Talk:Al-Ahbash/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay. So it seems like you have no specific objections to the points I've raised above in Talk:Al-Ahbash#Al-Azhar_Affiliation but you certainly would object to the removal of "a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar." Is that correct? If not, could you raise the specific objections you have? 2601:243:2200:60E:D0C9:C5D3:6655:BA57 (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I know you haven't gone through the discussions nor the archives. With reference to a detailed discussion (There are plenty more.), here is a snippet:

My point is that the article you are trying to "re-add" is using the following Al-Ahbash own sources (i.e. Manar Al-Huda, www.namradio.com) for the alleged "affiliation" with Al-Azhar, which has been denied by Al-Azhar and more than one verifiable sources :

"It has issued a monthly, Manar al Huda, since 1992, and has had its own radio station, Nida' al-Marifa,[16] since 1998. Its members are very active on the internet and have websites that spread the word of the shaykh and his polemics with their rivals.[17] In addition, the Association runs networks of kindergartens, elementary and secondary schools, and Islamic colleges affiliated with Cairo's Jami at al-Azhar.[18]

• [16]- On the radio station, see http://www.namradio.com/
• [17]- On the Ahbash usage of the Internet, see Thomas Pierret, "Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context," The International Institute for the Study of lslam in the Modern World 15 (2005): 50.
• [18]- On those activities, see, for example, Manar Al-Huda 93 (December 2000): 36-42.
• [20]- http://www.aicp.de and www.islami.de/

One can CLEARLY see that it is the Al-Ahbash who keep on insisting that they have got "affiliation" and "agreement" with Al-Azhar (Why? Because claiming so gives them the false legitimacy and clout of having "affiliation" or "agreement" with Al-Azhar and that's what the Al-Ahbash and AICP want and propagate through their web-sites including alsunna.org, alhabashi.info and more) despite the fact that Al-Azhar denies that (See above). In other words, they are misusing Al-Azhar's as a Marketing tool to buy legitimacy and clout.

Why should we trust Manar Al-Huda (An Al-Ahbash's own monthly magazine) and not the other sources by other organizations (i.e. Al-Azhar by itself)?"

And here

The common sense and logic dictates that if one entity has got any sort of relationship with the other entity then the former entity will not issue any negative statement (i.e. Fatwas, kick out one's adherents out of their compound / campus .etc) against the latter entity. Hence the following questions:

• Why would a rector of Al-Azhar (in September 2016) support a Fatwa which goes against the Habashis?
• Why would Al-Azhar let Egyptian authorities arrest the Al-Ahbash men if they had "affiliation" with the Al-Ahbash and they agreed to the preachings of Al-Ahbash?
• Why would Egypt's mufti Ali Gomaa (also from Al-Azhar) issue a Fatwa against the Al-Ahbash in which he "described the group as "deviant" and said it sought to "corrupt the Muslim creed and incite sedition amongst the Muslim Ummah. Moreover, they are paid agents to the enemies of Islam."?

By misinterpreting the Wikipedia guidelines to fit to your own agenda and throwing verifiable sources out is not going to help. I would like to reiterate that you are here to get rid of that sentence altogether from the article just like quite a few sock-puppets came before you, some with IDs and some with rotating IPs. Why? Because it hurts the marketing of the Al-Ahbash on the Internet. If you will keep on asking the same questions then I will keep on copying and pasting the same answer.

 McKhan  ^(talk)

"Why should we trust Manar Al-Huda (An Al-Ahbash's own monthly magazine) and not the other sources by other organizations (i.e. Al-Azhar by itself)?" We're not trusting Manar-Al Huda; we're trusting an article in the International Journal of Middle East Studies which uses Manar Al-Huda as an example to explain an assertion. It literally states "...see, for example..." We would be able to use the assertion in the International Journal of Middle East Studies even if it did not provide a source for the assertion because the article itself meets the requirements of WP:RS.

The other three questions you've posed would be quite important if we were attempting to ascertain the truth of this matter. But you might recall that Wikipedia does not concern itself with the truth -- it concerns itself with what is verifiable per WP:V. We have one very reliable source that asserts the schools are affiliated with Al-Azhar. We have zero reliable sources that assert that the schools are not. Can you provide any?

The problem is not that I am "misinterpreting the Wikipedia guidelines to fit [my] own agenda." The problem is that you do not seem to understand Wikipedia policies. 2601:243:2200:60E:393E:CD8B:E48A:7E4D (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

And last but not least, what you also need to understand is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a party between the Al-Ahbash and other (i.e. Wahabis, Salafis) nor it is a promotional blog belonging to the Al-Ahbash where they can publish whatever they deem suitable or appropriate about themselves and/or their scholar Abdullah_al-Harari. What is needed here the most that the people like you to stop pushing their agenda (i.e. POV) on Al-Ahbash and other Al-Ahbash related pages using various IDs and rotating IP addresses. Thank you."  McKhan  ^(talk) 21:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't need to read the same post you made yesterday once again. As I said, please stop copying and pasting. Doing so doesn't advance the conversation in any meaningful way. I'm going to be requesting comment soon on the specific sourcing issues that I identified above. Would you like to address the issues with any of those five sources before I do so? I'm happy to include your assessments of each source so that outside editors understand both perspectives. 2601:243:2200:60E:393E:CD8B:E48A:7E4D (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Given your old edit history,

Re: 2601:243:903:3F5B:1000:4DF4:BABA:DE06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After years of discussions, sock-puppeting and within less than a month after closing the RfC, above IPv6 user (using the range so far: 2601:243:903:3F5B:1000:4DF4:BABA:DE06 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), 2601:243:903:3F5B:1D28:70B2:3ED9:B79E (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), 2601:243:903:3F5B:C40C:2837:ED73:51F5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)), who seems to be an experienced and old Wikipedia user, suddenly shows up and starts editing Al-Ahbash corroborating with the user who started the RfC over the very same sentence but with a new twist that now the sentence should be moved from the lead to somewhere else. Please, feel welcome to review the matter at your convenience. Thank you.  McKhan  ^(talk) 06:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

(You achieved your goal of moving the sentence, "The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar, a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar.," from the lead to the "Controversy" section soon after the RfC closed and now you are back to remove the sentence altogether and want to add "The Al-Ahbash have been criticized for fringe views and for violence, claims that the Al-Ahbash have denied." in the lead section to give the Al-Ahbash brownie points to celebrate.)

