Misplaced Pages

Talk:Al-Ahbash

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by McKhan (talk | contribs) at 10:47, 24 April 2006 (Calm Talk : Have a nice cup of tea). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:47, 24 April 2006 by McKhan (talk | contribs) (Calm Talk : Have a nice cup of tea)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Talk:Al-Ahbash archive1 Talk:Al-Ahbash archive2

Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:TrollWarning


Al-Ahbash / Habashies DENY the TOTALITY of the Quran

These are few of the links which doesn't only expose the Al-Ahbash / Habashies but also point out the FUNDAMENTAL and SUBSTANTIAL difference (s) between the Al-Ahbash / Habashies and the mainstream Sunnis and Muslims. The most FUNDAMENTAL / CRUCIAL difference IS that Al-Ahbash / Habashies DENY the TOTALITY of the Quran.,,

Is there any suprise that Al-Ahbash / Habashies are trying to remove the CRUCIAL link, Al-Ahbash: Their History and Their Beliefs, from a WikiPedia NPOV-compliant page?

McKhan

Misplaced Pages:personal attacks by mckhan : Racial ephithets , Another

Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor.

mckhann you can't prove your claims just by pasting links that follow The Wahhabism .

Any one can make links and claim many thing in them ...

As for Accusing us of Terrorism ... I'm just smiling now (Thanks for making me happy)

Do you think if we were Terrorists The US government will Allow us to have activity on The US sole ?

AICP (Association if Islamic Charitable Projects) or as u Call Al-Ahbash (for Sheikh Abdullah Al Habashi follower) have more than 10 Schools in The USA many Mosques and The North American Head Quarter is Based in The USA (Philadelphia).

And for Australia , just to make you happy today They Got The Renewal of The Government Radio LISCENCE for 5 years , Which They Give for Muslims in Australia .

All racist and religious Attack against Wikipedian are not acceptable especially by a Wahhabi follower of the 9/11 World Trade Center Attack .

You will not be Able and we will not allow you to spread Defamation against Sunni Muslims on Misplaced Pages .--Muslim sunni 02:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages must NOT allow these personal and slandrous attacks on its contributors + McKhan is a mainstream Sunni Muslim and NOT a Wahabi + Only MAINSTREAM, INDEPENDENT, ACADEMIC and / or RELIGIOUSLY AUTHOROTATIVE sources have been quoted

"Wahhabism claim to be Sunnis and most Muslims know that they are Terrorists , or in a sleeping mode (Sleeper Cell) I'm happy that you are hiding from the Term Wahhabi because it's a shame word nowadays." Muslim_sunni

Above statement and other statements made by Al-Ahbash / Habashies about me, WITHOUT ANY SHRED OF EVIDENCE from THE INDEPENDENT AND BONA-FIDE SOURCES, constitues to slandrous and personal attacks and defemation of one's character and therefore totally unacceptable. It should not be allowed on Misplaced Pages. If WikiPedia Administrators will continue to encourage and not take any action in due course then I will be more than happy to take this matter to the pertinent authorities.

It should be noted that I have NEVER attacked personally anybody on Misplaced Pages. This Misplaced Pages page, Al-Ahbash, is NOT about me, an individual, but about Al-Ahbash, a group. All I am trying to do is to differentiate between mainstream Sunnis and Al-Ahbash, a group, which claims to be mainstream Sunnis and yet deny the totality of the Quran, under the Misplaced Pages's own stated Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) guidelines. Nothing more and Nothing less.

I have repeatedly said that I, McKhan, am a mainstream Sunni whose family is Sunni for centuries. Anything beyond than that, WITHOUT ANY SHRED OF EVIDENCE from THE INDEPENDENT AND BONA-FIDE SOURCES, constitutes to fabrication of the facts and personal attacks (e.g. calling someone a "a Wahhabi follower of the 9/11 World Trade Center Attack" .etc) under Misplaced Pages guidelines.

As far as my quotations are concerned, I invite everybody to visit these links to certify that nothing I have quoted is fabricated:

McKhan

Misplaced Pages:personal attacks by mckhan : Racial ephithets

Yes and we have repeatedly said that we Are mainstream Sunni Muslim so accusing us of deniying the totally of the quran is a pure defamation and posting links from Wahhabies links will not prove anything .

Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor.

mckhann you can't prove your claims just by pasting links that follow The Wahhabism .

Any one can make links and claim many thing in them ...

As for Accusing us of Terrorism ... I'm just smiling now (Thanks for making me happy)

Do you think if we were Terrorists The US government will Allow us to have activity on The US sole ?

AICP (Association if Islamic Charitable Projects) or as u Call Al-Ahbash (for Sheikh Abdullah Al Habashi follower) have more than 10 Schools in The USA many Mosques and The North American Head Quarter is Based in The USA (Philadelphia).

And for Australia , just to make you happy today They Got The Renewal of The Government Radio LISCENCE for 5 years , Which They Give for Muslims in Australia .

All racist and religious Attack against Wikipedian are not acceptable especially by a Wahhabi follower of the 9/11 World Trade Center Attack .

You will not be Able and we will not allow you to spread Defamation against Sunni Muslims on Misplaced Pages .--Muslim sunni 02:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW (NPOV) Guidelines must be implented, respected and adhered to.... Tearlach's version continues to be Misplaced Pages NPOV-compliant...

I only look forward to contibute to Misplaced Pages project as it aspires to follow the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV).

Having said that I would like to elaborate further that there are two parties:

  • McKhan, a mainstream Sunni whose family has been Sunni for centuries
  • Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP, a religious sect / cult, which denies the TOTALITY of the Quran ,, and have SUBSTANTIAL and FUNDMENTAL differences with mainstream Sunnis and yet classifies itself as a Sunni and thereby hides itself behind the mainstream Sunnis like myself, to seek legitimacy and recruitment (You are more than welcome to read Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context, a research report by an INDEPENDENT / ACADEMIC outlet)

Tearlach is NOT a mainstream Sunni NOR he belongs to Al-Ahbash / Habashies group. He got involved and wrote a WikiPedia-NPOV compliant version.

I totally appreciate the fact and have repeatedly acknowledged that if two parties don't see each other eye-to-eye then only a NEUTRAL / INDEPENDENT party can do the job.

However, Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP don't appreicate that nor the fact that if I will write that page according to my wishes, that page will NOT be somewhat NEUTRAL like the way Tearlach has written.

Here is

and - here is

By comparing both versions, it will become quite obvious that Tearlach's version of 'Al-Ahbash' page is more WikiPedia NPOV-compliant.

Furthermore, Tearlach has already addressed all the objections raised by the Al-Ahbash / Habashies on his version as per following:

Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP's Objections: "an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunni and Shi'a theology with Sufism" ? + "anti-Salafi, and with Sufi and other beliefs seen as heretical" ? , ,

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)

Morever, fairly and impartially speaking, Tearlach has already given AICP / Al-Ahbash / Habashies quite favorable but blanced POV on WikiPedia:

  • a). by not calling them a CULT but merely a "sect"
  • b). by providing an external link to Al-Ahbash / Habashies' arch web-site and to another contrary link
  • c). by quoting their claim that AICP / Al-Ahbash / Habashies advocates pluralism, and opposition to political activism and violence

and

  • d). by quoting AICP / Al-Ahbash / Habashies' FRADULENT slogan from their own web-site, "the resounding voice of moderation" (despite the fact that the very same "the voice of moderation" castigates every that individual / web-site / organization / outlet - which - expose the Al-Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' agenda and beliefs as either "Wahabi", "Kaafir", "non-Muslim", "Islamist" or part of a "smear compaign" .etc)

Consequently, I, as a party, support Tearlach's version of 'Al-Ahbash' page, WikiPedia NPOV-compliant version - over - Al-Ahbash / Habashies' version of 'Al-Ahbash' which doesn't offer any balance nor it offers what the ciritics say about Al-Ahbash / Habashies. It also completey removes a very crucial link, Al-Ahbash: Their History and Their Beliefs, from their version altogether.

