and than give out the guidelines..anyone who gets a warning or block needs to go through the guidelines themselves before approaching to help new users like me..why didnt i receive these links when i declared im a newbie way back? am i receiving these links because there is an admin here now? you must assume good faith not accuse me of being some trouble maker user in the past...movements under shia or sunni are not classified as sect..go look at deobandi on wikipedia or any other movement they may be classified as sect in some academic sources but they are under a branch typically the shia or sunni..the ahbashis dont go around and tell people they belong to the ahbash sect..you cant use both sect and movement that looks awkward. WRONG its edit than consensus thats why there's an edit button..you shouldnt revert on the basis of no consensus...see here WP:DRNC Baboon43 (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LABEL is quite clear, either leave the term sect out or use inline attribution, IE you need to write "according to". I have had enough of this and am going to make a report. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As a host at the Foundation's Teahouse project, I've asked baboon to talk through the interactional issues with me if/when s/he returns. We're keen to turn this kind of scenario into one where a new editor can adapt to our editorial requirements. I understand nothing of the content issues (I'd rather not, actually). Tony (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the past few days, there have been lots of changes made to the article WITHOUT due discussion. Since the religious beliefs of Ahbash are already considered controversial, thus, inserting religion in the info-box is not only counter-productive but also redundant. AmandaParker (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if ahbash is a sufi movement it makes the group followers of a sufi order thus infobox must state they follow sufi under sunni sect also the terrorist organization who is responsible for killing ahbash leader should be in the article as that is part of the history of ahbash..academics mention this in almost all of their writings including the wiki page on the group which i linked..you removed all my posts and tell me i didnt discuss before editing? what exactly do you want me to say on the talk page? why was the hezbollah and ahbash conflict also removed there's even citations for it. Baboon43 (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For some academics the Ahbash are also a militant / terrorist organization as well as part of Islamism. Al-Ahbash's Sufi credentials are also disputed and controversial. It IS a fact that there have been lots of changes made to this article by just one editor WITHOUT due discussion. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is not required for an editor to edit an article, this is a normal part of the editing process, even when the content of the article is often disputed. No editor is required to gain a consensus before making a bold edit to an article, and lack of consensus for an edit is not a reason to revert an edit. I'm not saying that if there is a valid reason to revert the material that it should not be reverted and then discussed, but the fact that there was no consensus or "due discussion" first is irrelevant. - SudoGhost 04:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the topic is very much controversial and countless attempts over the years have been made by AICP / Ahbash's proponents to insert their POV into this article as the Wikipedia attracts millions of readers, in my humble point of view, it becomes necessary to seek consensus. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This runs contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines; there is no requirement that consensus be achieved before editing, and under no circumstances is lack of a prior discussion reason to revert any content. Editors are in fact encouraged to be bold and then to discuss if there is a dispute about the edit.

With that said...concerning the content reverted: are there reliable sources disputing this religious affiliation? As for the two bits of text removed: Baboon43, do you have any additional reliable third-party sources that support this information? If so, perhaps it could be reintroduced into the article with an agreed upon wording that is supported by these reliable sources. However, I would strongly advise avoiding the use of descriptors such as radical or terrorist, they aren't neutral and generally shouldn't be used to describe a subject. - SudoGhost 04:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to be quite an expert on Wikipedia guidelines, please, feel welcome to elaborate on the necessity of having WP:CONSENSUS among Wikipedia guidelines IF that cannot be used for such a controversial subject. You are more than welcome to research the subject by yourself. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in WP:CONSENSUS does it state that consensus is required before editing. Consensus is used to handle specific disputes to prevent edit warring and achieve resolution; consensus is not something that is required before one edits an article, even on subjects deemed controversial (with certain exceptions, this not being one of them). Also, it's not up to me to prove your claims, if you don't back up the assertion that this religious label is controversial, there's no reason why it doesn't belong in the article, as it does appear to be backed by a reliable source. - SudoGhost 05:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i dont think there's anything wrong with radical because the group Osbat_al-Ansar has connections with al Qaeda and they are even referred to as radical on their wikipage but anyways it can still be written down as group members killed ahbash leaders while leaving out radical part as their own wiki article mentions the killing of the leader of ahbash and it is citated. almost all articles mention the killings this is one source http://www.meforum.org/meib/articles/0104_ld1.htm

the other revert which was refering to clashes with ahbash and hezbollah members were cited as well..another source refering to the incident hence the source also lists ahbash a sunni group. http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArchiveDetails.aspx?ID=196667

ahbash is a sufi response to islamism as this article clearly states so i dont know how its sufi ideology is "disputed" one of the reasons islamists hate ahbash is for their sufi ideology..here is a source although the ahbash call themselves sunnis their mixing of shia and sunni makes them sufi followers here's a source. http://ddc.aub.edu.lb/projects/pspa/al-ahbash.html Baboon43 (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sudo, your interpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines is a recipe for editing-warring on controversial subjects like these. This article has had a fair share of its edit-warring over the years. The best way to handle this whole dispute was / IS to create a new thread at this very talk page with a substantive, neutral title; setting out the case briefly and cogently, acknowledging and even setting out why the editors think other editors on the page disagree, and ask for comment by other editors. There are quite a few reliable academic sources which have been provided under the reference section. All one needs to do is to look into them, specially, an editor like yourself who is very much involved in this subject now. I will try my best to do my part. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an interpretation, it is what is written. Editors are more than welcome to discuss first if they believe their edit is likely to be reverted but it is not a requirement, and lack of previous discussion is under no circumstances a reason to revert content. Editors do not require permission to edit this article. - SudoGhost 05:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AmandaParker: understand that nobody has to ask permission before editing, it is against wikipedia policies to claim otherwise i suggest you learn the rules before making such comments. actually the recipe for edit warring is reverting with no points. Baboon43 (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an excerpt from WP:BEBOLD: "Don't get upset if your bold edits get deleted. The early advocate of trial and error followed by observation to gain knowledge, Francis Bacon, said "For if absurdity be the subject of laughter, doubt you not but great boldness is seldom without some absurdity."^[1] Instead of getting upset, read WP:Assume good faith and WP:Civility, and be bold again, but after a deletion of a bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as not to start an edit war." Indeed, each and every Wikipedia user like Sudo is entitle to have his/her own interpretation to be truthful of the Wikipedia guidelines and policies and thus use them as per their discretion. I have already suggested the best way to address this dispute. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 05:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you copy-pasted doesn't support anything you've said. Your quote simply says to be civil if your edit is reverted, it says nothing about discussion before editing being a requirement, nor does it say anything about reverting for the sake of lack of discussion. If an edit is reverted, there should be a reason, and that reason is to be discussed. Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". I'm still requesting some sort of direct reliable source to back up your assertion that the religion field is contested. Barring that, I see no reason not to restore that field in the infobox. - SudoGhost 05:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AmandaParker: dont change the subject this is not about being bold its about you reverting work and claiming there was no discussion therefore i shouldnt be editing..also you say it was edited by just ONE editor so basically if one editor makes a contribution its not valid to you..i have even shown you sources and your just ignoring it. Baboon43 (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the same token, you have been ignoring various academic sources all along. I am curious that why do we need to bring forth the "war of the mosques" in that article anyway. Furthermore, the word "Sufi" is already there in the very first paragraph then why do we need to have it again in the info-box. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's what an infobox's very purpose is, to provide a summary of the content. - SudoGhost 06:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the word "Sufi" from the content as it is also controversial and you re-inserted it back using some Wikipedia guideline. And now you would like to have the same word in that info-box (which was introduced by Baboon43) too. It is redundant. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 06:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I started looking at the reliable sources and relevant Wikipedia policies, and it doesn't even matter if it's contested or not, as that's not relevant to how that field is determined. They self-identify as Sufi, and it's relevant to who they are as an organization. The text and reliable sources already in the article also support their being identified as Sufi. This satisfies all the criteria of WP:BLPCAT, so there's no reason that field shouldn't at least state Sufi. - SudoGhost 06:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sudo, I, seriously, couldn't care less what clout of Wikipedia guideline you are going to use to accomplish what Baboon43 is dying to accomplish. All I know that the Ahbash is just NOT an organization, hence the terms Ahbash / Al-Ahbash / Habashies etc. used for them. There is a whole heading for "Controversy" in that very page, thus, the usage of Sufi as well as Sunni Muslim is very much disputed under various academic sources. Before you do ANY change, you MUST discuss here, otherwise, I will use the very same tool which you have recommended. :) McKhan (talk)