,recent edit history (2601:243:2200:60E:D0C9:C5D3:6655:BA57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 2601:243:2200:60E:393E:CD8B:E48A:7E4D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) You quickly removed the very same sentence from Abdullah_al-Harari as soon as you started editing.),

constant sock-puppeteering with various IDs and rotating IPs, perpetual cherry-picking from this source as well as other sources, twisting / misinterpreting the Wikipedia guidelines and ignoring the context and previous discussions, I don't consider your "arguments" honest, neutral and without any agenda. The truth of the matter is that you seem to have no regard whatsoever for Wikipedia guidelines or policies as you have demonstrated above that you consider Wikipedia guidelines just a tool which one can manipulate, twist and/or misinterpret arbitrarily to fit to his/her own agenda. It seems that you have done your "homework" of canvassing and fully prepared. This will not be the first nor the last time that the Al-Ahbash are trying to have their way on Wikipedia as they like to play the game of moving the goal post. The Al-Ahbash will not sit idle till they don't make this article and other Al-Ahbash articles fit to their marketing agenda. I will let the editors and admins see through it..  McKhan  ^(talk) 05:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

You may take your accusations to WP:SPI if you legitimately believe that sockpuppetry is occurring. I'll give you a few days to think about whether you'd like to address the issues raised in Talk:Al-Ahbash#Al-Azhar_Affiliation before I seek additional editors to review the sources. 2601:243:2200:60E:4555:795D:C8F5:5DEE (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

These are not mere accusations but there is a long and proven record behind that. The fact remains that I haven't seen a source yet, provided by the AICP / Al-Ahbash / ICPA / Habashis, that explicitly and unequivocally substantiates their alleged "affiliation" with Al-Azhar without, directly or indirectly, quoting, referring or using their own sources / material / literature including Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam, Mustafa Kabha; Haggai Erlich (November 2006) which refers to Al-Ahbash's own monthly magazine, Manar Al-Huda 93 (December 2000): 36-42, radio station Nida' al-Marifa, www.aicp.de, www.islami.de and their other sources, material and web-sites. hence, given Al-Ahbash is an Islamic sect, Reuters or Al-Arabiya, Dr. Ahmed Omar Hashem, "President of Al-Azhar's letter/statement/fatwa issued on the official letterhead of Al-Azhar in Arabic, this is the same gentleman to whom the Al-Ahbash claim to have had their alleged "affiliation agreement" signed with.", Liz Fuller (September 14, 2016). "Analysis: Grozny Fatwa On 'True Believers' Triggers Major Controversy". Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty/RFE/RL, Inc. quoting yet another Al-Azhar official, Ahmed El-Tayeb, rector of Cairo's Al-Azhar Islamic University, supporting a fatwa or a ruling on a point of Islamic law given by a recognized authority against the Habashis and others as well as "Exposing Abd Allah al-Harari and his sect the Ahbash of Lebanon ("Association of Islamic Charitable Projects")," a detailed paper highlighting the differences between mainstream Muslims (to whom the Al-Ahbash excommunicate and thereby doesn't see as an equal or their views/fatwas/statements/books/material etc. worthy under the teachings of their scholar, Abdullah_al-Harari, and yet have got the audacity and chutzpah to use their institutions Al-Azhar and the banner of "Jamat Ahal Wa Sunnah" to buy clout, legitimacy, financial assistance, marketing, run their schools, colleges and to retain current and recruit more adherents. See or read: Pierret, Thomas. Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context [1], ISIM Review, The Netherlands: International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World, 2005, to have a glimpse of how the Al-Ahbash use the internet for their propaganda purposes.) and the Al-Ahbash using various 'Fatwas' including, once again, Al-Azhar President Dr. Ahmad ʿUmar Hashim’s 2001 fatwa against the Ahbash, issued by "Markaz al-Nasr li Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaah", Jakarta, Indonesia, and published by "As-Sunnah Foundation of America" and "About the Abyssinians sect", a 'Fatwa' or a ruling on a point of Islamic law given by a recognized authority, issued by Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America (AMJA), consisting of many Ph.Ds. trained at reputable academic institutions including Al-Azhar, once again quoting the above-mentioned Professor Dr. Ahmad Omar Hashim`s letter, Al-Azhar University President, to Muslim World League`s Secretary-General in 2001, along with other sources and fatwas or rulings, to provide a proper context and neutral (i.e. Al-Ahbash's claim and Al-Azhar's Dr. Omar Hashim's own and other Al-Azhar's officials' stance about that claim) equilibrium to the sentence, "The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar, a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar."  McKhan  ^(talk) 22:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

You're citing the same sources I've assessed above without responding to my concerns about why they're problematic under Wikipedia policy. I'm not sure why you're doing that. 2601:243:2200:60E:4555:795D:C8F5:5DEE (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Original Research Concerns

@McKhan: You've personalized the above discussions and have not responded to the substantive issues brought up with the sources in Talk:Al-Ahbash/Archive_10#Al-Azhar_Affiliation. Is it still your position that the AICP schools are not affiliated with Al-Azhar and that this article needs to reflect that point of view? Snuish2 (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Snuish2:Thank you for your comment/question.

I regret that you feel that I have personalized the discussion(s) but that isn't the case at all.

I have further noticed that you came straight to that very sentence (Just to be clear, I wasn't the one who added that sentence as a whole, from the get go.), first you tagged it, and then removed the sources arbitrarily without even discussing them on the talk page, although, you have been advised against doing it. I don't see that you have ever edited Al-Ahbash page before. At least, I haven't seen it as per your recent edit history which starts from November 2020 under your new ID.

At the same time, thank you for not removing "The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar, a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar." along with the two sources as it, at least, still provides some equilibrium to the claim and vice versa.

(Al-Ahbash and their proponents have been after this sentence for a long time (read years) as they want to remove the second part, "...a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar.," and simply keep the first part, as the ultimate goal of the the Al-Ahbash is to somehow corroborate the statement printed in their books used in their The Islamic Education School (TIES), elementary schools, established by the Association of Charitable Projects (AICP) which uses other names, all fronts of the Al-Ahbash, and other material to "prove" that there is an "affiliation" between Al-Azhar and Al-Ahbash hence the neutral statement (i.e. "The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar, a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar.") in the Al-Ahbash article.)