It is suffice to say that IF Misplaced Pages is serious about aspiring to its stated motto of achieving Neutral Point of View (NPOV) on each and every page then Al-Ahbash should be NO EXCEPT and Misplaced Pages NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW (NPOV) Guidelines must be implented, respected and adhered to - not only by the contributors but also by the Administrators, otherwise, aspiration to NPOV is categorically futile.

McKhan

mckhan goal on Misplaced Pages is Defamation

I only look forward to contibute to Misplaced Pages project as it aspires to follow the Neutral Point Of View(mckhan)

It's clear from your history contribution that your only goal in wikipedia is defamation , any admin can look at your background and see that wherever you go you make problems . *** McKhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) *** --Muslim sunni 11:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

wahhabism exposed

I have pointed out in my earlier posts the sectarian methodology by which the wahhabie sect ‎conduct business aiming by their ideology at pointing out all non wahhabies as blasphemers ‎thus the wahhbies would give themselves the “right” to texterminate oponants by all means.‎

Now if someone claims not to be a wahhabie nevertheless promotes wahhabie links that incite ‎violence and terror besides calling all others as blasphemers all but themselves!, this would ‎leave a big Q mark on his/her claims.‎

Those wahhabie links promote the violent ideology adopted by figures, wahhabie take as ‎their scholars, such figures have been refuted by the Muslim Sunni scholars since this wahhabie ‎sectarian ideology have evolved.‎


wahhabie deviated sect exposed


Aiysha


Tearlach's WikiPedia NPOV-compliant version vs. Al-Ahbash / Habashies' Marketing-flyer Version = Tearlach's version continue to meet the WikiPedia Guidelines

These are few of the links which doesn't only expose the Al-Ahbash / Habashies but also point out the FUNDAMENTAL and SUBSTANTIAL difference (s) between the Al-Ahbash / Habashies and the mainstream Sunnis and Muslims. The most FUNDAMENTAL / CRUCIAL difference IS that Al-Ahbash / Habashies DENY the TOTALITY of the Quran.,,

None of the above link promote / incite "Terrorism" of any kind. Is there any suprise that Al-Ahbash / Habashies are trying to remove the CRUCIAL link, Al-Ahbash: Their History and Their Beliefs, from a WikiPedia NPOV-compliant page?

Instead of promoting, respecting and adhering to WikiPedia NPOV guidelines by leaving Tearlach's WikiPedia NPOV-compliant version alone, Al-Ahbash / Habashies are trying to push their own biased and partially written version (which very conveniently omits a very crucial link,Al-Ahbash: Their History and Their Beliefs, as well as looks like a marketing flyer of Al-Ahbash / Habashies rather than a WikiPedia NPOV compliant version) which is tantamount to disrespecting the guidelines of the very same outlet which gives them an opportunity to express themselves.

Comparing the two, it is obvious that Tearlach's version continue to meet the WikiPedia Guidelines.

McKhan

Scandal of The Wahhabi mckhan (Wahhabism are responsable of the 9/11 world trade center attack )

mckhan have been denying that his follow the Wahhabism Sect (9/11 Terrorist , responsible for the World Trade Center Attack)

He have been posting links that (Promote Violence , Defamation and Wahhabism Defence)

Always claiming that he's a Mainstream Sunni .

Now just taking a fast look at the sites he's Posting we can verify that he's a real follower of the Wahhabism sect or in another word (Terrorist) or also known as Sleeper cell .

  • - he first posted a link to : islam-qa.com , if we do a simple search on this site we can find the following :

Question : Why is so much of what is said about so called Shaykh al-Islam Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab so hostile, and why are his followers called Wahhabis?.

reference : http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ds=qa&QR=36616&ln=eng

The only answer we can find in this link is defence of Wahhabism .


  • - The Third Link : so called (islamicweb.com) we can find the following post :

Justifying Wahhabism under this link http://islamicweb.com/beliefs/creed/wahhab.htm again only defence for Wahhabism .

  • - As for the fourth link mckhan posted (a forum) it's clear that he made it , anyone with some visual knowledge can see that its the same post mckhan have been posting on wikipedia .
  • - For the Australian news the wahhabi mckhan posted , the answer is on the site it self ..

The president of al-Ahbash in Australia, Ghayath Al-Shelh, has rejected the criticisms.

He says some of the signatories signed the statement after being misled by the office of Sheik Al Hilaly (Al Hilaly is a Wahhabi in Australia)

- So mckhan after all those scandal do you still say that you are not a Wahhabi ?

Stop your vandalizing and spam & defamation in Misplaced Pages .

you already got banned twice , isn't it enough for you ?

Al-Ahbash are NOT on Misplaced Pages to help but to promote themselves + Misplaced Pages must NOT allow these personal and slandrous attacks on its contributors + McKhan is a mainstream Sunni Muslim and NOT a Wahabi + Only MAINSTREAM, INDEPENDENT, ACADEMIC and / or RELIGIOUSLY AUTHOROTATIVE sources have been quoted + Tearlach's WikiPedia NPOV-compliant version vs. Al-Ahbash / Habashies' Marketing-flyer Version = Tearlach's version continue to meet the WikiPedia Guidelines

According to Mr. Thomas Pierret, The International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World (ISIM): "At first sight, devices such as live interactive lessons or voice chat groups seem to encourage debates within the movement, but, on the contrary, close examination reveals that these instruments are primarily used by the leadership to increase its ideological control on their followers and to attract new devotees. Similarly, if one checks the AICP's unofficial e-forums ( www.talkaboutislam.com), one discovers that they function as ideological spider webs. Nothing points to the fact that these websites, which only present themselves as being "Islamic," are actually part of the Ahbash's cyber network. For instance, they are not related to the official websites by any hypertext link. Therefore, the random visitor is normally unaware that he or she is exposed to a set of selected opinions through carefully controlled debates. Firstly, zealous participants frequently post chapters of books edited in Lebanon by the AICP, but without any reference to the author or the editor. Secondly, veteran members answer questions concerning fiqh (jurisprudence) and reprimand novices whose religious knowledge is considered "deviant." Thirdly, a team of regulators supervise the discussions and are in charge of censoring the Ahbash who are too keen to use takfir (excommunication) —since such a stance is considered a mark of extremism by most of the Sunnis—but above all of eliminating most of the messages posted by participants of Salafi persuasion. Ideological hegemony is thus achieved by the creation of a neo-traditionalist virtual space in which they assess very critically the ideas of leading Islamic personalities such as Amr Khalid, Khalid al-Jundi and Yusuf al-Qaradawi. In the same way they reduce the Wahhabi doctrine to a mere "heresy" in line with the Ottoman scholarly tradition of which they consider themselves to be the inheritors." (Source: http://www.isim.nl/files/Review_15/Review_15-50.pdf )

Keeping up with their hedious strategy, they are aggressively inserting hidden links to their web-sites on projects like Misplaced Pages, yet again, to seek legitimacy and recruitment under the guise of Jamat Ahl Wa Sunna.

They are not on Misplaced Pages to contirbute anything but to pursue their agenda to seek legitimacy and seek recruitment under the guise of mainstream Sunnis.

Here is how Al-Ahbash / Habashies' strategy works:

Nowadays, If you type "Al-Ahbash / Habashies" or any other topic in Google, the first link (s) which appears among the search resluts are the results from Misplaced Pages. Since Al-Ahbash / Habashies cannot manipuate the Google search results, they are using Misplaced Pages pages to insert hidden links for link-farming for their web-sites, propaganda and to market their group to pursue their agenda and beliefs to seek legitimacy and recruitment. For Al-Ahbash / Habashies, due to Misplaced Pages's "anybody-can-edit" approach and exposure on Google and other search engines, Misplaced Pages provides an ideal opportunity to promote themselves. And they are using it to its maximum extent.