There no such requirement that "Before you do ANY change, you MUST discuss here". Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes, especially when the changes are supported by policy and reliable sources. Also, it has been discussed, and no reason has been given negates WP:BLPCAT. If you can cite some reason why the edit should not be made, then state this, otherwise, there's no reason not the make the edit. WP:BLPCAT applies to any group of people, be it a single person, an organized group, or any identifiable group of people. The controversy is also irrelevant, there's nothing unusual there. I don't think there's a single religious group or person that isn't considered "heretical" by some other group or person. That doesn't negate WP:BLPCAT in any way. - SudoGhost 06:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, quit hiding behind the Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Use plain English. If the "edit" has been discussed then why do you insist to make that "edit" because Baboon43 wants to do which he came here for in the first place. Let's see what "edit" you are proposing here. McKhan (talk)

In plain english: They self-identify as Sufi, and reliable sources support this. They are defined by this self-identification. The fact that others think their views are heretical is irrelevant, there isn't a single religious person that isn't viewed as heretical by someone else. The article itself, and reliable sources within the article support Sufi being in the religion field. By this criteria, Wikipedia editors have come up with a consensus formed into a policy that guides how this labeling is handled. By that consensus (which any consensus here cannot override) the article's infobox needs to identify this group as per its self-identification. - SudoGhost 07:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is it? A fettish or fixation to insert the word "Sufi" in the infobox by hook or by crook (using / abusing / misinterpreting ANY available Wikipedia guideline or policy) as you seem to have been challenged by other editors who don't agree with you? It is so ironnic that in one sentence, you acknowledge the reliable sources and then in the next, using some Wikipedia guidelines YET AGAIN, you call them "irrelevant." I do not support the word "Sufi" to be included in the infobox AND in the article. It should be only once place. McKhan (talk)

My "fixation" is on adherence to reliable sources, and your deflection into continued personal attacks don't detract from the fact that you've not made a single statement as to why the field should not be filled in. Because of this, unfortunately, it doesn't matter if you support it or not, articles are not determined by votes. I have called no "guidelines" irrelevant, what I said was irrelevant was the fact that other people believe this group's religious views are "heretical". That is not, and has never been a criteria for establishing how a person's religion is determined. - SudoGhost 07:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will tell you what your "fixation" is all about. You just want to "win" this "game" and have the word "Sufi" added to the infobox as well as to the content. I really regret that the Wikipedia allows editors who have NO KNOWLDGE of the subject WHATSOEVER to edit articles pertinent to that very subject. I have already provided enough academic sources throughout the years which are very much present on these very talk pages. If you really are serious to contribute to this article then you will go through them (You can even start from here when this Baboon43 user showed up who is part of the Ahbash / Al-Ahbash / AICP and yet blatantly deny that claiming that he is just a "traditionalist") and read them carefully and see what is exactly happening. But I know it is not going to happen. In your response, you will accuse me of personal attacks - using some Wikipedia guideline or policy to "prove" that I am an idiot and have some issues and therefore I shouldn't be here editing the Wikipedia. You have NO IDEA whatsoever that why after every few months the people of Ahbash / AICP / Habashies are back to this Wikipedia page to use it as a marketing tool. As pointed out by Tariq Ramdan (Page 234 of his book "Western Muslims and the future of Islam," ISBN: 019517111X, 9780195171112, Publisher: Oxford University Press US, 2004.), they know exactly what they need to present to the world. Here is one message left by someone from the Ahbash, "Would you like to help me rewrite the Habashi article? I am part of AICP...i have been looking for some brothers willing to help me on this...what is read on wiki is seen by..millions atleast." It ia all about the Search Engine results which are topped by Wikipedia pages. McKhan (talk)

Nothing you've said even begins to address any reasoning for including the edit or not. I don't care one bit who said what, nor does it matter. What matters is what the reliable sources say. The reliable sources, as well as the subject itself, refer to the subject as Sufi. Therefore, there is no reason to omit this from the infobox, and you not liking it without actually giving any reason not to include it won't change this. - SudoGhost 09:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baboon43, I discussed with you for several days, startring with your own refercnes and even providing more academic sources (i.e. "As mainstream Muslims' belief, there is NO "alleged" interpretation of the Quran by Gabriel as that's what Abd Allah Hariri preached which can be found in Shaykh Abdalla's lecture, 26 January 2003 and wrote about in his book, Bughyat al-talib which is not fully compatible with the consensus of ahl al-sunna as highlighted by Mustafa Kabha and Haggai Erlich in their article, "Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam,", International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 38, No. 4 (Nov., 2006), pp. 519-538, Published by: Cambridge University Press as well as by Tariq Ramadan on the Page 234 of his book "Western Muslims and the future of Islam," (ISBN: 019517111X, 9780195171112, Publisher: Oxford University Press US, 2004.) and then Darkness Shines came along who wrote the whole article all over again and YET you are not happy. You STILL want the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies to be labelled as Sunni despite the fact that they have fundamental differences in lieu of their beliefs with the mainstream Sunnis. I regret that some of the Wikipedia editors always fall prey to the baits of Ahbash / AICP / Habashies. McKhan (talk)

i am trying to expand the article its a stub..why wouldnt "war of the mosques" be in the article it is part of the history of ahbash..its already bad enough the article is a stub because you two have been reverting peoples work for several years now based on the edit history..there's nothing wrong with putting sufi in the infobox..the infobox infact makes it clear to the reader that they follow the sunni sect and are a sufi order which the article currently does not make clear..again Mckhan, ahbash means ethiopians, its a nick name because they follow an ethiopian scholar that is all, its not an insult towards the group..their actual group is AICP association of islamic charitable projects..how is the term sufi disputed when there's several sources that indicate they are a sufi movement i dont understand where your coming from..nobody needs to have your permission before making any changes you and amandaparker dont seem to undestand that this article is open for anyone to edit..what i added has nothing to do with being mainstream or not..what does hezbollah and ahbash clash have to do with maintsream? or the fact that their leader was killed by a jihadi group? the article already STATES that the group is a sufi movement all i added was infobox. i even emailed the academic "Thomas Pierret" and he said "Their religious ideology is very much in line with the traditional Sunni doctrines". some of the articles he wrote about ahbash. http://edinburgh.academia.edu/ThomasPierret/Papers/316709/_al-A_bash_Ahbash_ http://edinburgh.academia.edu/ThomasPierret/Papers/156869/Internet_in_a_Sectarian_Islamic_Context Baboon43 (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is no longer a stub. So, quit claiming that already. They don't follow mainstream Sunnis (i.e. Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah) as they have fundamental differences with them nor they follow Sufi order entirely as supported by VARIOUS academic sources. The truth of the matter is their beliefs are the amalgamation of Sunni, Shia and Sufi beleifs. Almost all the academics sources point to that fact that AICP and Ahbash / Al-Ahbash / Habahshies are the same whose leader originated from Ethiopia. Ms. Parker is right that there is no point to include the war of the mosques in that article because it comes across as an attempt by the Ahbash / Al-Ahbash / AICP to tell to the world through Wikipedia that they are better than other Islamist groups. McKhan (talk)

its still a stub compared to other articles and you need to go email the academic yourself as i did if you dont believe me..the ahbashis are traditionalists they claim to follow mainstream as there website clearly states if you go to the about section that they have no problem with the major schools of thought of sunni islam and how they agree with them and academic sources also point to this..but your saying they are lieng on their site because they have a master plan to deceive the world which is simply not true..there are many kinds of sufi orders just because they claim to be sufi doesnt make them right or wrong its just a term used for those who mix shia and sunni beliefs that is all its nothing special..it states clearly on Sufi page that "Orders" (ṭuruq), which are either Sunnī or Shī'ī or mixed"..in this case ahbash is a sunni group which uses sufism..AHbash is not an islamist group they are not militant whatsoever they are against militant groups..putting down basic information about the muslim brotherhood and ahbash clashing in the history or controversy section does not glorify ahbash in anyway... Baboon43 (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Ahbash / AICP / Habashies are NOT only Islamist and controversial Guide to Islamist Movements: Volume 1 but also militant Everyday Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam Among Palestinians in Lebanon The Middle East and Palestine: Global Politics and Regional Conflict as par as to other Islamist groups. I have already provided ENOUGH peer-viewed academic sources highlighting the difference between the mainstream Sunnis and the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' beliefs. And I have NO doubt that you are one of them. :) McKhan (talk)