Having said that I would like to invite you to read beyond the scope of what has been said under Talk:Al-Ahbash/Archive_10#Al-Azhar_Affiliation and my detailed response as well as the previous discussions thoroughly. For example (excerpts from the above) :

"With reference to a detailed discussion (There are plenty more.), here is a snippet:

My point is that the article you are trying to "re-add" is using the following Al-Ahbash own sources (i.e. Manar Al-Huda, www.namradio.com) for the alleged "affiliation" with Al-Azhar, which has been denied by Al-Azhar and more than one verifiable sources :

"It has issued a monthly, Manar al Huda, since 1992, and has had its own radio station, Nida' al-Marifa,[16] since 1998. Its members are very active on the internet and have websites that spread the word of the shaykh and his polemics with their rivals.[17] In addition, the Association runs networks of kindergartens, elementary and secondary schools, and Islamic colleges affiliated with Cairo's Jami at al-Azhar.[18]

• [16]- On the radio station, see http://www.namradio.com/
• [17]- On the Ahbash usage of the Internet, see Thomas Pierret, "Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context," The International Institute for the Study of lslam in the Modern World 15 (2005): 50.
• [18]- On those activities, see, for example, Manar Al-Huda 93 (December 2000): 36-42.
• [20]- http://www.aicp.de and www.islami.de/

One can CLEARLY see that it is the Al-Ahbash who keep on insisting that they have got "affiliation" and "agreement" with Al-Azhar (Why? Because claiming so gives them the false legitimacy and clout of having "affiliation" or "agreement" with Al-Azhar and that's what the Al-Ahbash and AICP want and propagate through their web-sites including alsunna.org, alhabashi.info and more) despite the fact that Al-Azhar denies that (See above). In other words, they are misusing Al-Azhar's as a Marketing tool to buy legitimacy and clout.

Why should we trust Manar Al-Huda (An Al-Ahbash's own monthly magazine) and not the other sources by other organizations (i.e. Al-Azhar by itself)?"

And here

The common sense and logic dictates that if one entity has got any sort of relationship with the other entity then the former entity will not issue any negative statement (i.e. Fatwas, kick out one's adherents out of their compound / campus .etc) against the latter entity. Hence the following questions:

• Why would a rector of Al-Azhar (in September 2016) support a Fatwa which goes against the Habashis?
• Why would Al-Azhar let Egyptian authorities arrest the Al-Ahbash men if they had "affiliation" with the Al-Ahbash and they agreed to the preachings of Al-Ahbash?
• Why would Egypt's mufti Ali Gomaa (also from Al-Azhar) issue a Fatwa against the Al-Ahbash in which he "described the group as "deviant" and said it sought to "corrupt the Muslim creed and incite sedition amongst the Muslim Ummah. Moreover, they are paid agents to the enemies of Islam."?

By misinterpreting the Wikipedia guidelines to fit to your own agenda and throwing verifiable sources out is not going to help. I would like to reiterate that you are here to get rid of that sentence altogether from the article just like quite a few sock-puppets came before you, some with IDs and some with rotating IPs. Why? Because it hurts the marketing of the Al-Ahbash on the Internet. If you will keep on asking the same questions then I will keep on copying and pasting the same answer."

Please appreciate the fact that the topic of Al-Ahbash is very much contentious and controversial and the keep coming back to Al-Ahbash related pages on Wikipedia using constant sock-puppeteering with various IDs and rotating IPs, perpetual cherry-picking from sources, twisting / misinterpreting the Wikipedia guidelines and ignoring the context and previous discussions year after years. In respect to this matter, it is NOT about respect for Al-Azhar or academic integrity, original research, sources, Wikipedia, its guidelines or anything else. It is basically all about marketing hence they keep on coming back. Thank you.  McKhan  ^(talk) 22:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

You say that I removed the sources arbitrarily. Are you arguing that the WP:RS policy is arbitrary or that the sources I removed are in fact compliant with WP:RS? Snuish2 (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Relax. Let's not be confrontational here nor make it a personal tug of war. I have been very polite in my response. I even thanked you for keeping the sentence along with the two sources as it, at least, still provides some equilibrium to the claim and vice versa. You will appreciate the fact that there are other editors too who can read, write and/or aware and know how to interpret WP:RS and other Wikipedia guidelines. I am not arguing anything. I am just wondering about the fact that you came straight to that very sentence, first you tagged it, and then removed the sources arbitrarily without even discussing them on the talk page, although, you have been advised against doing that. The least, as a courtesy and respect to your fellow editors, you could have done is to discuss the sources and go through the extensive discussions which has taken place over the years on the talk pages prior to making any changes to the Al-Ahbash directly given the topic of Al-Ahbash is very much contentious and controversial. That's all. It's okay. Thank you.  McKhan  ^(talk) 23:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I am simply trying to clarify what you are saying. The issues with those sources were pointed out four months ago in Talk:Al-Ahbash/Archive_10#Al-Azhar_Affiliation. You chose not to respond to the specific issues raised during the intervening period. I don't agree at all that I acted in haste, as you seem to be implying. Do you object to the removal of those sources? If so, perhaps we can invite more editors to provide their opinion on whether the sources meet WP:RS criteria. If not, I'd like to continue discussing the remaining two sources. Your comments presume that I haven't read the prior discussions. I have and I'm not convinced that any reliable sources actually contradict the content in "Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam", International Journal of Middle East Studies. Snuish2 (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Section on Germany - Original Research?