It is a well-known and established fact that Al-Ahbash / Habashies castigate / excommunicate EVERY that person, entitiy or outlet .etc, who exposes them, as "Wahabi" (Though, initially, they were supported by the Wahabi by themselves - Please, feel welcome to search the web.), "Ikhwan", "Terrorist" or even "Kaafir." In their own eyes, they are the only ones who are right and on the "correct" path, rest all the Muslim, specially the Sunnis, to whom behind they hide, are either "Ikhwan" or "Kaafir" altogether.

None of the following links / web-sites are owned by the "Wahabis." They belong to mainstream Sunnis, mainstream organizations like ABD Radio Australian, independent and / or academic - and can be verified. Indeed, Al-Ahbash / Habashies will deny that because it doesn't fit to their agenda. Once again, I invite everybody to visit these links to certify that nothing I have quoted is fabricated:

No matter how Al-Ahbash / Habashies deny, the fact remain the same: The most FUNDAMENTAL / CRUCIAL difference IS that Al-Ahbash / Habashies DENY the TOTALITY of the Quran.,,

Indeed, It is very sad but true that instead of promoting, respecting and adhering to WikiPedia NPOV guidelines by leaving Tearlach's WikiPedia NPOV-compliant version alone, Al-Ahbash / Habashies are trying to push their own biased and partially written version (which very conveniently omits a very crucial link,Al-Ahbash: Their History and Their Beliefs, as well as looks like a marketing flyer of Al-Ahbash / Habashies rather than a WikiPedia NPOV compliant version) which is tantamount to disrespecting the guidelines of the very same outlet which gives them an opportunity to express themselves.

Comparing the two, it is obvious that Tearlach's version continue to meet the WikiPedia Guidelines.

McKhan

Stop hiding behind your finger

Those links belong to the wahhabie sect (an outcast sect), as did its context obviously show. ‎The wahhabie sect, to which the carriers of the biggest terrorist attacks belong.‎

Now your posts are kind of sloppy and untidy, long and suffering from lack of coherence on ‎top of being nothing but a “POV” copy paste illegitimate stuff.‎


The wahhbie deviated sect exposed


Aiysha

Table

I don't know anything about Ahbash, but that table was quite useful for people like me. Can anybody please help me understand why the table was removed? thx. --Aminz 08:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Can anybody please at least explain to me the reason that why the first row of the table was bad. It seemed informative?! -- Aminz 08:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Because this table was made by The Wahhabi mckhan (Wahhabies are 9/11 World Trade Center attack) it's full of lies and defamation .--Muslim sunni 11:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is important that who we are. Can you please discuss the content of the table. Let's focus on the first part of it. Do you agree with (Mainstream Islamic belief)_(Tawheed (Monotheism)) or not? I would like to hear which sentence do you disagree most and for what reason. thx. --Aminz 19:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
It is Important to show that the writer of the table is a Wahhabi follower of The Terrorist Group Ousama Ben laden and co , he is trying to spread his belief and promote violence links .
As for Ahbash beliefs , we dont hide nore we fake on people , We Are Muslims Sunni's following the Shafiee School , All informations about (Association of islamic charitable Projects - AICP - AHBASH) Can be found here :
For The topic you are asking about : Allah Exists Without A Place

I still think that our identity does not matter as long as the wikipedia is concerned (though I think your argument is that McKhan's edits are his own POV). So, I ask everybody to discuss the passages of the table one by one. All POVs should be added to the article. --Aminz 01:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


Thank you, Aminz. I entirely agree. The points of doctrine discussed in the chart are all interesting, and should be dealt with one by one, as you say, with both sides presenting their views, and editors writing about them as neutrally as possible.Timothy Usher 01:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I have requested Anonymous editor to give a revert to the article and lock it again since we really still don't know anything if the table is NPOV or not(and it seems to be offensive to some people here). I appologize if I didn't do it before. We will then go over the table item by item. --Aminz 01:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This article

This is one of the most offensively one-sided and mean-spirited articles I've ever seen. To lock this version - established by an anonymous user with a grand total of two edits, both to this page - is simply outrageous.Timothy Usher 00:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I am simply shocked to read Mr. Timothy Usher calling the Table "most offensively sone-sided and mean-spirited articles." If it were one-sided, the there wouldn't have any Talbe with two columns for comparison at all. This is the only effective way to clear the confusion and let Habashies prove that they believe in exactly what the mainstream Muslims believe and that whatever is associated with them in the right hand coloumn is absolutly baseless and wrong. That will bring an end to the cycle of the debate. Let the Habashies publicly admit all the points in the right hand column as wrong and they will become part of the mainstream Muslims by default. Abid Jan
No, it should be locked, since people were engaged in revert war rather than discussion. And I personally prefer not to judge people that I may not be judged.--Aminz 01:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Lets educate ourselves before calling something "one of the most offensively one-sided and mean-spirited articles." This version, minus the table, was written by an INDEPENDENT party Tearlach. Tearlach is NOT a mainstream Sunni NOR he belongs to Al-Ahbash / Habashies. Here is what Tearlach said in defense of his version in response to Al-Ahbash / Habashies' objections:
Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP's Objections: "an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunni and Shi'a theology with Sufism" ? + "anti-Salafi, and with Sufi and other beliefs seen as heretical" ? , ,
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)
As far as the table is concerned, it has incorporated mainstream Sunni Scholars' (which includes but NOT limited to, MAINSTREAM Sunni scholars like Dr. Ahmad H. Sakr (founding member and president of the Muslim Students Association of the U.S.A and Canada - AND - the Islamic Society of North America (or ISNA) and Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi (former President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)) Religious Decrees (FATWAs) to Al-Ahbash / Habashies' own sources. Should you like to have a crash-course on this subject then please, feel welcome to visit the following links:
I invite everybody to visit these links to certify that nothing I have quoted is fabricated.
McKhan


This is as far from NPOV as it gets. I accept that these reflect your own dim view of the sect, but at no point do you give them a chance to speak for themselves. It may as well be titled "Why Al-Ahbash is Heretical and Wrong." It doesn't matter that you've found sources which reflect your POV. You cannot act as the sole arbitrer of truth here.Timothy Usher 01:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Lets not get into argument for the sake of argument. I know very well what NPOV stands for. As far as, POV is concerned, your name, my name .etc also constitutes to POV. Should we change our names coz we are on Misplaced Pages? Lets NOT get into that futile discussion. I will recommend that you should educate yourself about the topic and then indulge yourself in POV and NPOV aspects of this page. Just to let you know, I have seen your contributions to Misplaced Pages. You seem to be quite far away NOT only from New Mexico but also your area of expertise. McKhan
Just what are you trying to say here?Timothy Usher 01:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Please, educate yourself about the subject. There are plenty of sources available on the web and off the web. You have completed some complicated projects. This shouldn't be a big deal for you. McKhan

Please hold on for awhile. I am very slow. I will not able to catch up if you edit this fast. thx. --Aminz 01:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Table?