i am sorry you feel i am part of this organization but i am not...simply editing an article to help it grow and be accurate does not make me someone that is part of group. Baboon43 (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your edit. Apparently, you are also "traditionalist" as well as the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies. Keep on practicing "Taqqiya." McKhan (talk)

the link you posted does NOT prove im part of the group by the way you have some good points but you go off topic and dont use sock puppets next time. It was a headache talking to you and AmandaParker LOL Baboon43 (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well those are the top figures that influence the fundamentalist islamic groups in the world wahabis, muslim brotherhood etc so i think its important to put down that ahbash doesnt like them which causes a major controversy becuz those leaders i mentioned are influences of the islamic militants here's a source. http://www.meforum.org/meib/articles/0104_ld1.htm Baboon43 (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calling them fundamentalist (even if true from most points of view) is a contentious label that I don't think should be used in the article, and I don't think that link establishes enough WP:WEIGHT to make it worth mentioning in the article. - SudoGhost 13:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok what about just putting down that ahbash is against the teachings of those individuals because their website backs it up and other reliable sources. Baboon43 (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they're against a few things, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's important for the article or relevant to the article's subject. - SudoGhost 13:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i think its relevant because its even in the "a sufi response" source under DOCTRINAL ROOTS "These attributes of the Ahbash creed set the group on a collision course with the political thought of Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, Sayyid Qutb". http://ddc.aub.edu.lb/projects/pspa/al-ahbash.html ....these differences has caused them to have clashs with muslim brotherhood in jordan as stated in the article and the wahabists. also their own website takes jabs at the individuals "Unlike the followers of Sayyid Qutub who deviated from the right path by following an erroneous idea that sprung fifty years ago, and unlike the followers of Muhammad ibn ^adbil-Wahhab who deviated from the right path by following an erroneous idea that sprung two hundred years ago"..its obviously very important for the group to keep repeating that they dont like their teachings if that is in the about section of aicp http://aicp.org/about-us-mainmenu-2...also keep in mind the article is still stub compared to the others and this would be my last input for belief section of ahbash. Baboon43 (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of Ahbash page has some serious NPOV issues, thus, I am going to tag it accordingly. McKhan (talk)

no it doesnt..you cant just say its not NPOV without giving any reasons Baboon43 (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with: If it is kosher and "neutral" enough to use the information provided by the AICP on its web-site then why we cannot use sources like this (Islamic Science University of Malaysia), this or this. (I already know your answer but I will let you elaborate one more time.)

With reference to your edit here (with the edit summary: "removed shia element source as it appears to be false"), why does it "appear to be false" when all the academic sources are right there (i.e. "Al'Ahbash beliefs are an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunni and Shi'a^[2][3] theology with Sufism.^[4][3][5]").

FURTHERMORE, quite interestingly, you have NOT only used this reference ^[4] by yourself (to substantiate one of your other edits) but also quoted this reference on this very talk page which clearly highlights, "Supporting the legitimacy of the Imama of Ali, and of his sons Hasan and Hussein, and upholding the teachings of Imam Hussein's son, Zayn al-Abidin. They believe that fighting on Imam Ali's side against Muawiyah was a duty and a Sunna. In this, al-Ahbash set themselves apart from all other Sunni jurists and are closer to Shi'ite Islam." These are just few examples. I will be highlighting more as I get some more time. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

you cant use opponents of ahbash as sources those are not NPOV...ahbash is described as a sunni group and its shia element is taken off of its opponents writing and used by one source when thomas piet doesnt say they have a shia element so its conflicting and that last source you wrote has flaws..one thing it says is that ahbash rejects takfir which is wrong...ahbash is known for throwing takfir so you cant use that source. Sunnis believe ali was on the right side because he was the caliphate leader so it doesnt make sense plus i explained to you sufis are a blend of sunni and shia anyway. Baboon43 (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having taken whatever the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies state on their web-site on as-it-is basis WITHOUT ANALYZING their content UNDER THE LIGHT of NEUTRAL, VERIFIABLE and ACADEMIC sources is a tantamount to POV by the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies. IF your statement stands correct then we should take ANYTHING and EVERYTHING provided by the AICP / Ahbash / Habashies on their web-site with grain of salt as there are plethora of academic sources (including your favorite/not-so-favorite-depending-upon-the-edit-and-situation academics like Thomas and others) which proves the AICP / Ahbash / Habashies otherwise. FOR EXAMPLE: One of your recently quoted sources (e.g. "Al-Ahbash" CLEARLY and CATEGORICALLY states, "His school of thought mixes elements of Sunni and Shi'a theological doctrines with Sufi spiritualism....accept the legitimacy of the Imam Ali (the Shi’a doctrine of legitimacy) and of his sons Hassan and Hussein; uphold the teachings of Hussein's son, Zayn al-Abidin....22" Thus, this fact should be and must be added to the content of this version of Ahbash page to strengthen the NPOV. That would be a great idea to insert a Comparison similar to this one to highlight the differences between the mainstream Sunnis' beliefs vs. the beliefs of Ahbash / AICP / Habashies. I hope you can help in due course. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

i told you that they are using one source and repeating it off of "a sufi response" even the islamist almanac took it from the same source...a sufi response is not an accurate description of ahbash..they used the opponents of ahbash writing to state they mix shia theology..take a look at thomas piet and hamzeh they state ahbash are sufi sunnis thats their ideology...and about the comparison i think i know what your talking about you want to put that graph in that compares wahabism with traditonal islam but this is not the article for that.. Baboon43 (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid what you are implying isn't entirely correct. Nevertheless, if that is good for the goose then why isn't it good for the gander? Haven't you used the same article to substantiate some of your other edits? Then why are you hesitant to use the same source along-with the other sources to insert "Al'Ahbash beliefs are an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunni and Shi'a^[2][3] theology withSufism.^[4][3][5]" It is NOT only fair but will also strengthen the NPOV of this version of Ahbash. Under the light of example, I provided, in my humble point of view, this IS the article for that very crucial comparison. I will be looking forward to your cooperation. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

"a sufi response" is using quotes from an opponent of ahbash to declare them to have shia elements..they use Ibn Taymiyyah as a sunni scholar when he is infact a wahabi scholar therefore not mainstream. so basically those who wrote the article were not aware of this writer whom labeled ahbash to use shia doctrine when the majority of the sources say ahbash is a traditional sunni group. Baboon43 (talk) 06:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let us not bring or fight the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' war against the Wahabis on the Wikipedia pages as it isn't the battlefield nor platform for that purpose. Having said that, let me PROVE the FACT (contrary to your claim that "a sufi response" is using quotes from an opponent of ahbash) that the acadmics, A. Nizar Hamzeh and R. Hrair Dekmejian, who wrote "A Sufi response to political islamism: Al-ahbash of Lebanon", are IN FACT using the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' / Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi's own material (particularly, Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi's books, Sarih al-Bayan (Explicit Declaration), Al-Kafil bi-'Ilm al-Din al-Daruri (The Guarantor of the Necessary Science of Faith) as well as quotations from the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' official magazine, Manar al-Hudd).

Here is the excerpt you are referring to:

THE SHI'A DIMENSION

One of the most revealing aspects of Shaykh Habashi's thought is his acceptance of the Shi'a doctrine of legitimacy. He begins by quoting Shafi'i, that everyone who fought 'Ali was a baghi (transgressor).[37] Habashi further cites Ibn Hanbal to jus tify 'Ali's caliphate against Mu'awiya and his "faction of transgressors" (al-firqa al-baghiya).[38] As a further step, Habashi underlines the legitimacy of all four members of the Prophet's family -Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Husayn - by citing the canonical writings of Muslim and al-Nisa'i.[39] Equally significant is Shaykh Habashi's rejection of the use of ijtihad by some Sunni jurists to legitimize Mu'awiya's opposition to 'Ali. As a case in point, Habashi takes issue with Ibn Taymiyya's view that fighting with 'Ali against Mu'awiya was neither a duty nor a Sunna. This product of Ibn Taymiyya's ijtihad is found invalid by Habashi because of the presence of a clear Qur'anic text and hadith. In support of his position, Habashi cites the verse "fight the group that is a transgressor," along with the Prophet's hadith warning 'Ammar bin Yasir, a companion of Muhammad and 'Ali, about the faction of transgressors who would kill him. Habashi concludes that "the faction of transgressors" was that of Mu'awiya, and fighting on 'Ali's side was a duty and Sunna.[40] Furthermore, Habashi explicitly disagrees with most contemporary Sunni jurists by citing several ahadith in order to uphold the legitimacy of the imama of 'Ali and of his sons Hasan and Husayn.[41] Also, Habashi upholds the teachings of Imam Husayn's son, Zayn al-'Abidin, who is held in high esteem by the Ahbash.[42] Yet, beyond his acceptance of the foregoing doctrinal positions, Habashi's closeness to Shi'ism comes from another source-his deep immersion in Sufism.