The section on Germany, which is under "Controversy" states the following: "In 2008, several Berlin based Muslim organizations were not granted municipal permits to build mosques, however, Al-Ahbash (AICP) was granted a permit stipulating that proposed building of the mosque's architectural structure keeping the 19th century structural of the neighboring houses." The source (pg 141), however, doesn't describe this as controversial. It merely describes that several mosques were denied permits and the only one that had been granted a permit "so far" was an AICP mosque. Snuish2 (talk) 06:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Berlin based Muslim organizations not getting the municipal permits to build their mosques and yet Al-Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' mosque getting the permit seem quite controversial.  McKhan  ^(talk) 11:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, but according to whom is it controversial? Snuish2 (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

And why and how giving preferential treatment to the Al-Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' mosque over several Berlin based Muslim organizations by denying them permits to build their mosques is not controversial?  McKhan  ^(talk) 17:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any indication that there was preferential treatment here? The source does not indicate that. It only indicates that the AICP mosque was the first to get a permit. That could have happened by chance, for all we know. Snuish2 (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The "indication" of preferential treatment is right there, "..several Berlin based Muslim organizations were not granted municipal permits to build mosques, however, Al-Ahbash (AICP) was granted a permit..." If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.  McKhan  ^(talk) 17:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

"Probably is a duck": You're making an inference if you need to use "probably." There's no indication of preferential treatment nor any indication of controversy over the fact that the Al-Ahbash mosque was the first to get a permit. Snuish2 (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It is called Duck Test. Al-Ahbash got their license but several Berlin based Muslim organizations were denied. Had the German authorities would have treated all the parties equally and given the license to all the Berlin based Muslim organizations including Al-Ahbash then one can say that there wasn't preferential treatment or controversy. Since it didn't happen as per the source, it is preferential treatment and thereby controversial. In any case, there is no "original research" here. Quit pushing your agenda.  McKhan  ^(talk) 17:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Going forward, I'm asking you to edit civilly per WP:CIVIL on this talk page. If you can't, perhaps you need to walk back from the discussion. You've cast plenty of unjustified aspersions above (see WP:ASPERSION) regarding sockpuppetry. Either take your accusations to the appropriate forum or I may open up a discussion at WP:AN/I regarding your behavior.
The source doesn't make any indication of preferential treatment or controversy. The mosque could have been the only mosque to meet whatever permitting requirements were in place. Snuish2 (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Your edit history speaks for itself. I have provided ample evidence and when the time will come, I will pursue it further. Till then, I would advise you to stop throwing at me your interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. The bottom line is that there is no "original research" here.  McKhan  ^(talk) 18:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I've requested a third opinion at WP:3O. Snuish2 (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Al-Ahbash/Archive 11 and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." This is a close call, but my opinion is that it is, in fact, prohibited original research to put the quoted material in a controversy section. When one goes back to the original source for the material, the granting of the permit to the one organization to which it was granted is not reported in that source as being controversial. The denial of permits to other organizations is clearly implied to be controversial, but the granting of the one permit is just reported as a fact with no stated suggestion or implication that they were receiving favoritism. The other organization mentioned was denied a permit (or, to be perfectly clear, was issued a permit only to have it withdrawn) on the basis of rumors that it was associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. That's clearly controversial. One can, I suppose, attempt to make the one permit that was granted controversial only by comparison of the fact that it was granted to the fact that the other one was not, but I think that stretches the source material beyond what it actually says. And that stretching is original research.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 19:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@TransporterMan:, Thank you for your 3rd opinion. I am just curious that where did you get this from:

"The other organization mentioned was denied a permit (or, to be perfectly clear, was issued a permit only to have it withdrawn) on the basis of rumors that it was associated with the Muslim Brotherhood."

What I have seen/read that the source (Excerpt: "In 2008, several Berlin based Muslim organizations were not granted municipal permits to build mosques, however, Al-Ahbash (AICP) was granted a permit stipulating that proposed building of the mosque's architectural structure keeping the 19th century structural of the neighboring houses.") is referring to permits being denied to several Berlin based Muslims organizations to build their mosques and yet granting a permit to the AICP to build its mosque in Berlin, Germany.

Am I missing something here? Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.  McKhan  ^(talk) 19:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

TransporterMan, thanks so much for your third opinion. McKhan, the remark regarding the Muslim Brotherhood is from pg. 141: "Mosque building projects initiated by the Islamic Federation of Berlin were turned down and the preliminary building permission, which had already been granted to the association Inssan was withdrawn on the basis of rumors that the association was linked to the Muslim Brotherhood."
McKhan, TransporterMan agreed that this section was "prohibited original research," that it was "not reported in that source as being controversial," and that there is no indication that the Al-Ahbash mosque was receiving favoritism. Do you still have any objections to the removal of this section? Snuish2 (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The source is not original research by itself. What TransporterMan said that stretching is original research and it is a close call. I respect his opinion. But the fact remains that several Berlin based Muslim organizations were denied the permits and yet AICP was given the permit. It is favoritism / preferential treatment. Denying several Muslim organizations the permits, using one association as an excuse that got its permit withdrawn on the basis of rumors linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, is controversial by itself. I presume that's why it was added by the person to that section who added it under Controversy. I think the wording can be improved and more context can be added to it but removing it altogether is not rational nor fair. Thank you.  McKhan  ^(talk) 20:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

My issue is that you lack any support from reliable sources for your assertion that "It is favoritism / preferential treatment." What context do you think the article needs? Snuish2 (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I just found and read the complete pages (Page 138 to 142) of the source which provided more context. I am sorry but previously I was only able to see the snippets. It seems to be more of a general German attitude towards the foreigners (in this case Muslims) that played a role in denying the permits to several Berlin-based Muslim organizations. So, you can remove the section if you want. Thank you.  McKhan  ^(talk) 22:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I have added more context under "Germany" as per the information I got from the complete pages (Page 138-142) of the source. Please have a look. Thank you.  McKhan  ^(talk) 21:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I am looking to see if I can find any sources that describe this incident as controversial or indicate that the AICP mosque received some sort of favoritism. I haven't been able to find any sources yet but will keep looking over the next few days. Snuish2 (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Here we go again...

Given that you keep on avoiding to answer my concern that why and how you came straight to that very sentence, first you tagged it, and then removed the sources arbitrarily without even discussing them on the talk page, although, you have been advised and now trying to "discuss" the whole matter all over again using the very same tone and "arguments", I am not convinced that your edits are in good faith or without agenda going forward. The truth of the matter is that you are picking up from the very same place where the person with rotating IPs (using the range: 2601:243:903:3F5B:1000:4DF4:BABA:DE06 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), 2601:243:903:3F5B:1D28:70B2:3ED9:B79E (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), 2601:243:903:3F5B:C40C:2837:ED73:51F5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) left. Your Snuish2 ID has been making edits since November 2020 and that's about the time when 2601:243:2200:60E:4555:795D:C8F5:5DEE left his last comment on this page, 4 months ago.