McKhan, can you please let us know what do you like us to discuss first? The table? --Aminz 02:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Lets be fair. Since Timothy Usher is quite eager to contribute to this page, lets give him sometime that he could educate himself about the subject. McKhan
Don't be rude. · Katefan0/poll 15:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
McKhan, I know next to nothing about this sect, and like Aminz would like to learn more about them. It does sound as if they take different views on matters of doctrine, some of which I, like you and your sources, find rather questionable. But cannot just write an article that comes out and says, they're misguided heretics, even if in truth they are. That's not how wikipedia works. Instead, you have a source which has a claim. Then you have a sentence saying, "Mainstream Sunni scholars such as so-and-so claim that..." and state what they're saying. Then if someone else has a different POV, we do the same thing in a calm and methodical manner.Timothy Usher 02:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


McKhan, can we please actually get into real discussion. I should confess, I am 100% ignorant about Al-Ahbash. I would like to educate myself and will not be able to do it unless you guys help me. I prefer to get into real discussion and not discussion about discussion. I think we should discuss the table. Since you added the table, I should ask the other party to help me understand why it is not NPOV.Let's take the first row of it at the moment. What is specifically wrong with it? The first row, first column (the beliefs of mainstream Muslims) at the high level looks fine to me though can be much improved. I am waiting for the other party’s comments. --Aminz 02:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Guys, I should go somewhere now. Will be back in a couple of hours. Take care all, --Aminz 02:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


I should add I have not carefully read the first column, first row. More precisely, the beginning of it makes sense to me. --Aminz 02:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

"Ibn Taymiyah attacked Ibn e Arabi, the famous Sufi that claimed for the first time that Allah exists everywhere and he claimed that Allah and his creations are the same thing." should be rewritten in order not to persuade the reader to a particular position. It can be improved. --Aminz 02:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, feel welcome to improve. McKhan
McKhan, I agree with your comment way back in the talk page, "However, Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP don't appreicate that nor the fact that if I will write that page according to my wishes, that page will NOT be somewhat NEUTRAL like the way Tearlach has written."Timothy Usher 02:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Timothy, I can see from the very beginning that you are not serioulsy researching or educating yourself about the subject. You want others to do all the work for you that you could apply the Misplaced Pages NPOV / POV guidelines as per your own discretion. You are simply eager to contribute to Misplaced Pages (at least to this page) without doing any research or educating yourself about the subject. Let me start by pointing out to your statement (s): "To lock this version - established by an anonymous user with a grand total of two edits, both to this page - is simply outrageous." Here are the questions: 1]. Did you bother to check who has been editing this page in the past almost 2 weeks and with what type of version? Hint: Here you may find the answer -> http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Al-Ahbash&action=history 2]. Did you even pay attention that Anonymous_editor is an Administrator NOT an "anonymous user with a grand total of two edits, both to this page" per se? If you truly are serious to contribute to this page (...and / or to Misplaced Pages's other pages) then please educate yourself about the subject first. And last but NOT the least, you wrote, "It does sound as if they take different views on matters of doctrine, some of which I, like you and your sources, find rather questionable. But cannot just write an article that comes out and says, they're misguided heretics, even if in truth they are." So, you are trying to say that Religious Decrees (FATWAs) issued by mainstream Sunni scholars, which includes but NOT limited Dr. Ahmad H. Sakr, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi and others, under the light of Islamic Jurisprudence and Al-Ahbash / Habashies' own sources are NOT good enough for Misplaced Pages and / or merely hersay or POV? McKhan


The anonymous user to whom I was referring was User:151.151.21.99, who wrote the last version before the page lock, not Anonymous editor. And yes, fatwas are by definition POV's. That they were issued is fact, but to say they were correctly decided, or represent the last word on the subject, is POV. Why not go back to the version we both agree is neutral, and build from there?Timothy Usher 03:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
If thats what you believe then I must add that Religious Decrees (FATWAs) constitutes to EXPERT "POV" NOT merely heresay as they are decided / issued / furnished under the light of Islamic Jurisprudence, the basic tenets of Islam and the other party's own sources / writings .etc. (That is something else if one doesn't respect Islamic Jurisprudence, the basic tenets of Islam .etc. If one doesn't then I will recommend that that individual should refrain from contributing to Misplaced Pages Islam-related pages as those contributions will not be impartial.) In the case of Al-Ahbash / Habashies, mainstream Sunni scholars categorically point out that Al-Ahbash / Habashies are in the denial of the TOTALITY of the Quran as well as the Tawheed (Monotheism). As far as the neutral verions is concerned, in my humble POV, Tearlach's version continues to be Misplaced Pages NPOV-compliant so far. In the context of this back-and-forth over NPOV and POV, I consider these lines of yours, "And yes, fatwas are by definition POV's. That they were issued is fact, but to say they were correctly decided, or represent the last word on the subject, is POV," a POINT OF VIEW. See, how far can that go? Once again, I will recommend that you should educate yourself about the subject that you could justify with this page without having any shred of agenda of any kind. McKhan


i want add here that every person has right to opinion so mudslinging on any one by calling him/her wahabbi etc is wrong . we shud focus on what is the fact and it is the fact that ahbashi's claim to be sunni muslim but there views are unislamic and heretical. Imfatima2001

Hello Fatima,

I agree with you that the mudslinging was ridiculously out of hand, and was (and still is) wrong. No one should be personalizing this discussion. But it's not a "fact", at least not on wikipedia, that the Ahbashis are unislamic and heretical, rather it's a POV. We need to put the information out there without pre-deciding the case for the reader.Timothy Usher 04:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Timothy Usher 04:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me be blunt here - By saying, "But it's not a "fact", at least not on wikipedia, that the Ahbashis are unislamic and heretical, rather it's a POV," - Are you admitting that you have got an agenda to sanitize as well as Islmasize the Al-Ahbash / Habashies through / on Misplaced Pages? McKhan


Believe it or not, not everyone has any strong opinion or agenda re Al-Ahbash, starting with me. I'm not out to sanitize, islamize, demonize or do anything else to them.Timothy Usher 04:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
It has NOTHING to do with having "mild" or "strong" opinions about Al-Ahbash / Habashies. It is the matter of Islamic Jurisprudence as well as the basic tenets of Islam, which I am doubtful, that you have any respect for. McKhan

Why don't we add the "fatwa's" to the article? --Aminz 07:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Al-Ahbash / Habashies doesn't want anything contrary to what they want to be on that page. McKhan

This should be of course added to the article. At the moment, I am working on the first row, first paragraph of the table. It can be improved a lot. My problem is that I am not good in english. But I'll do my best. --Aminz 08:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Great Thanks for your kind and precious help. Regarding your English, I think you are just being humble. :) McKhan

McKhan, Can you please help me improving the first column, first row of the article? I want the POV of all people to be included. You have provided a wealth of material which is good but I think should be summerized. I am trying to gather all different views and make a summery of them. Regarding the Attributes to Allah and his status, the following is attributed to Ali, the fourth Khalipha. It is just very hard to make a summary of everything.

Praise is due to Allah whose worth cannot be described by speakers, whose bounties cannot be counted by calculators and whose claim (to obedience) cannot be satisfied by those who attempt to do so, whom the height of intellectual courage cannot appreciate, and the divings of understanding cannot reach; He for whose description no limit has been laid down, no eulogy exists, no time is ordained and no duration is fixed. He brought forth creation through His Omnipotence, dispersed winds through His Compassion, and made firm the shaking earth with rocks.

The foremost in religion is the acknowledgement of Him, the perfection of acknowledging Him is to testify Him, the perfection of testifying Him is to believe in His Oneness, the perfection of believing in His Oneness is to regard Him Pure, and the perfection of His purity is to deny Him attributes, because every attribute is a proof that it is different from that to which it is attributed and everything to which something is attributed is different from the attribute. Thus whoever attaches attributes to Allah recognises His like, and who recognises His like regards Him two; and who regards Him two recognises parts for Him; and who recognises parts for Him mistook Him; and who mistook Him pointed at Him; and who pointed at Him admitted limitations for Him; and who admitted limitations for Him numbered Him.

Whoever said in what is He, held that He is contained; and whoever said on what is He held He is not on something else. He is a Being but not through phenomenon of coming into being. He exists but not from non-existence. He is with everything but not in physical nearness. He is different from everything but not in physical separation. He acts but without connotation of movements and instruments. He sees even when there is none to be looked at from among His creation. He is only One, such that there is none with whom He may keep company or whom He may miss in his absence. ________________________________________

Praise be to Allah who is proof of His existence through His creation, of His being external through the newness of His creation, and through their mutual similarities of the fact that nothing is similar to Him. Senses cannot touch Him and curtains cannot veil Him, because of the difference between the Maker and the made, the Limiter and the limited and the Sustainer and the sustained. He is One but not by the first in counting, is Creator but not through activity or labour, is Hearer but not by means of any physical organ, is Looker but not by a stretching of eyelids, is Witness but not by nearness, is Distinct but not by measurement of distance, is Manifest but not by seeing and is Hidden but not by subtlety (of body). He is Distinct from things because He overpowers them and exercises might over them, while things are distinct from Him because of their subjugation to Him and their turning towards Him.