• [37]. Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi, Sarih al-Bayan (Explicit Declaration) (Beirut: Jam'iyyat al-Mashari', 1990), 195, Ibid., 88; see also Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi, Al-Kafil bi-'Ilm al-Din al-Daruri (The Guarantor of the Necessary Science of Faith)(Beirut: Burj Abi Haydar Mosque, 1984), 46
• [38]. Habashi, Sarih al-Bayan, 90
• [39]. Ibid., 111. Habashi does not give much importance to the Hanafi and Maliki Schools of Law
• [40]. Ibid., 107; see also Manar al-Hudd, April-May 1993, 45
• [41]. Habashi, Sarih al-Bayan, 86, 88, 105. These ahadith are: "For whosoever I am master, this Ali is his master; 0 God support whosoever isloyal to him and fight whosoever is fighting him," and "Hasan from me and Husayn from 'Ali."
• [42]. Manar al-Hudd, November 1992, 32; ibid., April 1993, 37

Thus, it is fair and paramount that the statement, "Al'Ahbash beliefs are an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunni and Shi'a^[2][3] theology withSufism.^[4][3][5]" should be and must be inserted back to this version of Ahbash page which remains to have other NPOV issues. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

Please say exactly what you think is not neutral about the article, it seems neutral enough to me. This is not what I would call a reliable source. Also p113 0f Everyday jihad: the rise of militant Islam among Palestinians in Lebanon does not support that edit at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A source/link from a University is not "reliable" and yet the information from the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' own web-site is? Alright. Then what about the other academic sources (i.e. ^{[2][3] [4][3][5]}) which quite interestingly has been used to substantiate other statements of this version of Ahbash. Right now, I am just addressing one of the point of contention raised by Baboon43 and rest of the NPOV issues will be highlighted as I get some more time. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

Their own website is good for what they believe yes, read WP:RS. I already told you Rougier's work does not support your proposed edit. I will look at the others when time allows. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis does not support your proposal either, do you often misrepresent sources? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to the above discussion with Baboon43, there are other academic sources as well as the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' own material [Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi's books, Sarih al-Bayan (Explicit Declaration), Al-Kafil bi-'Ilm al-Din al-Daruri (The Guarantor of the Necessary Science of Faith) and quotations from the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' official magazine, Manar al-Hudd)] which support the edit. Let me point out very clearly that I am NOT the author of ANY of the versions posted on Ahbash page. I must further confess that I am NOT quite proficient (i.e. master enough) in the sorcery of quoting various Wikipedia guidelines to advocate my edits. Having confessed that, I think you are the author of this version (as you were approached by Baboon43 for help) of Ahbash and as far as I recall you kept that statement until Baboon43 removed it. Is it about WP:OWN now? Thank you. McKhan (talk)

You have some cheek accusing me of OWN when you and your sockpuppets kept this article a stub for years. Baboon43 never approached me at all, I got to this article after you used one of your sockpuppets to report him for edit warring. And yes, I wrote the majority of the content in the article as it currently stands. I have no idea what Baboon43 has removed, perhaps you would try giving me a diff. And what you say regards your proposed edit, get some reliable sources, not someones opinion. If you look at the article history I have already covered your complaint with my last edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me begin by providing Baboon43's edit (I am just guessing that's what you meant by 'diff'.).

I appreciate the fact that you have just added the statement "According to Gary Gambill the AICP arrived in the Lebanon in the 1950's were he says "they blended Sunni and Shi'a theology with Sufi spiritualism into a doctrinal eclecticism that preached nonviolence and political quietism." but under 'History' which vaguely implies that in the PAST the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies "blended Sunni and Shi'a theology with Sufi spiritualism..." consequently misrepresenting the following academic sources (along-with Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' own material [Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi's books, Sarih al-Bayan (Explicit Declaration), Al-Kafil bi-'Ilm al-Din al-Daruri (The Guarantor of the Necessary Science of Faith) and quotations from the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' official magazine, Manar al-Hudd):

• Hamzeh, A. Nizar; Dekmejian, R. Hrair (1996). "A Sufi Response to Political Islamism: Al-Ahbash of Lebanon". International Journal of Middle East Studies (Beirut, Lebanon: American University of Beirut) 28: 217–229. doi:10.1017/S0020743800063145. Retrieved 2009-04-10.
• Rubin, Barry (2009). Guide to Islamist Movements. M.E. Sharpe. p. 322. ISBN 978-0765617477.
• Rubin, Barry (2009). Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 139. ISBN 0230623069.
• The World Almanac of Islamism: 2011
• Marshall, Paul; Shea, Nina (2011). Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 356. ISBN 0199812284.
• Dossier: Al-Ahbash (April 2001)

Thus, it is suffice to state that the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies never gave up their beliefs [as preached by their beloved Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi in his books Sarih al-Bayan (Explicit Declaration), Al-Kafil bi-'Ilm al-Din al-Daruri (The Guarantor of the Necessary Science of Faith) and through their official magazine, Manar al-Hudd] of blending Sunni and Shi'a theology with Sufi spiritualism to this day which goes quite contrary to mainstream Sunnis' beliefs. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

He never removed any content in that diff[1] just an extra reference, what exactly is it you are complaining about there? And as for my edit, that is what the source says, the group now say that are Sufi, as do a great many sources, so that is what the article says. What they started off as along with the roots of their ideology belongs in the history section. Can you stop with the wallsotext btw? Try to keep your post succinct so this can be worked through a little easier. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i told you sufis are a mix of shia sunni belief anyway so its not needed in the article..the sufi page on wiki will tell you some orders are mixed with shia sunni belief...by saying fighting on the side of ali is a sunnah doesnt make one a shia because sunnis believe ali was rightful khalifa anyway..Gambill and the rest of sources you added seem to be using the same source "a sufi response" to declare ahbash uses shia beliefs.."a sufi response is the first to analyze ahbash and it didnt do a good job as it conflicts with other sources especially the academics that did independent research instead of quoting "a sufi response". supporting a leader doesnt make you shia but its the beliefs, ahbash doesnt accept shia texts they accept sunni ones. Baboon43 (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Shines, Let's try one more time. Shall we?

• Are you sure that through this edit here (with the edit summary: "removed shia element source as it appears to be false") Baboon43 "never removed any content"? Following is the list of his edits which he made:

* (cur | prev) 09:25, 28 April 2012‎ Baboon43 (talk |contribs)‎ . . (9,600 bytes) (-377)‎ . . (removed double citation) (undo)

* (cur | prev) 09:19, 28 April 2012‎ Baboon43(talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,977 bytes) (-933)‎ . . (removed shia element source as it appears to be false) (undo)

* (cur | prev) 10:31, 27 April 2012‎ Baboon43(talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,910 bytes) (+711)‎ . . (expanded beliefs section) (undo)

* (cur | prev) 05:39, 27 April 2012‎ Baboon43 (talk |contribs)‎ . . (10,199 bytes) (+521)‎ . . (group growth in history added) (undo)

As per your demand, I have provided you the following reliable and verifiable academic sources which support the edit:

• Hamzeh, A. Nizar; Dekmejian, R. Hrair (1996). "A Sufi Response to Political Islamism: Al-Ahbash of Lebanon". International Journal of Middle East Studies (Beirut, Lebanon: American University of Beirut) 28: 217–229. doi:10.1017/S0020743800063145. Retrieved 2009-04-10.
• Rubin, Barry (2009). Guide to Islamist Movements. M.E. Sharpe. p. 322. ISBN 978-0765617477.
• Rubin, Barry (2009). Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 139. ISBN 0230623069.
• The World Almanac of Islamism: 2011
• Marshall, Paul; Shea, Nina (2011). Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 356. ISBN 0199812284.
• Dossier: Al-Ahbash (April 2001)

Thus, the statement "Al'Ahbash beliefs are an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunni and Shi'a^[2][3] theology withSufism.^[4][3][5]" should be andmust be inserted back to the "Religious beliefs" section (Not the "History" section) - like it was before Baboon43 removed it - of this version of Ahbash page which remains to have other NPOV issues. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

Baboon43, Please, read it very carefully. Let me PROVE the FACT (contrary to your claim that "a sufi response" is using quotes from an opponent of ahbash) that the acadmics, A. Nizar Hamzeh and R. Hrair Dekmejian, who wrote "A Sufi response to political islamism: Al-ahbash of Lebanon", are IN FACT using the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' / Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi's own material (particularly, Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi's books, Sarih al-Bayan (Explicit Declaration), Al-Kafil bi-'Ilm al-Din al-Daruri (The Guarantor of the Necessary Science of Faith) as well as quotations from the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' official magazine, Manar al-Hudd).

