Talk:Al-Ahbash

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)

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)