He who describes Him limits Him. He who limits Him numbers Him. He who numbers Him rejects His eternity. He who said "how" sought a description for Him. He who said "where" bounded him. He is the Knower even though there be nothing to be known. He is the Sustainer even though there be nothing to be sustained. He is the Powerful even though there be nothing to be overpowered.

Praise be to Allah Who lies inside all hidden things, and towards Whom all open things guide. He cannot be seen by the eye of an onlooker, but the eye which does not see Him cannot deny Him while the mind that proves His existence cannot perceive Him. He is so high in sublimity that nothing can be more sublime than He, while in nearness, He is so near that no one can be nearer than He. But his sublimity does not put Him at a distance from anything of His creation, nor does His nearness bring them on equal level to Him. He has not informed (human) wit about the limits of His qualities. Nevertheless, He has not prevented it from securing essential knowledge of Him. So he is such that all signs of existence stand witness for Him till the denying mind also believes in Him. Allah is sublime beyond what is described by those who liken Him to things or those who deny Him.

--Aminz 08:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Why don't we simply use the above quite in its entirity in the artice? That way, we will not be divulging or misquoting any essential elment of the quote. McKhan

Can you please explain more. Do you mean using the quote attributed to Ali in the article?? Thanks --Aminz 09:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Why not? What do you suggest? That table basically summarizes both, mainstream Sunnis' and Al-Ahbash / Habashies', belief in one place by using their own quotes and writings .etc. McKhan

Of course we can always rephrase parts of it or have some parts of it but I am afraid I can not agree with having the whole quote since 1. It is copyrighted 2. It is better to quote from Qur'an, and then from Hadiths and then from Ali or other companions of Muhammad. I think at the end of the day it should not differ much since they are all roughly saying the same thing. What I am looking for is a 2 or 3 line brief summary of Muslim beliefs for each part. The reader will get tired and lose interest otherwise. Short and Informative! We can then assure that the reader will read the whole article. --Aminz 09:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I categorically agree with your logic as well as the sequence of quotations, from the Quran to Ali and others. Okay, I will try to summarize it tomorrow. :) McKhan

Thank you! Islamic concept of God also seems to be useful. --Aminz 09:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Got it

Here it is: Islamic concept of God --Aminz 08:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

aminz as u asked for the concept of ibe arabi about god. i wud like to comment that ibne arabi interpret the attribute of God omnipotance which means he is present every where differently, he believed in pantheism. he said God is every where through his creature. every creation in God itself.


Thanks for your response. I have heard Ibn Arabi to be a very towering and important figure and personally respect him. I should say, I don't know anything about his ideas to be able to make any judgment about him. It seems to me that he is looking at the problem from a different point of view. Somehow philosophic, poetic? It may be possible that we are misunderstanding Ibn Arabi here. He should have compared his view with other views. I would like to hear what his responds has been? You can help us learn about him. --Aminz 10:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The table

Friends, Can we please have the tearlach's version to be posted? We can then discuss the elements of the table one by one and will apply them to the article gradually. --Aminz 20:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Any objection? --Aminz 21:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a brief background as well as Tearlach's version which continues to meet the Misplaced Pages NPOV guidelines, so far. May I take this opportunity to request everybody who would like to contribute to this page to educate him / herself about the subject before contributing to this page. This will help everybody to be on the same page in terms of context and background information. McKhan

McKhan, I know you agree with this, but I needed to re-ask everybody in order get a partial consensus. --Aminz 21:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

We both agreed that Tearlach's version was far more neutral than what is up there now.Timothy Usher 23:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not personally sure if it is more neutral or not, but we should to respect the other party. --Aminz 01:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Judging from the history, the other party didn't appear to be handling things very well, either. We must avoid further personalization of this discussion as per WP:NPA. And I suspect McKhan is right to have accused him/her/them of sockpuppetry. In any case, we cannot make him/her/them appear.Timothy Usher 01:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The Table. McKhan

i agree with abid jan that there are two columns in the table.In my view its the best way to compare n contrast the views of main stream sunni muslims n ahbashi's.i agree with aminz as well that we shud respect all parties but when someone claims to be which he/she is nt. we call it identity crises.Abhashi claim that they are sunni muslims proved to be incorrect through this table.aminz while describing attributes of God u said"Senses cannot touch Him and curtains cannot veil Him, because of the difference between the Maker and the made"When one believes in panthism n says there is no difference b/w the maker and the made.Then how wud he/she sense the creator whom we never saw but can sense only through his creations ||user:imfatima2001:imfatima2001||

No, it doesn't prove that they are not Sunni muslims, except circularly, as you're saying no true Sunni Muslim (as per "no true Scotsman") would have the beliefs you're ascribing to them.Timothy Usher 01:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Timothy, This is your POV and you are entitle to have your POV. As far as Muslims (whether "true" Sunni or not), Islamic Jurisprudence and the basic tenets of Islam are concerned, denial of the TOTALITY of the Quran as well as the basic tenets (Tawheed .etc) in any shape or form puts one out of the circle of Islam. It is plain and simple. McKhan

I ask my question again: Does anybody object to post the Tearlach's version. We can then add the table gradually after arriving at consensus.--Aminz 02:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Tearlach, We muslims have firm believe that Quran is the word of Allah nt of gabriel. alahbash claims Quran as gabriel's word and this claim put them out of the circle of Islam.As far as table is concerned it shud be there to prove the differences.||user:imfatima2001:imfatima2001||

It shouldn't be a table, although some of the points in the table can be raised. The very nature of the table, as admitted, is to prove that Al-Ahbash is heretical.
Traditionally speaking, Tables are more user-friendly and oftenly used to re-cap the depth of a complicated or lengthy subject. And thats what exactly Imfatima2001 did by creating that table (I Wikified it into the shape of a table). As far as your POV about the usage of "heretical" is concerened, please, read what Tearlach has to say in response to Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP's Objections: "an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunni and Shi'a theology with Sufism" ? + "anti-Salafi, and with Sufi and other beliefs seen as heretical" ? , ,
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


Aminz is working on a text version discussing the first point, I believe. In the meantime, please read WP:NPOV.Timothy Usher 02:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


Yes, it should prove. But we just want to START with that article. We WILL re-write and add the table later. I ask for your patience (Inna allaha ma'a saberin). Any objections now? --Aminz 02:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you can't post things that *do* prove it. Though I don't know much about them, some of the doctrines do seem unorthodox, to say the least. But, it can't be a hit piece as it was before. The whole concept of the table is specifically to show how they are not Sunnis. Instead, we should discuss what they say that is notably different in a section entitled Doctrines. Then we have a section entitled Criticisms of Al-Ahbash, in which these objections can be raised with an encyclopedic tone.Timothy Usher 03:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, Lets meet half-way by reaching to NP (Neutral Point) hoping that "View" will join the NP sooner or later. Why don't we have both, a Table as well as your proposed sections? Mainstream Encylopedias do have both and even more. McKhan
Not like that, they don't. Though I'm not opposed to a table per se, the entries should be bullet points, and neutrally stated, not long rants which openly ridicule their position. Perhaps we can have one column entitled "traditional interpretation" and another entitled "Al-Ahbash teaching". That they are unorthodox should be evident enough, supposing you are representing their positions accurately.Timothy Usher 03:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I am afraid, they do. I would also like to take the opportunity to point out, without having the intention to offend or intimidate anybody, that Misplaced Pages is different than the mainstream Encyclopedias in many ways: For example, its "anybody-can-edit" approach and "NON-experts-contributing-to-out-of-their-area-of-expertise" .etc
As far as the the Table is concerned, it:
  • Incorporates mainstream Muslims' (whether Sunni or NOT) belief (s) - as well as - Al-Ahbash / Habashies' belief (s) quoting their pertinent sources
  • Incorporates mainstream Sunni scholars' Religious Decrees / FATWAs) / EXPERT POVs (under the light of Quran, Islamic Jurisprudence, the basic tenets of Islam .etc) - as well as - Al-Ahbash / Habashies' / FATWAs) / Expert POVs (under the light of Al-Ahbash / Habashies' founding Shaikh)
    • Consequently, lets leave upto the readers' discretion and understanding whether he / she treats this table as a tantamount to a difference between mainstream Muslims (whether Sunni or NOT) and Al-Ahbash / Habashies or it just highlights each party's basic belief (s) .etc.
    Indeed, that table is open to improvements providing that the facts are accurate under the light of pertinent sources .etc. McKhan