Here is the excerpt you are referring to:

THE SHI'A DIMENSION

One of the most revealing aspects of Shaykh Habashi's thought is his acceptance of the Shi'a doctrine of legitimacy. He begins by quoting Shafi'i, that everyone who fought 'Ali was a baghi (transgressor).[37] Habashi further cites Ibn Hanbal to jus tify 'Ali's caliphate against Mu'awiya and his "faction of transgressors" (al-firqa al-baghiya).[38] As a further step, Habashi underlines the legitimacy of all four members of the Prophet's family -Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Husayn - by citing the canonical writings of Muslim and al-Nisa'i.[39] Equally significant is Shaykh Habashi's rejection of the use of ijtihad by some Sunni jurists to legitimize Mu'awiya's opposition to 'Ali. As a case in point, Habashi takes issue with Ibn Taymiyya's view that fighting with 'Ali against Mu'awiya was neither a duty nor a Sunna. This product of Ibn Taymiyya'sijtihad is found invalid by Habashi because of the presence of a clear Qur'anic text and hadith. In support of his position, Habashi cites the verse "fight the group that is a transgressor," along with the Prophet's hadith warning 'Ammar bin Yasir, a companion of Muhammad and 'Ali, about the faction of transgressors who would kill him. Habashi concludes that "the faction of transgressors" was that of Mu'awiya, and fighting on 'Ali's side was a duty and Sunna.[40] Furthermore, Habashi explicitly disagrees with most contemporary Sunni jurists by citing several ahadith in order to uphold the legitimacy of the imama of 'Ali and of his sons Hasan and Husayn.[41] Also, Habashi upholds the teachings of Imam Husayn's son, Zayn al-'Abidin, who is held in high esteem by the Ahbash.[42] Yet, beyond his acceptance of the foregoing doctrinal positions, Habashi's closeness to Shi'ism comes from another source-his deep immersion in Sufism.

* [37]. Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi, Sarih al-Bayan (Explicit Declaration) (Beirut: Jam'iyyat al-Mashari', 1990), 195, Ibid., 88; see also Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi, Al-Kafil bi-'Ilm al-Din al-Daruri (The Guarantor of the Necessary Science of Faith)(Beirut: Burj Abi Haydar Mosque, 1984), 46

* [38]. Habashi, Sarih al-Bayan, 90

* [39]. Ibid., 111. Habashi does not give much importance to the Hanafi and Maliki Schools of Law

* [40]. Ibid., 107; see also Manar al-Hudd, April-May 1993, 45

* [41]. Habashi, Sarih al-Bayan, 86, 88, 105. These ahadith are: "For whosoever I am master, this Ali is his master; 0 God support whosoever isloyal to him and fight whosoever is fighting him," and "Hasan from me and Husayn from 'Ali."

* [42]. Manar al-Hudd, November 1992, 32; ibid., April 1993, 37

Under the light of above mentioned academic sources (along-with Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' own material [Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi's books, Sarih al-Bayan (Explicit Declaration), Al-Kafil bi-'Ilm al-Din al-Daruri (The Guarantor of the Necessary Science of Faith) and quotations from the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' official magazine, Manar al-Hudd)], it is abundantly clear that the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies blend Sunni and Shi'a theology with Sufi spiritualism and thus should be and must be added under the "Religious beliefs" section. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

again all 6 sources your listing are taken from "a sufi response" and i have told you its conflicting with the current article, other academics and ahbash based on their website...on sources 37,40,42..the ahbash are a sufi order so the article doesnt need to state the input of mixing shia belief its not relevent because ahbash follows sunni texts..ahbash is labeled sufism already so its quite clear they are not only sunni but also sufis! which according to wiki some orders tend to mix shia and sunni believes anyway. what you requesting is to define the word sufi on the ahbash page which would confuse things further for the reader when they can click on sufi which i linked in the article to know about the subject but on the belief of ahbash they are sunni that is how they identify. Baboon43 (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you stating or implying that Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi did NOT write Sarih al-Bayan (Explicit Declaration), Al-Kafil bi-'Ilm al-Din al-Daruri (The Guarantor of the Necessary Science of Faith) and Manar al-Hudd is not the official magazine of the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies? Please, feel welcome to elaborate. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

no im telling you your proposal is not necessary for the following reasons listed above.Baboon43 (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

Baboon43 read WP:INDENT McKhan read WP:TLDR. As to the sources, for your suggested edit. Guide to Islamist Movements p322 Rubi, Barry ed. Says they are Sufi. It does not support the content you suggest, nor does Everyday jihad: the rise of militant Islam among Palestinians in Lebanon as was already pointed out. Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis discusses it in a historical context, and this is already in the article. I also get the feeling that your use of "Habashies" is derogatory, so stop with that please. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Another source checked Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide does not support the edit, yes it says they combine Sunni and Shi'a. but it also says they are Sufi. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The World Almanac of Islamism: 2011 Says they are Sufi. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me address this part - "I also get the feeling that your use of "Habashies" is derogatory" - of your comment first.

• Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi (also spelled as Habesha) was from Ethiopia.
• In Arabic, Ethiopia is called Arabic: الحبشة al-Ḥabašah which according to Wikipedia's own page, "In the broadest sense, the word Habesha may refer to anyone from Ethiopia or Eritrea."
• In the case of Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi, since he was from Ethiopia, thus, the terms 'al-Habashi', Al-Ahbash, Ahbash, Habashies and / or Habashis has been used denoting his followers as 'Habashis' or 'Habashies' as well as the origin of their Shaykh.

Please, rest assured that there is no mal-intention to use the term Habashies or Habashis in derogatory sense on my part.

Prior to addressing other parts of your comment, I think it is very important to point out and clarify that I am ONLY focusing upon this statement (as of now): "'Al'Ahbash beliefs are an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunni and Shi'a." Whether they are Sufi or NOT, we have not moved to that part yet.

Having said that you claim that "Guide to Islamist Movements p322 Rubi, Barry ed. Says they are Sufi. It does not support the content you suggest, nor does Everyday jihad: the rise of militant Islam among Palestinians in Lebanon as was already pointed out. Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis discusses it in a historical context, and this is already in the article."

Let us see:

• Rubin, Barry (2009). Guide to Islamist Movements. M.E. Sharpe. p. 322. ISBN 978-0765617477. ("As explained on al-Ahbash's own Web site, his system mixes elements of Sunni and Shi'a theological doctrines with Sufi spiritualism.")
• Rubin, Barry (2009). Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 139. ISBN 0230623069. ("...Shaykh Abdullah al-Hirari, an Islamic scholar of East African origins (al-Ahbash literally means "the Ethiopians") who immigrated to Lebanon in 1950, the movement blended Sunni and Shi'a theology with Sufi spiritualism...")
• Rougier, Bernard (2007). Everyday jihad: the rise of militant Islam among Palestinians in Lebanon. Harvard University Press. p. 115. ISBN 978-0674025295. ("By describing Mu'awiyya, the governor of Damascus, as "seditious" and taking the side of Ali, his adversary, Shaykh al-Hirari adopts the Shi'ite tradition of paying special respect to certain members of the Prophet's family--Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Husaysn--while condemning the caliph Mu'awiyya and his son Yazid. The Ahbash thereby reject the dominant values of their religious community; they break with Sunni tradition by granting symbolic concession to "Alid legitimism" (in the words of Henri Laoust and P. K. Hitri) in the Lebanese context, where tensions between Sunnis and Shi'ites is particularly sharp.")

