Requests for comment/The dominance of Salafists over religious articles in Arabic Wikipedia

This is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.

Arabic Wikipedia articles are dominated by Salafi thought. Due to their large numbers and the lack of interest from others in religious articles, their views—and not only their views, but also the suppression of anything contrary to their opinions, even in articles about people opposed to them—shape the content. Their history in Wikipedia involves sidelining others through alliances to prevent any additions that do not align with their perspective. This happened to me repeatedly, ultimately resulting in my privileges being revoked, as occurred here. Similar cases had occurred [here] and [here] with other editors, including rejecting additions of texts with reliable sources under various claims such as “not neutral,” “not reliable,” or “incorrect.” I even added texts translated from English Wikipedia and sourced from peer-reviewed journals, only for them to be deleted under different claims, such as here and here. My privileges in Islam were revoked, as I explained and filed a complaint about [here]. In Arabic Wikipedia, administrators often avoid intervening in disputes among themselves, so discussions remain open for days without anyone acting on requests to restore privileges. Islam revoked my privileges, deleted my additions, and labeled others as being from a single point of view, even though the sources were Western studies from peer-reviewed journals and well-known books in their fields. These same texts already exist in English Wikipedia, and my contribution was simply a translation. My edits were also described as original research, and I do not understand how edits with dozens of sources are called original research (note that in Arabic Wikipedia, most editors are not well-versed in academic standards and often call anything new to them “original research”). He also made improper edits, such as moving text to the wrong section to hide it here and ignored my clarifications and discussions before removing content. I reopened the discussion here and also contacted him on his talk page, but he ignored me and continued deleting content. He is the one violating policies and duties, and if we were actually enforcing policies, his privileges should have been revoked, yet he ignored this and removed my privileges. Please see the discussion page Discussion: Ibn Abi Ya’la, where I stated I would rewrite what he deleted using more sources and a more academic style. This upset him, and he revoked my privileges immediately after that comment, whereas he should have, if impartial, thanked me instead. He also deleted my article Al-Fitna al-Qashiriyya claiming it was literal copying. I want him to show where the literal copy exists from the cited source?! For weeks, I have been editing, adding, and removing content in the article, extracting texts from four books and placing them in my sandbox here. Please note that Islam frequently reverts correct pending edits; his record is full of such cases. See these revisions Special:Diff/72230553 and Special:Diff/72230538, where what is written is taken from numerous academic sources, yet he calls them “single viewpoints.” The same content exists in English Wikipedia, and I merely translated it. أبو برهان (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you press the issue to ARWP ANI? Content disputes should have been resolved at the local level. Ahri Boy (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahri Boy This is just one example, and I will stick to a single article so as not to be lengthy. I am ready to add more if needed.

The article before:

القدرية هي فرقة كلامية تنتسب إلى الإسلام، وتعدّ من أول الفرق الإسلامية المخالفة وقد ظهرت في بداية عهد الخليفة الأموي عمر بن عبد العزيز، وأول من أسسها غيلان القدري وقد قتله الخليفة هشام بن عبد الملك بصلبه على أبواب الشام، هو مفهوم يرى أن الله لا يعلم شيئا إلا بعد وقوعه وإن الأحداث بمشيئة البشر وليست بمشيئة الله، وتقول: لا قدر والأمر أنف أي مستأنف، وهو نفي لعلم الله السابق، وأن الله لا يعلم الأشياء إلا بعد حدوثها.

A religious description that issues a ruling that it deviates from Islam; the source is this fatwa: https://www.islamweb.net/en/fatwa/9192/ And it is the only source in the introduction of the article, which essentially defines the article, and the rest of the article is similar.

Qadariyyah, from qadar (قدر), meaning "power", was originally a derogatory term designating early Islamic theologians who rejected the concept of predestination in Islam, qadr, and asserted that humans possess absolute free will, making them responsible for their actions, justifying divine punishment and absolving God of responsibility for evil in the world. Originally, the Qadarites also reject belief in the prior knowledge of God, and they deny that God wrote the decrees concerning His creation before He created the heavens and the earth; Consequently, their belief goes against the teachings of Sunni Islam. Some of their doctrines were later adopted by the Mu'tazilis and rejected by the Ash'aris. They argued that evil actions of human beings could not be decreed by God, as they would have to be if there was no free will and all events in the universe were determined by God.

Qadariyyah was one of the first philosophical schools in Islam. The earliest document associated with the movement is the pseudoepigraphical text Risala attributed to Hasan al-Basri, which was composed between 75 AH/694 CE and 80/699, though debates about free will in Islam probably predate this text. According to Sunni sources, the Qadariyah were censured by Muhammad himself by being compared to Zoroastrians, who likewise deny predestination.

I translated it along with its sources and described the Arabic sources

You can look at the page history, and the editor who reverted my edit violated the three-revert rule, yet the administrators did not stop him. He then mobilized a large number of editors, and in the end, the page was protected by the administrators and returned to its original state.

These people consider such edits heretical and accept only what aligns with Salafi beliefs. There are thousands of articles like this.

I am frequently subjected to harassment and bullying, and there are editors who are watching me closely to target me.

And here is another example from today.

The translation into English would be:

International propagation of the Salafi movement and Wahhabism And it was deleted for the reason: ويكيبيديا:ويكيبيديا ليست للمواضع المختلقة Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day.

I don’t know how the article is considered made-up, as the English Wikipedia version has 311 sources, and it also exists in Wikipedia in:

French
Indonesian
Punjabi
Russian
Urdu

أبو برهان (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion is indeed interesting; if this is almost entirely fictional, it should also be deleted in other language versions (unless the content is completely different). ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 07:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sheminghui.WU I translated the introduction of the article exactly as it is from English, without any omission or addition, and there is no criterion that justifies a speedy deletion. أبو برهان (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raise the issue to UCOC if there's enough systemic failure. Ahri Boy (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahri Boy Where and how? أبو برهان (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There, U4C/Cases Ahri Boy (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]