    Al-Ahbash

    The following article, which mckhan tried hard to iliminate, hold official links of Alahbash (The Islamic Sunni organization). Therefore, only what will be found on these links, which represent a ligitimate content of what Alahbash represent, will be subject to discussion not a twisted anonymous hearsay. If any would like to educate himself about this organization please do read the info on the links provided and come back with your questions Aiysha :)


    • Al-Ahbash is a religious organisation and political party in Lebanon; alternative names are: The Ahbash, Habashis, al Habashiyyin, and Jam'iyyat al- Mashari' al-Khayriyya al-Islamiyya (in English, Association of Islamic Charitable Projects - AICP).

    It follows the teachings of Shaykh Abdallah ibn Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Hirari al-Shibi al- Abdari, also known as al-Habashi ("the Ethiopian" and cognate to Habesha), an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunnitheology with Sufism. It advocates pluralism, and opposition to political activism and violence (its slogan is "the resounding voice of moderation"). It also promotes its beliefs internationally through a major Web presence and regional offices, notably in the United States. It is highly controversial within Islamism for its religious stance (anti-Wahhabism, and with Sufi and other beliefs seen as heretical) and its political alliances (pro-Syria and conciliatory toward the West).

    See also

    References

    A Sufi response to political islamism: Al-ahbash of Lebanon A. Nizar Hamzeh and R. Hrair Dekmejian, International Journal of Middle East Studies 28 (1996), 217-229.

    External links

    Stub icon

    This Lebanon-related article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it.


    You don't ask a astronomer about metamorphisis....like wise, you don't ask a christian about Islam...this is why tearlach version is completely invalid, becasue frankly, he isn't habahsi, thus he knows not what he is talking about. this is one of the most basic laws in the world of common sense. you ask those who know, you don't as a baker about cabinets, you don't ask a carpenter about fish, you don't ask a leyman about tawwasul, and you don't ask GWBush about war tactics....

    If you want to know about a subject, you ask those that know about that subject [ie, the people who study it and/or are a part of it. I am almost asure you tearlach does know know abotu the Aqqedah of ibn Asakir or at-tawaiyah, or who imam ashari is, so why would one trust the quality of hiw article?

    if the topic were not locked, i would continue to revert the vandalism. Crono 00:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


    Both competing versions are unacceptably POV. McKhan claims that only traditional Muslims (as he defines it) have the right to determine wheter Habashis are Muslims or not; the poster above insists that only Habashis have a right to edit the article. Neither stance is valid from a wikipedia standpoint. Please read WP:NPOV.Timothy Usher 01:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    This is not a subject that has any point of view what so ever, we only teach one thing, and what is taught is what should put posted..what is debated is what these thinsg we teach are considered by others. Its not somehting you have to have two points of view on. There is only one answer..just like 5 x 5 is alwasys going to be 25, you don't break down this math problem into ;points of view' becasue it is known by nessecity what the answer is, it is the same with this group AICP, we only teach one thing, and what we teach is what should be written, if you want a logical stand point. Alot of the wiki NPOV guidelines are 1 sided imho. Beacsue in the end we must conform to the POV of wiki when it comes to what IS or is NOT NPOV. Crono 03:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


    Okay, so are you saying that the current article states that Habashis teach something that they don't? I'd agree with you, then, that matters of verifiable fact should be correct. What points of fact in the current article are inaccurate?Timothy Usher 04:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    Crono, It is your job to make a new version of the article. I believe it is better than reverting the current version of the article. I believe the main part of the article should be written by Ahbashi's. Are you an Ahbashi? If you are, please help us understand what Ahbashi's think. There should be a section on criticism of Ahbashi's at the end of the article. All fatwa's against Ahbashi's should be presented there. All criticisms should be briefly reflected there. Following that section there will be another section containing the Ahbashi's responses to the criticisms. All the article except one part belongs to you. We are not familiar with Ahbashi's views but if you quote from a website, we can check and confirm it. We don't need to be omniscience to be able to contribute in wikipedia. --Aminz 04:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    i didn't revert it, i made the first edit, and McKhan started to revert it, the two main points I think are incorrect is that we mis shia theology , and when i say theology i mean the core beleifs in god. And that our beleifs are sen as 'heretical'...'heretical' to whom? That line makes it sound like it is just somehtign that is factualy known, like its a fact that are beelifs are heretical, which they arn't.

    I left this debate with mckhan early on becasue it got ignorant, and there is no point in trying to argue to a birck wall, as it stands, i don't much care for the article now, as every time i do get into these situations, it is hard to leave them without makeing muslims as a whole look bad. My two main qualms abotu the article are the 'they mis shia theology with this own' and the 'beleifs seen as heretical', the reason i won't write the WHOLE article over is becasue of one time...and becasue i am not in a position to speak on behald of AICP on a major site such as this one, i am sure though there are people with more knowlage than i who are able to do so, like Advisor.Crono 01:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    So your concrete suggestions are:
    1.”It follows the teachings of Shaykh Abdallah ibn Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Hirari al-Shibi al- Abdari, also known as al-Habashi ("the Ethiopian" and cognate to Habesha), an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunni and Shi'a theology with Sufism.”
    Should be reduced to
    “It follows the teachings of Shaykh Abdallah ibn Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Hirari al-Shibi al- Abdari, also known as al-Habashi ("the Ethiopian" and cognate to Habesha).”
    2. This should be rewritten: “It is highly controversial within Islamism for its religious stance (anti-Salafi, and with Sufi and other beliefs seen as heretical) and its political alliances (pro-Syria and conciliatory toward the West).”

    Can you please rewrite this one sentence for us. Is the sect pro Syria or not?

    Are these your main concerns? --Aminz 02:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    re your sentence :"btw, shia have the same theology in most cases as muslim, but they have added MAJOR sinful beleifs" Please stop attacking others; your sentence should be written as: "btw, MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT shia have the same theology in most cases as muslim, but they have added MAJOR sinful beleifs". Thanks --Aminz 02:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


    that's not an opinion, thats a fact, read a shia book of Aqqedah....better yet, read The Aqqedah fo bin Asakir.Crono 12:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    It's your opinion that that's a fact.Timothy Usher 12:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


    No, it sin't, the shia even say what we say, though otuside the realm of aqqedah, they innovate major bidah, which makes most shia fasiq. Go ask them if you don't believe me, are you also going to say that 12x12=144 is also my opinion? Its not my opinion, becasue if you read up on the Shai aqqedah and the Sunni aqqedah, you will see too many similarities to even count, but if you look at the shariah or the fiqh or practices of the two gorups, you seee major diffrences, and these are in msot acses the only diffrences, now, IMHO the shia are the least of the muslism worries. Also, your asumeing that the information we teach is 'unknown' and thus anythign we say is our 'opinion] which is wrong, its not a mystry what we teach, and it isn't a lie, or else there would be no reason to exist (see the flaw in YOUR logic?)What we teach is as known to us as 5+5=10 is known to us, it is not a mystry or somehtign hidden, the problem is when people try to make it look 'bluury' when it isn't. Crono 21:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    Corno, as I said before, please do not personalize the discussion. I respect your personal opinions, but JUST as your personal opinions and NOTHING MORE. I don't want to correct what, according to my personal opinion, is "your misconception about shia". It is strange that on one hand you complain that Al-Ahbashi's are being falsly accused, and on the other hand you accuse Shia's. Anyway, we are here to merely discuss about the article. This is not an article on Shia beliefs. Isn't it better to answer to my above suggestions about the article rather than accusing others? thx. --Aminz 06:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