• The World Almanac of Islamism: 2011 ("His school of thought mixes elements of Sunni and Shi'a theological doctrines with Sufi spiritualism....accept the legitimacy of the Imam Ali (the Shi’a doctrine of legitimacy) and of his sons Hassan and Hussein; uphold the teachings of Hussein's son, Zayn al-Abidin...")
• Marshall, Paul; Shea, Nina (2011). Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 356. ISBN 0199812284. ("Al-Ahbash combines Sunni and Shia elements and is Sufi in outlook.")
• Dossier: Al-Ahbash (April 2001) ("The Ahbash's belief system mixes elements of Sunni and Shi'ite theological doctrines with Sufi spiritualism. Supporting the legitimacy of the Imama of Ali, and of his sons Hasan and Hussein, and upholding the teachings of Imam Hussein's son, Zayn al-Abidin. They believe that fighting on Imam Ali's side against Muawiyah was a duty and a Sunna. In this, al-Ahbash set themselves apart from all other Sunni jurists and are closer to Shi'ite Islam.")

Thank you. McKhan (talk)

contrary to popular belief the Battle of Siffin was not sunni vs shia battle..the battle was over disagreements and sunnis all agree that ali was on the right side since he was the KHALIFA.Baboon43 (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the wallsotext? For christs sake it is already mentioned in the article that they blend various beliefs, but they self identify as Sufi, all the sources you provided say they are Sufi. Your proposal is already in the article, just drop it FFS. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you are NOT reading CAREFULLY despite the fact that I quoted the pertinent text right from the sources contrary to your claim. This statement, "The Association of Islamic Charitable Projects was founded in the 1930s by Ahmad al-Ajuz, According to Gary Gambill the AICP arrived in the Lebanon in the 1950's were he says "they blended Sunni and Shi'a theology with Sufi spiritualism into a doctrinal eclecticism that preached nonviolence and political quietism." is NOT only contradicting itself (The first sentence states that the AICP was founded in 1930s and the second sentence reads that the AICP arrived in Lebanon in the 1950s.) but also bias (It only quotes just ONE source (i.e. Gary Gambill) despite other above-mentioned academic sources and we have not even used any Muslim / Islamic sources here.) and inaccurate (as the practice of blending Sunni, Shia with Sufi beliefs by the Ahbash is NOT something they used to do in the HISTORY / PAST but they continue to do so EVEN today. Please, NOTE the date of publications of all academic sources provided above). Thus, it should be and must be corrected under its proper section (i.e. 'Religious Beliefs'). If you will not do it some other neutral admin or editor will do it without twisting or misrepresenting the academic sources. It is just matter of time. And last but not the least, please, be civil and don't invoke 'FFS' and Christ in the same comment. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

If I wish to write FFS and for christs sake I will, it already says in the first line of the religious beliefs section Al-Ahbash beliefs are an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunni Islam and Sufism. So again I ask you, WTF are all the wallsotext for? It is already in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sufis are known to mix sunni and shia beliefs an example "Additionally, various rulers during the reign of the Delhi Sultanates used sufi holy men, who advocated a mixture of Sunni and Shia beliefs, in order to unify India under their rule. also keep in mind much of the islamic world was ruled by sufi sunnis "ottomans". Mawlid initially a shia innovation is celebrated by traditional sunnis. so your suggestion is redundant http://books.google.ca/books?id=KhvTGgP7cuEC&pg=PA268&dq=sufis+mix+sunni+shia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iVapT5fbJOmh6gH-jfj4CA&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=sufis%20mix%20sunni%20shia&f=falseBaboon43 (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baboon43 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), since the day (March 20, 2012 as per Wikipedia's "Revision history of Al-Ahbash" page) you started editing (sometimes as 70.54.66.158 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))) Wikipedia's Al-Ahbash page and other pages, we have had quite EXTENSIVE discussions. Then Darkness Shines wrote the whole Al-Ahbash page again. While Darkness Shines and I were blocked, you made extensive edits which included the removal of "'Al'Ahbash beliefs are an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunni and Shi'a"' from 'Religious beliefs' section with the edit summary "removed shia element source as it appears to be false" despite the academic references with the statement. NOW after another lengthy discussion and despite having EVEN more academic sources supporting the statement, you are claiming that my suggestion is "redundant." It is very important to note that you want each and everything presented by the Al-Ahbash on their web-site or written favorably for the Ahbash to be taken on as-it-is basis and thus kosher to be added to the content of Al-Ahbash page and yet you want to discard, discredit and even undermine (in some cases, from the sources which you present by yourself) anything critical of the Ahbash [written by the Muslim scholars (in the case of Muslim scholars, you don't even consider them "Muslim" or their views credible enough to be added to the Al-Ahbash and thus castigate them by labeling them as "Wahabis" or simply "opponents.") or even the non-Muslim academics) as written by the "opponents" which is against the essence of NPOV. On the top of that, you constantly accuse me of being the stumbling block in expanding this page despite the fact that NONE of the VERSIONS presented on the Al-Ahbash page have EVER written by me. Consequently, I find it really strange and categorically unfair and unjust that you and Darkness Shines (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · Shines.html RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) are given free-hand to insert, edit, incorporate and even misrepresent whatever you feel like despite the EXTENSIVE DISCUSSIONS and whatever I suggest (with academic sources over and over again) is either deemed "already added" or "redundant." I, sincerely, hope that a neutral editor or admin gets involved who can present the information written by the Ahbash as well as its opponents objectively under the light of pertinent academic sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

Baboon43 just made another PARTIAL / POV "edit": "In 2012 The Ethiopian Islamic Council closed down Saudi funded "Awolia institute" and invited Al Ahbash into the country. Protests against both Al Ahbash and the Islamic Council were than organized in the capital." by MISREPRESENTING the source, "Ethiopian Muslims protest government 'interference." The source, which has been used to substantiate the "edit", NOWHERE mentions the word "Saudi" NOR "funded." To the contrary, the source highlights the following facts ('EXCERPTS):

• "Also known as the Association of Islamic Charitable Projects, Al Ahbash was founded in the early 1980s by Sheikh Abdullah al Harrari, an Ethiopian cleric who was forced to leave his country for Lebanon in 1950."
• "The protesters accuse Meles' government of interfering by seeking to impose the beliefs of a little-known sect as doctrine. They say the government is promoting the Al Ahbash, an Islamic movement that opposes ultra-conservative ideology and rejects violence."

• "Since the beginning of the year, demonstrations have taken place on an almost weekly basis in mosques throughout the capital, and more are expected. The London-based Control Risks group said this week Ethiopia's security forces might come down hard on any further protests, based on the government's past responses to unrest."

• "According to Abubeker Ahmed, an Ethiopian Muslim activist and head of an independent Islamic arbitration committee, the protesters are lamenting what they see as efforts to impose the sect, rather than the sect itself."

• "He says the appointed leadership of Ethiopia's Islamic Affairs Supreme Council was not representative of the country's Muslim community." "It (Al Ahbash) has the right to exist in Ethiopia, but it is unacceptable that the Council tries to impose it on all members of the Muslim community," Ahmed told Reuters. He said the government wanted to prevent a vote to elect a new council and replace the decade-old one. "They (the government) want to keep them because they agree to whatever orders," he said.

Jimma Times, "an international independent news media outlet run by reporters both in Ethiopia and the Ethiopian Diaspora," reports the following it its news story, "Ethiopia's Muslims in row over Ahbash ideology's link with Meles" (EXCERPTS):

• "Followers of Abhash say they practice the original Islam that promotes tolerance and protects Muslim youth from harmful radical and political Islam. But critics of Abhash say it is anti-Islam, a blasphemy and it weakens the empowerment of Muslims worldwide."

• "Under pressure from western organizations and due to some religious violence in Muslim dominated towns of Ethiopia, the government of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi has reportedly began a new indoctrination program to persuade some Ethiopian Muslims to accept the moderate Abhash ideology. While the intention of the Meles government is to reduce violence and regulate foreign extremist ideologies, many Muslims are blaming the government for its interference. In Jimma city and Bahir Dar, there are already rumors of government harassment of Muslims who oppose the Abhash. In a country where media is suppressed and false rumors spread like wildfire, mistrust is expected to grow further between government officials and the Muslim community."