Having said that I have already clarified about "Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam", International Journal of Middle East Studies (which is using the following Al-Ahbash own sources in the footnotes: [18]- On those activities, see, for example, Manar Al-Huda 93 (December 2000): 36-42. and [20]- http://www.aicp.de and www.islami.de/) and other sources out there that

"The fact remains that I haven't seen a source for the alleged "affiliation" with Al-Azhar), yet, provided by the AICP / Al-Ahbash / ICPA / Habashis, that explicitly and unequivocally substantiates their alleged "affiliation" with Al-Azhar without, directly or indirectly, quoting, referring or using their own sources / material / literature including Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam, Mustafa Kabha; Haggai Erlich (November 2006) which refers to Al-Ahbash's own monthly magazine, Manar Al-Huda 93 (December 2000): 36-42, radio station Nida' al-Marifa, www.aicp.de, www.islami.de and their other sources, material and web-sites. hence, given Al-Ahbash is an Islamic sect, Reuters or Al-Arabiya, Dr. Ahmed Omar Hashem, "President of Al-Azhar's letter/statement/fatwa issued on the official letterhead of Al-Azhar in Arabic, this is the same gentleman to whom the Al-Ahbash claim to have had their alleged "affiliation agreement" signed with.", Liz Fuller (September 14, 2016). "Analysis: Grozny Fatwa On 'True Believers' Triggers Major Controversy". Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty/RFE/RL, Inc. quoting yet another Al-Azhar official, Ahmed El-Tayeb, rector of Cairo's Al-Azhar Islamic University, supporting a fatwa or a ruling on a point of Islamic law given by a recognized authority against the Habashis and others as well as "Exposing Abd Allah al-Harari and his sect the Ahbash of Lebanon ("Association of Islamic Charitable Projects")," a detailed paper highlighting the differences between mainstream Muslims (to whom the Al-Ahbash excommunicate and thereby doesn't see as an equal or their views/fatwas/statements/books/material etc. worthy under the teachings of their scholar, Abdullah_al-Harari, and yet have got the audacity and chutzpah to use their institutions Al-Azhar and the banner of "Jamat Ahal Wa Sunnah" to buy clout, legitimacy, financial assistance, marketing, run their schools, colleges and to retain current and recruit more adherents. See or read: Pierret, Thomas. Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context [2], ISIM Review, The Netherlands: International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World, 2005, to have a glimpse of how the Al-Ahbash use the internet for their propaganda purposes.) and the Al-Ahbash using various 'Fatwas' including, once again, Al-Azhar President Dr. Ahmad ʿUmar Hashim’s 2001 fatwa against the Ahbash, issued by "Markaz al-Nasr li Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaah", Jakarta, Indonesia, and published by "As-Sunnah Foundation of America" and "About the Abyssinians sect", a 'Fatwa' or a ruling on a point of Islamic law given by a recognized authority, issued by Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America (AMJA), consisting of many Ph.Ds. trained at reputable academic institutions including Al-Azhar, once again quoting the above-mentioned Professor Dr. Ahmad Omar Hashim`s letter, Al-Azhar University President, to Muslim World League`s Secretary-General in 2001, along with other sources and fatwas or rulings, to provide a proper context and neutral (i.e. Al-Ahbash's claim and Al-Azhar's Dr. Omar Hashim's own and other Al-Azhar's officials' stance about that claim) equilibrium to the sentence, "The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar, a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar.""

You, very strategically (because the goal is here to keep "The AICP runs its Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar." by hook or by crook and remove anything else), the other sources using the "stick" of WP:RS as it doesn't align with your agenda and now you are trying to tell me that that Reuters, Al-Arabiya, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty also doesn't fall under WP:RS.

The truth of the matter is that the current version of the Al-Ahbash page is a huge compromise (i.e. RfC about Al-Ahbash and Al-Azhar) despite all the attempts made by the Al-Ahbash to push their POV on Al-Ahbash for almost 2 decades by hook or by crook. Bending Wikipedia guidelines is not going to help. The way you are talking and keep on referring to bringing other editors and twisting the other Wikipedia guidelines, it seems that you have done your "homework" of canvassing and fully prepared. This will not be the first nor the last time that the Al-Ahbash are trying to have their way on Wikipedia. I will let the editors (i.e. @Softlavender:, @MezzoMezzo:) and admins (i.e. @EdJohnston:) see through it. Thank you.  McKhan  ^(talk) 00:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

You are, once again, personalizing the discussion. I've not at all said that Reuters, etc., are unreliable, and you're very clearly misrepresenting my position here. The two remaining sources, which I grant are reliable, do not support the proposition for which they are cited. Snuish2 (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The sources you removed have already been discussed over and over again and even gone through an RfC (See RfC about Al-Ahbash and Al-Azhar). Thus, I will be reinstating them.

If Al-Ahbash's own magazine and material, "[18]- On those activities, see, for example, Manar Al-Huda 93 (December 2000): 36-42. and [20]- http://www.aicp.de and www.islami.de/," in the footnotes of Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam, Mustafa Kabha; Haggai Erlich (November 2006) can be kosher enough to disregard WP:RS to justify the "The AICP runs its Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar." then why the sources (i.e. Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America (AMJA) (April 19, 2013)."About the Abyssinians sect", "Exposing Abd Allah al-Harari and his sect the Ahbash of Lebanon ("Association of Islamic Charitable Projects") by Markaz al-Nasr li Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaah, Jakarta, Indonesia / As-Sunnah Foundation of America, pages=23, 24) you removed are not good enough, along with the Reuters, Al-Arabiya, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, to corroborate with "..a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar."" especially when they have already gone through an RfC about Al-Ahbash and Al-Azhar. Are you telling me that whatever Al-Ahbash / AICP / Habashies, etc. say or post about them on their websites or publish in their material should be taken as verifiable WP:RS and what other are saying about them should be disregarded and considered "self-published sources and primary sources not meeting WP:RS criteria" as per your interpretation? If the Al-Ahbash claim to be part of "Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah" then why are they not respecting Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America (AMJA) and As-Sunnah Foundation of America? This is what we call a blatant POV pushing and twisting the Wikipedia guidelines to fit to one's agenda.  McKhan  ^(talk) 02:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging in the substance of this discussion. You are, of course, welcome to restore the sources. I will not revert your edit if you restore them but will solicit more input from other editors on their reliability. In regards to the claim about affiliation with Al-Azhar coming from the "Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam", International Journal of Middle East Studies, the article is peer-reviewed and uses "Manar Al-Huda" merely as an illustration to support the proposition. That's why the citation states "...see, for example..." We could cite the article from International Journal of Middle East Studies even if the article itself cited nothing to support the claim. In summary, we're not relying on Manar Al-Huda magazine; we're relying on a peer-reviewed journal article, the editors of which have assessed the veracity of this issue. Snuish2 (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I would like to take the liberty to reiterate the fact that I have seen no source for the Al-Ahbash's alleged "affiliation" with Al-Azhar, yet, provided by the AICP / Al-Ahbash / ICPA / Habashis, that explicitly and unequivocally substantiates their alleged "affiliation" with Al-Azhar without, directly or indirectly, quoting, referring or using their own sources / material / literature. The sources (i.e. Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America (AMJA) (April 19, 2013)."About the Abyssinians sect", "Exposing Abd Allah al-Harari and his sect the Ahbash of Lebanon ("Association of Islamic Charitable Projects") by Markaz al-Nasr li Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaah, Jakarta, Indonesia / As-Sunnah Foundation of America, pages=23, 24), which were removed, provide the context. I, along with other editors, already know full-well why this peer-reviewed journal article, which also uses Al-Ahbash's own sources (i.e. "[18]- On those activities, see, for example, Manar Al-Huda 93 (December 2000): 36-42. and [20]- http://www.aicp.de and www.islami.de/,") in the footnotes, has been cherry-picked over and over again by the Al-Ahbash and their proponents for their alleged affiliation with Al-Azhar hence we went through an RfC. Thank you.  McKhan  ^(talk) 03:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