    Who made an aqusation abotu the shia? i am only telling you what they say. that's not an acusation, that is called relaying the message. i told you my qualms about the article, and you responded with questiosn, which are answered in my first post.Crono 20:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

    You didn't confirm point #1 above and didn't made any comments on point #2. --Aminz 21:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


    and i quote -- ""beleifs seen as heretical" is a point of view, ALSO you didn't specify WHO they are heretical to?..According to whom are they heretical? etc?...you cannot just say they advocate heretic beleifs without stateing according to WHOM are the beleifs heretical. The same way i cannot go to a christian article and say "these are all kafirs"..i CAN however say "according to muslims, these are kafirs" beacsue i am stateing who this point of view belongs to, simply stateing they are kafirs is a point of view with no soruce, if you DO have a soruce which supports your claime, then you say "According to *source* this group teaches heretical beleifs"

    Please follow the NPOV policy. Crono 01:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)cronodevir" Like i said, i answered this one, as for the pro syria comment, i don't have any opinion on that, and i never did. Crono 22:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

    Okay, Good. The sentence "beleifs seen as heretical" should be removed from intro BUT we will have a section at the end of the article containing all fatwa's against Al-Ahbash's. There we can be specific and go into all details. --Aminz 00:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

    Lol, a fatwa against aicp?..go ahead, i won't care. Crono 03:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

    alahbash AND mulims

    here i want to tell crono that im nt a non muslim neither a christian but a main stream sunni muslim although i dont agree with his/her premise that a christian cant understand Islam or vice versa. Still i want to say being even a sunni muslim i strongly believe that ahbash views r totally different from the muslims{both sunni n shia). i can say this thing cos nt only the table but the following links which contain main strean sunni muslims views proves this fact.http://islamicweb.com/beliefs/cult/habasi history.htm http://www.sunnah.org/fiqh/muslims_beware.htm http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544180 HTTP://WWW.ISLAMQA.COM/INDEX.PHP?CS=PRN&LN=ENG&QR=8571&DGN=4&DGN=2 By summing up the whole discussion i want to say alahbash is nt even muslim sect.||userimfatima2001|imfatima2001||

    Imfatima2001, why don't you work on a section of criticism of Ahbashi's. You can have a look at the article such as "criticism of Islam, criticism of christianity, criticism of bible" to get an idea of how this part should be written. thx. --Aminz 04:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    aminz i have already done on the pattern of that page http://en.wikipedia.org./Ahmadi%7C%7Cuserimfatima2001%7Cimfatima2001%7C%7C


    I couldn't get into your link but had a look at the table at http://en.wikipedia.org./Ahmadi if this was what you mean. We can have a table but apparently people prefer to not to use it. We are better to use a simple template (several subsections). Moreover the table should be summerized. The readers will get tired. Two or three lines for each part. --Aminz 05:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    Protestants cosnider themselves mainstrem, catholics consider themselves mainstream shai cosnider themselves main stream, eqwan cosnider themsleevs mainstream, whahabies consider themselves main stream, etc..i hope you gte my point, just becasue one says 'we are mainstream' does nto amke you ro us right, what does is the beleifs in Allah that conform to what is revealed and those that don't conform to what is revealed.

    and you as a christian most likely just went to the first website that said 'we are mainstream' or you went to the first website that was politicly correct Or you went to the first website you agreed with, its always one of the three with MOST people, do you know about ibn asakir or atahawiy? do you know the diffrence between aqqedah fiqh and tawwasul?..i didn't think so, thus it is in my humble opinion that you don't really know what your talking about, and you don't learn a whole religioun in a day, and i am sure you woudl agree that you would not follow me if i found 'proof' that christianity was wrong would you?

    People come in three catagories, The Knowlageable, the Ignorant, and the Evil.Crono 01:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    Please do not personalize the discussion. It is also better to avoid irrelevant statements. We are here to have a discussion just about the article. Your main point is that "every sect considers itself truth". 100% correct! I agree that the following sentence should be revised: "It is highly controversial within Islamism for its religious stance (anti-Salafi, and with Sufi and other beliefs seen as heretical) and its political alliances (pro-Syria and conciliatory toward the West)."
    Mentioning the sect being controversial in the INTRODUCTION is unnecessary (since all sects are controversial in a sense) BUT there should be a section titled "criticism of Al-Ahbashi's" containing all other POV's. Thanks --Aminz 02:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    New Changes

    Here is a brief summary of my suggestions:

    • Removing all anti-Al-ahbash sentences from introduction.
    • Making a new section titled "criticism of Al-Ahbash". This section will include all the fatwas against al-Ahbash and will contain a summerized version of the table(maybe not in the form of a table).
    • We will have a section titled "Ahbashi answers to the criticism" in which Ahbashi's can write their POV.

    Any feedback? --Aminz 05:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

    Please, specify all "Anti-Al-Ahbash" sentences. As I have already suggested that we can have both, table and the proposed sections of Timothy Usher. McKhan
    Well, I don't know exactly what they are. As I understood from Corno, he doesn't like "It is highly controversial within Islamism for its religious stance (anti-Salafi, and with Sufi and other beliefs seen as heretical) and its political alliances (pro-Syria and conciliatory toward the West)." ::: specially "(anti-Salafi, and with Sufi and other beliefs seen as heretical)"
    which makes sense since Al-Ahbashis don't like to be called "heretical or Islamism" i guess.
    We can however move this sentence to the criticism of Al-Ahbashi if he insists.
    I expect Corno to specify the "Anti-Al-Ahbash" sentences for us. --Aminz 06:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    I am fine with table, but it just didn't look nice to me. It was too hard for me to go through it. I think the table will look better if we summerize the table. --Aminz 06:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    Imfatima2001 is working on a summarized version of the table. McKhan
    Great! We also need references for fatwa's against Al-Ahbashi's. We need the exact information of who issued the fatwa's and when. --Aminz 06:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    Most of the FATWAs has been issued by the religiously authorotative and mainstream Muslim scholars which, of course, Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP refuse to accept. There is also a book, "Habashis: A Warning and Refutation of the Heretical Group Known as the Habashis Al-Ahbash," Translated by Abu Zakariya, which should be listed on that page. McKhan
    Yes, this is a good addition to the article. --Aminz 06:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


    The mixing of shia theology this stuff is nto taught by us, and to avoid confuseion, the line should eb removed, and 'heretical' is a POV, wether you consider it true or not is not my concern, my concern is that it isn't NPOV, and yes, we are anti-whahabi , and anti-apologist other than that nothign seems to jump out at me, i don't care if you have a critisisms section, it should go something like this in the article... First section is what is true to be known about the group and then a crtiisisms section, then a anti-critisms section. Then extra stuff.Crono 12:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