• "Critics also accuse the Meles government for ignoring radical evangelism imposed on Ethiopians by western Christian groups. Political analyst Kemal Abdisa told Jimma Times that the Meles government’s favoritism and undemocratic policies contribute to the existing problem. “In a democratic society where traditional media flourishes, facts would have won over gossips and rumors. But the one-party Meles regime has de facto outlawed independent media,” according to Mr. Abdisa. He said Ethiopian Muslims are already moderate and the government should not impose another version of Islam on Sunni Muslims in Ethiopia."

Here is another news story "Ethiopia Muslims Reject Gov’t Interference" echoing the same facts.

Thus, this PARTIAL / POV / statement / edit, "In 2012 The Ethiopian Islamic Council closed down Saudi funded "Awolia institute" and invited Al Ahbash into the country. Protests against both Al Ahbash and the Islamic Council were than organized in the capital." should be removed or at least corrected. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

The article says that the protests began when the council shutdown the wahabi school "awolia institute" which not only is funded by saudi but according to the u.s treasury has branches that are tied to terrorism in indonesia and the phillipines and give me a second ill add this source to the article. http://almanac.afpc.org/Ethiopia "Alawiyah School and Mission Center" Baboon43 (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see NO REASON whatsoever to INCLUDE that statement, which you have added in the name of "edit", in the first place. And now what you are doing is a BLATANT misrepresentation of the source. If you are referring to this paragraph / excerpt "What sparked the protests in the Ethiopian capital, activists said, was the Islamic Council's dismissal of several teachers at the Awoliya institute - a move they said signalled the government's determination to crack down on groups it believes poses a threat to stability. The institute's college and an Arabic language learning centre have also been shut down." and IMPLYING that "the protests began" ONLY WHEN "In 2012 The Ethiopian Islamic Council closed down Saudi funded "Awolia institute. (the wahabi school "awolia institute")." THEN you are DEFINITELY MISREPRESENTING it without mentioning or taking into account the other grievances (Please, read the excerpts above which I have quoted from the very source you provided to substantiate your "edit.") which the protesters are protesting about. And NOW you have found YET another source to MISREPRESENT [That source does NOT state that "Alawiyah School" BUT "In August 2006, the U.S. Treasury Department formally designated the Philippine and Indonesian branches of the IIRO for facilitating terrorism." which "donated food and medical relief to Ethiopia following natural disasters." You keep on bringing and editing this page on the basis of "Al-Ahbash vs. Wahabis" war. This is PRECISELY why this version of Al-Ahbash reads like an ADVERTISEMENT by the Ahbash and thus has some serious NPOV issues. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

I have to agree with McKhan here about the source (although I wish McKhan would be a bit more concise with the comments). The source you included mentions the "dismissal of several teachers at the Awoliya institute" being the catalyst for a protest, and mentions a "college and an Arabic language learning centre" being shut down. The source does not say it closed down the institute itself, nor does it describe it as "Saudi funded". The edit also says that the government "invited" Al-Ahbash in conjunction with shutting down this institute; the source says nothing about this. The closest thing it says is that the protesters "say the government is promoting the Al Ahbash". - SudoGhost 08:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is what sparked the protest the closing of the school most importantly and invitation of ahbash in the country so i put that in the article..the other things you mentioned is irrelevant because the article is about al ahbash not whats going on in ethiopia..ahbash controversy revolves around wahabists so it has to be mentioned..ignoring the al ahbash wahabi war would be ignoring the subject...plz read the almanac source carefully it says "Alawiyah School" is funded by saudi arabia and owned by IIRO than it says IIRO's branches in indonesia and philippines are tied to terrorism. Baboon43 (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single thing you wrote is not supported by the source you gave, the "things I've mentioned" are what the source actually said, so if it's all irrelevant, why include it? - SudoGhost 08:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SudoGhost, it doesnt mention "A college" it says "the institute" so thats basically the whole institute that has been shut down..i can change it to "after dismissal of instructors" since the protests began than...but ill keep the "saudi funded" part since my 2nd source mentions that so ill add the second source with some minor changes. Baboon43 (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid cherry-picking from with-in the sources to substantiate one's POV (s) in the name of "edit" is not only unethical but also disingenuous. Your statement, "ahbash controversy revolves around wahabists," is proven inaccurate under the light of your own source as well as plenty of other academic sources. Ironically, Ahbash's own Shaykh spent quite sometime in Saudi Arabia for educational purposes. It is sad but true that you want each and everything presented by the Al-Ahbash on their web-site or written favorably for the Ahbash to be taken on as-it-is basis and thus kosher to be added to the content of Al-Ahbash page and yet you want to discard, discredit and even undermine (in some cases, from the sources which you present by yourself) anything critical of the Ahbash [written by the Muslim scholars (in the case of Muslim scholars, you don't even consider them "Muslim" or their views credible enough to be added to the Al-Ahbash and thus castigate them by labeling them as "Wahabis" or simply "opponents.") or even the non-Muslim academics) as written by the "opponents" which is against the essence of NPOV. I, sincerely, hope that a neutral editor or admin gets involved who can present the information written by the Ahbash as well as its opponents objectively under the light of pertinent academic sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

It does quite clearly mention "a college". It does not say "the institute was shut down", the exact words are "The institute's college and an Arabic language learning centre have also been shut down." There is a key difference there, especially because the wording used in the source does not support the wording used in the article. Also, the "Saudi funded" part doesn't belong either, this is a synthesis of sources, especially because the second source does not say it is Saudi funded, but that it is "owned since 1993 by the Saudi-controlled World Muslim League’s International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO)". Again, there's a subtle but key difference there. I'm also not seeing anything that says that the Awoliya institute is the same as the Alawiyah School and Mission Center. - SudoGhost 08:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mckhan, stop denying the fact that this group is against wahabis as even their own website says so in the about section so i dont see how you can connect the founder of the group with wahhabis just because he studied in saudi arabia..SudoGhost, ok here's the thing ill change "saudi funded" to "saudi-controlled" and that the protests started when some instructors were dismissed..also that the government promotes al ahbash according to protestors..and about awoliya its a mispelling its the same.. on the official website it says " In this respect, Awolia college was established on November 2003 in the then Awolia Muslim Mission High School Compound which is found in Kolfe Keranyo Sub city of Addis Ababa". http://www.awoliacollege.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12&Itemid=12 Baboon43 (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Saudi-controlled" is still WP:SYNTH; it's combining the sources to make it seem like this is relevant to why the protests happened. If it was relevant, then the first source would have mentioned this. - SudoGhost 09:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baboon43, I know enough about the Ahbash / AICP that I will take each and everything published on their web-site with a grain of salt. Thus, you must stop promoting and slanting the Wikipedia pages in the favor of Ahbash / AICP. As far as the "Ahbash vs. Wahabis" war is concerned, I have already mentioned to you and lots of others who came before you that Wikipedia is NOT the platform to wage that war, thus, it should NOT be fought on the Wikipedia pages which aspires to have NPOV. That statement should not be added to the content of Al-Ahbash page which is already very much slanted and contains lots of other pro-Ahbash POVs taken on as-it-isbasis and/or by simply cherry-picking from with-in the sources. You should also correct this POV / edit on Abdullah_al-Harari page (as well as this one) of yours under the light of our EXTENSIVE and LENGTHY discussions as you keep on MISREPRESENTING the sources. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

Darkness Shines, I don't recall that you ever discussed ANYTHING prior to re-writing your version arbitrarily. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

That would be due to extensive sock puppetry keeping the article a stub for how many years? Given your obvious prejudice towards this group it would be better to gain consensus before such massive POV changes, I noted you again inserted the term "sect" which really will not do. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have NEVER been the author of ANY of the versions posted on the Al-Ahbash page including the one which I posted (It was written by some other editor. I just tried to make it NEUTRAL.) few minutes ago. I have no "prejudice" towards this group. I just want them to present themselves whatever they are rather than hiding behind the mainstream Sunnis. There are plenty of academic sources which consider the AICP / Ahbash a sect as well as a group or movement and the version I posted had both in order to comply with the NPOV. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

You took information from an editor that you REVERTED accusing his version of being bias? but now you added your own edits making the info slanted POV..by adding "Conflation of different branches of Islamic theology" and other things...Ahbash is sufi according to most ACADEMIC sources and their own website. Baboon43 (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As near as I can see you have never added to this article at all' [2] since 2006 you and your socks kept it at a stub though. So forgive my lack of good faith here. but you need to discuss any changes made to this article. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baboon43 , Indeed, that editor's version was a POV towards the Ahbash / AICP. That's precisely WHY I added my owen edits using the Ahbash's and their Shaykh's own books and material along-with the academic sources. The bottom line IS that you want to make sure that ANY version of Al-Ahbash page considers them as "Sunni" (which they are NOT as they mix Shia and Sunni beliefs with Sufism. Interestingly enough, Sunnis are considered as a SECT by the Wikipedia, thus, I don't understand that why shouldn't the Ahbash be treated as a sect too SPEICALLY when there are plenty of academic sources available indicating that the Ahbash are NOT only a SECT but ALSO a movement or group.), "Moderate" , "Tolerant", (How can the adherents of a sect be "moderate" and "tolerant" when they ex-communicate their own "fellow" Muslims by categorizing them "Kafir", "Wahabi" or "Non-Muslim" altoghether and YET still want to remain under the umbrella of Islam? ) "Victim of other 'Militant' or 'Islamist" organizations (And yet they are the ones who participated in the "war of mosques" and there are scores of academic sources which consider them "Islamist" and "Militant" just like they consider other Muslim organizations.). The version I posted at least is NPOV and consider both sides (It is IMPORTANT to note that I did NOT use ANY Fatwa but just the academic sources along-with Ahbash's and their Shaykh's own material. )You seem to be happy with the current version as it contains lots of Ahbash's POVs. On the Shaykh Hariri page, you want to call him a "Professor" and yet both of sources WHICH YOU PROVIDED by yourself NOWHERE mentions that he was EVER a "Professor." That speaks volume about your agenda. It is just matter of time that the truth will prevail. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

Its quite obvious no version is acceptable to you except for your own POV edits or stub lines hence that is why you have been reverting edits to this article for more than half a decade...I told you a million times that sufis are known to mix sunni and shia belief that is why they are called SUFI..Ahbash are moderate and tolerant but just not to extremists who want to bulldoze graves and kill muslims..have you not heard of the term meet fire with fire? Ahbash doesnt take any mosques by force they are SUPPORTED by governments..do you actually think ahbash can get away with stealing mosques when there is a government in the country? No your version is POV not NPOV and also you deleted reliable sourced info contributed by me..by the way "tariq ramadan" whom you like to quote is bitter over the fact that ahbash defeated his grand daddys group the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD.."in a book published by Encounter Books, Caroline Fourest analysed Tariq Ramadan's 15 books, 1,500 pages of interviews, and approximately 100 recordings,[53][54] and concludes "Ramadan is a war leader," and the "political heir of his grandfather," Hassan al-Banna, stating that his discourse is, "often just a repetition of the discourse that Banna had at the beginning of the 20th century in Egypt," and that he "presents [al-Banna] as a model to be followed"..for the last part WRONG talk page. Baboon43 (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto! For the past half decade, your Ahbash brethren (And YES you are one of them. No matter how hard you deny. It is written all over your edits.) have been trying (using scores of sock puppets - a partial list can be found on my Talk Page - and tactics including edit-warring) their mighty best to use this page as a marketing tool just because this is the very first page which appears in the Search Results. The book you quoted is a POV, nothing more and nothing less. The fact remains that Tariq Ramadan is a bona-fide Professor with a Ph.D. in Arabic and in Islamic studies. And there are lots of other MUSLIM SCHOLARS and PUBLICATIONS which know the reality of Ahbash. Had Ahbash some courage then they wouldn't have been hiding behind the mainstream Sunni and THEN claiming to be Sufis. And you wouldn't be here twisting, misrepresenting and cherry-picking the ACADEMIC SOURCES to portray the Shaykh as a "Professor" and Ahbash group as a "Sufi". IF you agree that "sufis are known to mix sunni and shia belief" then why are you so adamant about NOT adding this fact about the Ahbash that they blend Shia and Sunni beliefs with Sufism - which is supported by lots of VERIFIABLE / NEUTRAL and PEER-VIEWED ACADEMIC SOURCES - to the content of Al-Ahbash page. Why did you remove that? Did you even bother to read the version of the other editor? EVEN he points out that the point that they are "Sufi" is contentious - a fact which is supported by other verifiable sources too. I have NOT seen a Muslim scholar or academic source YET which will satisfy the Ahbash / AICP. They consider themselves to be a "Saved Group" of people, thus, for them anybody who is NOT adherent to their school of thought is either "Wahabi", "Kaafir", "Opponent" or simply out of his/her mind. It might be easy for you and your brethren to fool some of the gullible editors of Wikipedia but I know enough about Ahbash, thus, it will be really hard to fool me. I ALREADY have had very LENGTHY and EXTENSIVE discussions with you now it is up to you whether you work with me to make this page NEUTRAL and come up with a version which presents the information written by the Ahbash as well as its opponents objectively under the light of pertinent academic sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines, otherwise, I will be more than happy to try other venues available on Wikipedia. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

Sudo, Please, be specific if you really are NEUTRAL and want to help with this page. Here is the first paragraph or executive summary:

Al-Ahbash (Arabic: الأحباش‎ al-Aḥbāš; literal meaning “the Ethiopians”), also known as Association of Islamic Charitable Projects or the Society of Islamic Philanthropic Projects (Arabic: ‏جمعية المشاريع الخيرية الإسلام‎ jam'iyyat al-mashari' al-khayriyya al-islamiyya / Ǧamʿīya al-Mašārīʿ al-Ḫairīya al-Islām) ^{[4] [6]}, is an Islamic sect ^{[7][8][9][10]} and a Sufi religious movement ^[11][2] from Lebanon.

This page needs NEUTRAL Wikipedia editors who will help with a version of this page which presents the information written by the Ahbash as well as its opponents objectively under the light of pertinent academic sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. The current version has lots of NPOV issues. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

The current article is somewhat neutral but your recent input is bias therefore is not acceptable and i have explained to you the issues with it above. Baboon43 (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have had VERY LONG and EXTENSIVE discussions with you since you came along. And I have provided AMPLE NEUTRAL, VERIFIABLE and PEER-VIEWED ACADEMIC sources INCLUDING the books written by Ahbash's own Shaykh as well as their official magazine. This version is NOT Neutral as it is full of Ahbash POVs, thus, it has lots of NPOV issues. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

Of course facts are not neutral but opinions are right? Everyone is wrong and your right! It doesnt work like that because wikipedia is not the place to battle fellow editors..If you were actually interested in a good faith edit to this article you would have done it 6 years ago instead of reverting everything..Not only is your recent input bias you continue to revert other peoples work under the guise of new input now. Baboon43 (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT about my "opinions" - it is WHAT the NEUTRAL, VERIFIABLE and PEER-VIEWED ACADEMIC sources state. AND I am afraid you keep on cherry-picking the sources just like you are trying to misrepresent the sources on Abdullah_al-Harari page. Here is an example of your POV / edit on Abdullah_al-Harari page (as well as this one too). Apparently, you are cherry-picking from the discussions too. I think I am going to have to escalate the matter to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

You folks seem to be reverting back and forth between two very different articles with different viewpoints. As an outsider, I have no basis for deciding which is right, but I do have some perhaps annoying advice to offer: one of you should stop reverting, and start editing incrementally. Right now the debate you are having is impossible for an outsider to evaluate, because the changes between the disputed versions are too large. There are clear problems with the User:McKhan version, but that doesn't convince me that this version is POV. If you were to take this step by step it's possible you could get some useful feedback from other editors. If the two sides are both pushing a POV (which, to be clear, I am not asserting!), then probably neither of you will do this, but if one or both sides really want NPOV, I think this is the way to get there, even if the short-term version of the article is hard to stomach. Abhayakara (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a look at both versions and have make the necessary adjustments combining both versions. The state of the article was in shambles - edits whereby the text is skewed to shine a positive light on any group of individual is a violation of WP:NPOV, McKhan's edits provide verifiable references and I have refined any potential problems. I believe that other users are simply bullying McKhan and this does not cease then further action will be taken. Sakimonk ^talk 00:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]