That requirement that you are imposing, a secondary source that does not refer to Al-Ahbash's materials, is not found in Wikipedia policies. It would mean that secondary sources cannot refer to primary sources. It does not matter what "Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam" in International Journal of Middle East Studies cites to. We can use it because it is a peer-reviewed journal article. Snuish2 (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Given that you still haven't explained that how and why you came straight to that very sentence, tagged it, removed the sources arbitrarily, knowingly full-well that there has been an RfC over it and it has been discussed over and over again, and exactly picked up from where 2601:243:2200:60E:4555:795D:C8F5:5DEE left, 4 months ago, what you are imposing is a tantamount to pushing a POV with a blatant agenda with utmost disregard to other editors as well as twisting the WP:RS using "we" speech on a very contentious and controversial topic.  McKhan  ^(talk) 05:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Why do you believe you are owed an explanation? Are you suggesting that I am violating any policies? I am aware of the RfC and will request broader community input before making any substantial changes to that portion of the article. Snuish2 (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Why do you believe that the Wikipedia should serve as marketing flyer for the Al-Ahbash? It is the way you showed up and went straight to that very sentence, your edits, tone, pattern, arguments and verbiage on the Al-Ahbash and on this talk page give away that you are very much laser-focused to get rid of that sentence altogether from the article just like quite a few sock-puppets came before you, some with IDs and some with rotating IPs. Why? Because it hurts the marketing of the Al-Ahbash on the Internet. I will let the other editors (i.e. @Softlavender:, @MezzoMezzo:) and admins (i.e. @EdJohnston:) see through it.  McKhan  ^(talk) 05:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not believe at all that articles should serve any marketing purposes for their subjects. But you are absolutely right that I have an agenda: the agenda is to have Wikipedia articles accurately reflect what reliable sources say about the articles' subjects. If you need any assistance with suspected sockpuppetry, you can get help at WP:SPI. Otherwise, I'd prefer to focus on the content of the article. Snuish2 (talk) 05:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

With reference to this, this and this, I have no doubt on my mind that the individual with rotating IPs is you hence you came straight to that very sentence, tagged it and removed the sources arbitrarily.

Very clever.

• First, you showed up as soon as the RfC closed after years of discussions and sock-puppeteering.

• Then you moved the sentence from lead to Controversy.

• Then you removed it from Abdullah_al-Harari.

• Now you are back with an ID (You waited that long to build some trust on Wikipedia.) to get the second part of the sentence, "...a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar." removed and simply keep ""The AICP run its Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar." as this is the statement printed in Al-Ahbash's books used in their The Islamic Education School (TIES), elementary schools, established by the Association of Charitable Projects (AICP) which uses other names, all fronts of the Al-Ahbash, and other material to "prove" that there is an "affiliation" between Al-Azhar and Al-Ahbash by twisting the Wikipedia guidelines and claiming that you are an "honest broker" and simply here "..to have Wikipedia articles accurately reflect what reliable sources say about the articles' subjects."

Really?

No, you are not here for that.

You are here with the same agenda (i.e. sanitizing the Al-Ahbash, using Wikipedia as a marketing flyer for the Al-Ahbash) which has perpetually and aggressively been pursued and pushed for decades now by a quite a few sock-puppets, some with IDs and some with rotating IPs. I hope that the other editors (i.e. @Softlavender:, @MezzoMezzo:) and admins (i.e. @EdJohnston:) see through it.  McKhan  ^(talk) 11:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that this is a part of a devious plot by the Al-Ahbash. If true, isn't that something you should take to the appropriate venue, such as WP:SPI? Snuish2 (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I have provided more context and updated the wording under the light of WP:RS sources, old ones and the new one. Please have a look. Thank you.  McKhan  ^(talk) 21:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we can rely on From Madness to Eternity: Psychiatry and Sufi Healing in the Postmodern World because it states "The Naqshbandi-Haqqani website sunnah.org quotes what it claims are fatwās against the Ahbash..." The book doesn't evaluate the claim by sunnah.org and assert the existence of the fatwas as a matter of fact, but merely describes them as a "claim" by sunnah.org. In other words, the book itself is a reliable source but it's describing a claim from another source that we can't use under WP:RS.
I propose that we change the sentence to this:

The AICP runs a network of Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar University although clerics from the latter institution have described the Al-Ahbash movement as unorthodox and members of the movement have not been permitted to promote their views on the campus of Al-Azhar.

References

This would eliminate all primary sources and sources that do not meet WP:RS from the text. This would also eliminate POV that we introduce by saying that the AICP "claims" to run schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar when the article in the International Journal of Middle East Studies stated it as a matter of fact, and we have no reliable sources to dispute the affiliation. What are your thoughts? Snuish2 (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to work with me here.

I am not the one who added that sentence in the first place. I even removed it but the Ahbash added it back and then several years of back and forth.

It is worth noting that Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam by Mustafa Kabha (Open University of Israel) and Haggai Erlich (Tel Aviv University) was published in November 2006, 5 years after the official statement issued (August 2001) by Ahmad Omer Hashem (also spelled as Ahmed Umar Hashim), then President of Al-Azhar.

Following is the translation from Arabic to English of Ahmed Umar Hashim's official statement against the Al-Ahbash/AICP:

• "When I visited Lebanon 2 years ago, I was presented with some papers to me and a lot of pressure had been exerted on me to sign them. However, I have learned from the Egyptian Ambassador and from other sources that this organization is not credible, and their Islamic mindset is unhealthy. Thus, we have broken off contact with them and we have withdrawn / canceled everything they had demanded of us. There is no longer any relationship between them and us. There is no single form of recognition / accreditation and cooperation between Al-Azhar University and them. All papers, in which what is otherwise claimed (by this organization) do not correspond to the truth.

• "We reject all attempts to abuse the name of the prestigious Al-Azhar University by this organizations or associations, which do not fully commit nor follow the Quran and Sunnah."

Liz Fuller (September 14, 2016). "Analysis: Grozny Fatwa On 'True Believers' Triggers Major Controversy". Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty/RFE/RL, Inc. quotes yet another Al-Azhar President, Ahmed El-Tayeb supporting a Fatwa against the Ahbash and other.

Reuters or Al-Arabiya refers to the Ali Goma's fatwa against the Ahbash, former scholar who studied at Al-Azhar and Grand Mufti of Egypt.

And the book, From Madness to Eternity: Psychiatry and Sufi Healing in the Postmodern World, is simply referring to the above Fatwas.

If you think that From Madness to Eternity: Psychiatry and Sufi Healing in the Postmodern World, despite being a peer-reviewed book, "...doesn't evaluate the claim by sunnah.org and assert the existence of the fatwas as a matter of fact, but merely describes them as a "claim" by sunnah.org." then the very same interpretation / standard should be applied to "Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam", International Journal of Middle East Studies as this article also doesn't evaluate/research AICP's claim made in Al-Ahbash's own sources (i.e. "[18]- On those activities, see, for example, Manar Al-Huda 93 (December 2000): 36-42. and [20]- http://www.aicp.de and www.islami.de/,") and merely describe and assert the AICP's "affiliation" with Al-Azhar on as-it-is / matter-of-factly basis without further due diligence. Let's not get into branding (i.e. Cambridge vs. University College London) debate, etc.

You are saying that "the book itself is a reliable source but it's describing a claim from another source that we can't use under WP:RS" and I feel the very same way about "Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam", International Journal of Middle East Studies that it is a reliable source but it is using/quoting/referring to Ahbash's own sources (rather than independent sources) on matter-of-factly basis.

You are more than welcome to remove the "claim" as you consider it a POV but it will only be fair to include other details (mentioned above) along with the sources to provide the full context (i.e. what Kabha and Erlich wrote and what others wrote about the alleged "affiliation" with proper context) to cover the both sides. Thank you.  McKhan  ^(talk) 09:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to rewrite and incorporate the above points into the sentences you suggested. I hope we can close this chapter and move on now. Thank you.  McKhan  ^(talk) 10:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Although I believe your changes are a step in the right direction, I still have concerns about how the information is being presented.
Both From Madness to Eternity: Psychiatry and Sufi Healing in the Postmodern World and Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam are reliable. The issue is that, in the former, the applicable quote is "...sunnah.org quotes what it claims are fatwās against the Ahbash..." (stated as a claim by a primary source). In the latter, the applicable quote is "the Association runs networks of kindergartens, elementary and secondary schools, and Islamic colleges affiliated with Cairo's Jami at al-Azhar" (stated as a fact). When a secondary source cites a primary source, as in the case of Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam and its reliance on the Manar Al-Huda, it's not just reprinting the information found in the primary source. The secondary source's editors have done their due diligence and have assessed the information. Here, they've assessed the information sufficiently such that they say, as a matter of fact, that the AICP's schools are affiliated with Al-Azhar. The editors of From Madness to Eternity: Psychiatry and Sufi Healing in the Postmodern World have not assessed sunnah.org's contents. That's why they specifically state "...sunnah.org quotes what it claims..." The reason I'm quite particular here is that I've worked as an editor on a scholarly publication and have some experience with exactly the kind of issues that we're grappling with in this discussion.
You said, It is worth noting that Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam by Mustafa Kabha (Open University of Israel) and Haggai Erlich (Tel Aviv University) was published in November 2006, 5 years after the official statement issued (August 2001) by Ahmad Omer Hashem (also spelled as Ahmed Umar Hashim), then President of Al-Azhar. This is all the more reason that citing the fatwa, which comes from a primary source, is problematic. There's no reason to assume that the editors of Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam didn't have access to the same fatwa. Yet they still chose to say that the AICP schools are affiliated with Al-Azhar. Relying only on reliable secondary sources per WP:RS (I forgot to include the RadioFree article before), I'm suggesting this:

The AICP runs a network of Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar University although clerics from the latter institution have described the Al-Ahbash movement as unorthodox, have participated in issuing unfavorable edicts concerning the Al-Ahbash, and members of the movement have not been permitted to promote their views on the campus of Al-Azhar.

References

I still want to see the sources I identified in this edit removed since they do not comply with WP:RS. Also, From Madness to Eternity: Psychiatry and Sufi Healing in the Postmodern World is unquestionably a reliable source under WP:RS but it doesn't add any value to the article or this discussion because of the "sunnah.org ... claims...." issue. If you still disagree in regards to the reliability of the sources that I am seeking to be removed, I'd be happy to seek more opinions for us on the reliable sources noticeboard. Then we can move forward once we have more community input. Snuish2 (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your typical scholarly publication and I don't consider Al-Ahbash's own sources very reliable hence I suggest the following:

According to Kabha and Erlich, the AICP runs a network of Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar University, although, scholars from the latter institution have described the Al-Ahbash movement as unorthodox, have participated in issuing unfavorable edicts concerning the Al-Ahbash, and members of the movement have been arrested promoting their beliefs on the campus of Al-Azhar.

Thank you.  McKhan  ^(talk) 20:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

We're getting close to an agreement here. Thanks for continuing to discuss. You say, "I don't consider Al-Ahbash's own sources very reliable..." I completely get that, but I want to re-emphasize that we're not relying on Al-Ahbhash's "own sources," i.e., Manar al Huda. We're relying on a scholarly publication that has assessed the matter. If we were only using Manar Al Huda, we wouldn't be able to discuss the affiliation at all per WP:SELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF. Qualifying the statement with "According to Kabha and Erlich" is also an WP:NPOV issue -- we don't qualify anything else here. I support the change to "scholars" and "beliefs" but I don't support the other changes. The article regarding the arrests isn't specific enough to determine whether Al-Azhar asked for the individuals to be arrested. Whether the police decide to give those tickets a citation, arrest them, or even execute them would be a police/judicial decision that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the relationship between Al-Azhar and Al-Ahbash. What we do know for sure that they were not welcome on the campus. So I propose:

"The AICP runs a network of Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar University, although scholars from the latter institution have described the Al-Ahbash movement as unorthodox, have participated in issuing unfavorable edicts concerning the Al-Ahbash, and members of the movement have been not been permitted to promote their beliefs on the campus of Al-Azhar under the Egyptian penal code."

In regards to "Wikipedia is not your typical scholarly publication," Wikipedia does ask editors to weigh the reliability of sources and consider the type of source, hence policies such as WP:BALANCE and WP:PSTS, which is exactly what we are doing in this discussion. Snuish2 (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and agreeing to the changes I proposed. I am afraid I see nothing wrong with adding According to Kabha and Erlich as it is used all the time in the academic world. I am okay with "...and members of the movement have been not been permitted to promote their beliefs on the campus of Al-Azhar under the Egyptian penal code." Thank you.  McKhan  ^(talk) 21:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we have discussed enough and reached to a compromise. I have taken the liberty to make all the changes we have been discussing here and ready to leave this matter behind. I have also removed the Germany section for now. Should you find the sources you are looking for then please feel welcome to add the section back to the article. Thank you.  McKhan  ^(talk) 21:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

"I am afraid I see nothing wrong with adding According to Kabha and Erlich as it is used all the time in the academic world." WP:NPOV, in particular WP:WIKIVOICE, states the following:

Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.

Thoughts? If you are not interested in continuing this discussion at the moment, feel free to come back to it later since I'm not in any particular rush to get this resolved immediately. Snuish2 (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Given the topic of Al-Ahbash / AICP is very much contentious and controversial and the sources out there can't be WP:RS as per your interpretation, the alleged "affiliation," presented in the Kabha and Elrich's article as fact, using Al-Ahbash's own sources, remains very much contested and controversial hence I think it is important to keep According to Kabha and Erlich and one shouldn't make a big deal out of that. I think we have made a very good progress and reached to a compromise. Let's not ruin it by pushing it any further. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McKhan (talk • contribs) 22:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I've never said that Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam is not an WP:RS. This isn't a matter of "pushing" any further; we're simply applying Wikipedia policies to the content here. I will bring this issue up within the next week or two at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard when I have a moment and will notify you when I do so. Snuish2 (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you typed your above comment in a haste and have totally misunderstood my comment.

When I wrote the sources out there can't be WP:RS as per your interpretation, I was referring to the sources (i.e. Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America (AMJA) (April 19, 2013)."About the Abyssinians sect", "Exposing Abd Allah al-Harari and his sect the Ahbash of Lebanon ("Association of Islamic Charitable Projects") by Markaz al-Nasr li Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaah, Jakarta, Indonesia / As-Sunnah Foundation of America, pages=23, 24) which has been removed from the article.

We will never see eye-to-eye on that.

Here is why you are pushing it:

• You removed a WP:RS (From Madness to Eternity: Psychiatry and Sufi Healing in the Postmodern World) because it mentions sunnah.org and as per your interpretation it doesn't add any value. And yet what is published in Manal al-Huda and on www.aicp.de and www.islami.de and used in Kabha and Elrich's article does add value and should be treated as uncontested and uncontroversial fact to prove the "affiliation" with Al-Azhar. After all, it was published in an academic journal and given you have worked in a scholarly publication, you must know better than others. You have got all sort of explanations and interpretations of the Wikipedia guidelines too for that. You think that other people are just idiots and have never been to school or never done any research. I bet even Jimmy Wales will not act or behave like that. I went along.

• For you, Al-Azhhar's two presidents and Al-Azhar educated Muslim "clerics" (This is the word you used for them), some of them at Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America (AMJA), who issued "edicts" against the Al-Ahbash are simply idiots and "self-publish" their "edicts" on their websites (i.e. "About the Abyssinians sect") and whoever publishes (i.e. As-Sunnah Foundation of America) them further are just iditols too thereby not worthy enough nor their content to be WP:RS. I went along.

Apparently, Al-Azhar and Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah are only good enough to be used by the Al-Ahbash / AICP for "affiliation" and marketing purposes. And you have no issue wit that. I, still, went along.

And now, once all of those sources are removed and a compromise has been reached (at least, on my part), you are are stuck on According to Kabha and Erlich and bullying me and indulging in frivolous tagging for no reason. This is what we call moving the goal post.  McKhan  ^(talk) 00:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

First you accuse me of being a sockpuppeteer and now you've accused me of being a bully. I find these accusations rather absurd, given the mountain of personal remarks you've already made in this discussion and the fact that I have withheld from doing the same. Are you certain that you're the one being bullied and not me? I have referred to no one as an idiot. "Edict" is an often-used translation for "fatwa" and the word "cleric" is from the sources themselves (here and here). "And yet what is published in Manal al-Huda and on www.aicp.de and www.islami.de..." I've never cited these self-published sources. Do not post any more messages on my talk page with unnecessary warnings. Snuish2 (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I merely pointed out to your own edit history (here, here, here and here) as well as your straight coming/arrival to that very sentence (You have been laser-focused on that sentence from the get go.), tagging it and then removal of the sources arbitrarily, which speaks for itself. I have been fully involved into the discussions and have worked with you to reach a compromise which, obviously, you don't appreciate and simply want to throw the book on me and want to have your way, which I don't appreciate. Take the matter whatever forum you want to take and whenever you want, but in the meantime, do not indulge into claiming the ownership of the article, edit-warring and frivolous tagging nor assume that you are the only one who knows Wikipedia guidelines, how the research works and the academic world.  McKhan  ^(talk) 03:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)