    Corno, I asked you to stop attacking others. The "the stuff about Jibril amin makeing a mistake", or "shia are using a different Qur'an" are all forgeries. See misconceptions about the Shi'a. --Aminz 23:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    I, McKhan, am NOT a Wahabi or Salafi per se. Cronodevir must stop attacking people who know the reality of Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP very well and simply trying to help Misplaced Pages to keep the integrity and credibility of its Islam-related pages under the light of its own stated Misplaced Pages guidelines (NPOV, VERIFY .etc). "Heretical" is NOT a POV but it is an established characteristic of Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP by the independent / academic sources (Please, READ: Misplaced Pages Verifiability guidelines) under the light of Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP's own teachings, religious decrees, material and strategies. Here is the pertinent section, "The Shi'a Dimension," of an independently and academically written article. That is something else that Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP are bent backward to camoflaudge their agenda and beliefs under the guise of Jamat Ahl Wa Sunna for strategic and demographic reasons to seek legitimacy and recruitment. As for as Sunni or Shia or any other Muslims are concerned, under the light of Islamic Jurisprudence and basic tenets of Islam, IF a sect / cult denies the TOTALITY of the Quran and Tawheed, that sect / cult is, automatically, out of the circle of Islam. As far as Tearlach's version is concerned, Tearlach used / wrote "seems as heretical." In other words, Tearlach still gave Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP, the benefit of the doubt. I would like to take the opportunity to point out that in the past almost 9 months of this back-and-forth, Cronodevir didn't care about Misplaced Pages NPOV guidelines and suddenly now he cannot stop quoting them. Indeed, "what goes around, comes around" and "Truth, eventually, sets everybody free." McKhan
    Thanks McKhan for the links. --Aminz 23:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

    "Seen as heretical" by whom? Crono 21:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

    By those who issued fatwa against them. --Aminz 23:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


    So becasue soem random guy who knows nothign about islam gives a 'fatwa' this automaticly makes it a FACT that our views are seen as heretical?..Well, sence i am giveing a fatwa agaisnt you now does it automaticly make it a fact that your incorrect?...Hardly, in situations like this, people need substantial evidence, and proof for that evidence, from classical scholarship, not ISNA apologists or Whahabies or anyone else but classical scholarship which NONE of the links posted by mckhan contain valid judgements agaisnt us or anythign we say. So i ask, who is it that sees our views as heretical, that it woudl merit enough to be aprt of the main description of AICP? If it were in the POV of the critics section, i wouldn't mind. Becasue heretical is a POV, "seen as heretical" = POV. Crono 14:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

    I knew it. Now, Cronodevir is "challenging" the scholarship of those academics / scholars who wrote, "A Sufi response to political islamism: Al-ahbash of Lebanon," the very same link / article which, by the way, Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP's agents maintained, so far, in their own version (s) through out their TWO (September 2005 - and - April 2006) orchestrated campaigns / attacks of complex vandalism / delibrate reverting on this page. They never liked another independently and academically written report, "Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context" as it highlighted the real strategy of Al-Ahbash / Habashies in online / offline "discussions" to seek funding, legitimacy and recruitment - and - to seek Ideological hegemony over others, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. I cannot help but to reiterate the same thing which I have reiterated several times in the past almost 9 months of this futile back-and-forth that Misplaced Pages is NOT a Muslims' or Al-Ahbash / Habashies' platform. As far as Misplaced Pages's guidelines are concerneced, Non-Muslims as well as Muslim academics / scholars have established that Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP are seen as heretical and more. Since this characteristic, Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP being seen as heretical, has been established by both, Muslims' and Non-Muslims' acedmics / scholars, it constitutes to NPOV under Misplaced Pages NPOV guideliens. Even - if one agrees with the "logic" / "definition" of Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP's agents that being "seen as heretical" is a "POV," then one must add that it is NOT merely a "POV" per se but an EXPERT / VERFIABLE "POV" which falls, yet again, under the Misplaced Pages Verifibility guidelines. Al-Ahbash / Habashies must stop "challenging" the scholarship of academics / scholars, Muslim or Non-Muslim, who don't agree with them and / or write about them academically / scholarly under the light of established, respected academic, scholarly standards / guidelines and / or Islamic Jurisprudence, the basic tenets of Islam (Tawheed .etc). And last but not the least, they must stop pushing their agenda on Misplaced Pages by twisting its guidelines (NPOV, VERIFY, Three-revert rule (3RR) .etc). I and lots of other people on Misplaced Pages are simply trying to help Misplaced Pages to keep the integrity and credibility of its Islam-related pages under the light of its own stated Misplaced Pages guidelines. Nothing more, Nothing less. McKhan


    No, that scholarship doesn't meet ISLAMIC standards on what IS cosnidered scholarship, ie they are not, by the definitions set in the Sunnah of the Propeht, scholars, they are fraudlent. Its not a challenge, it is a fact that none of the 'scholars' you quote have any ijaza whatso ever, and it is harram for a leyman to speak without knowlage, which is what your lackys in thsoe lniks have been doing, and the fact that a non-muslim is trying to qwrite an artcile on islam, is imho laughable, it boils down to those who know. And those who don't. Don't ask a Democrat about Republican agendas, you ask a Republican. Also, Heretical, the word, in itself is POV, just like 'Ugly' is point of view, and "Beautiful" is POV, all these words are inhearnitly soemones point of view, there is nothign that can be universally ugly or beautiful or heretical, if everyoen cannot agree that soemthign is X, than that means there is dissagreement, and X turns into a POV of one of the debateing parties., again, McKhan, in all your wirteing, and trying to use 'big words' you still fail.Crono 06:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


    I always find it quite ironic and sad that Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP denies the TOTALITY of the Quran and Tawheed under the light of Islamic Jurisprudence and the basic tenets of Islam - and - yet - they have got the audacity to demand "Islamic" standard of scholarship (READ: The enforcement of their agenda and beliefs.. under the light of their Shaikh's interpretation of Islamic Jurisprudence, the basic tenets of Islam .etc) and to castigate others as "laymen," "lackies," "Wahabis," "Ikhwan," "Salafis," "Kaafir," .etc. If Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP are looking for initiation / endorsement from mainstream Muslims / non-Muslims to seek their Shakikh's "Ijaza" (Permission) before they utter / write a single word about Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP - then - I am afraid, Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP will continue to wait till the doom's day. In the meantime, people will continue to follow Misplaced Pages guidlines, while at Misplaced Pages, under which "seen as hertical" is NOT a POV. McKhan
    McKhan, when you attack Habashis - i.e. nearly every post, and knowing full well Habashis are on this page with you - you are personalizing the discussion. Misplaced Pages is not the place to demonize and attack those whose religious convictions differ from your own. For the umpteenth time, please stop. Thank you.Timothy Usher 09:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    Timothy, I am not personalizing the discussion, however, Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP are. Misplaced Pages doesn't conduct new / original research. It simply wants its contributors to use the mainstream research. And for Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP, all those academics, scholars .etc are just McKhan's "lackies" and without "Ijaza" (Permission) and cosequently whatever they are writing about Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP is "Haram" and "non-Islamic." If you are here to defend / enforce / adhere to Misplaced Pages guidelines, then, I will recommend to pay attention to that aspect as well. And last but not the least, please, make sure to read both side of the story before leaving your casual comments / "advise." Thank you. McKhan
    Guys, I think McKhan at least has presented enough facts to establish that there are some views in which Habashi's are viewed as heretical. Corno's point is that this will not prove that Habashi's are really heretical. My suggested solution is this:
    1. IN THE INTRO, We can just mention that there are some fatwa's in which Habashi's are declared as heretical. This is a fact. In intro, we just report existence of views.
    2. IN THE CRITICISM OF AHBASHI'S section, we add that Ahbashi's are accused of denying the TOTALITY of the Quran, etc. I believe these claims if true are clear enough to make the Muslim readers to come into the conclusion McKhan wants. The criticism of Ahbashi's section will belong to anti-ahbashi's POV's.
    3. There will be a following section dedicated to Ahbashi's POV, to let them defend themselves.
    How is this? --Aminz 10:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    It is feasible as long as we keep the footnotes / links intact and prominent. Example: "It is highly controversial within Islamism for its religious stance (anti-Salafi, and with Sufi and other beliefs seen as heretical by some academics and scholars ) and its political alliances (pro-Syria and conciliatory toward the West)." - McKhan

    I'll get back soon (need to sleep now). --Aminz 10:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

    Categories: