Islam: Salaf Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by the Salaf task force.

What is Salafiyyah ?

Salafism [or Salafiyyah] is the true Path in following Islam and the Sunnah. A Salafi is one who follows the path of the Salaf As-Sālih exactly without alteration.

What is a Salafi?

To be a Salafi means adhering to the Creed, Methodology and the way of life of the Salaf As-Sālih (the Pious Predecessors). The earliest Salaf were the generation of our Prophet ﷺ and his Companions. Then after them came the two virtuous generations of believers who held fast to the Sunnah (Path) of the Prophet and his Companions. After the Companions came The Tab’ian then the Tabi Tab’ian [Hadith in Evidence Section]. The person who understands this path correctly, follows it exactly, without introducing anything into it and nor deviating from it is a Salafi.

Who do we take from ?

We take from the Quran & Sunnah by the understanding of the Salaf. We also take from all 4 of the Madhab’s and we are not Fanatical about anyone one of them. We understand they were human and they could make errors.

What do we do when we differ ?

We don’t differ in matters of Aqeedah because the 4 Madhabs are all one in Aqeedah. However in matters of Fiqh we differ which is normal as the Sahaba differed in matters of Fiqh. If we do differ we will take the Sahih Narration and stick to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abu Āaliyah (talk • contribs) 19:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear to someone familiar with Muslim sects that this, template, in its current form, was designed solely to malign the Salafist movement. The fact that the creator of the template is a member of the Barelvi movement as clear by their name - and these two movements have an intense, acrimonious rivalry - says a lot, as does the creator's new category, "Wahhabi." This template can be salvaged as other Muslim movements also have templates, but it needs serious work before being moved into the relevant article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some points of note already. Under "central figures," Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul-Wahhab are mentioned but Rashid Rida, the first person to use the word "salafiya" as a noun instead of an adjective as far as I know, is mentioned under "notable individuals." I would suggest moving him up, though this is obviously a point for discussion.

Lashkar-e-Taiba and Egyptian Islamic Jihad are both mentioned under "organizations," yet as is clear from their respective articles, these are not Salafi organizations.

The entire section on "organizations" - or the section other than these two incorrectly included groups - consists solely of Salafi Jihadi groups, yet the majority of Salafists worldwide don't participate in violence. It seems almost like an attempt to paint the entire movement as violent.

Osama bin Laden is mentioned under "notable individuals," yet his article doesn't mention him being Salafi; it does mention him as being Qutbi, a movement which is sometimes referred to as Salafi and sometimes as a rival to Salafis.

The "ideology" section seems a bit odd. Wahhabism and Salafism are at times used synonymously or, with academic discussions, as one being a branch or trend within the other. The below section could be changed to "related terms" instead and that would be clear, but I hardly think that the Puritans, a Christian group, are related.

This template was a good start but it really needs to be neutralized. I also suggest removing it from relevant articles until it can benefit from a wider discussion regarding its contents. After that, this could be a great template. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is an attempt to categorize entire Salafi movement into a Template.The Articles in the template subscribe to the Salafi ideology and there is no point to Potray this movement as violent.Some of the groups may be doing this not all Salafis are involved in violence.Salafis traces their history to first generation of Islam.The nomenclature Sunni was developed and came to be known in later stages and was accepted by Muslims who started following four school of thought.

Where as Salafi movement opposes this tradition of Taqlid and focused on relying directly on the basic sources of Islam.I came to know through various sources that Osama bin Laden and Lashkar-e-Taiba subscribe to Salafi movement.Correct me ,if I am wrong.Rashid Rida may be moved to moved up.Sunnibarelvi (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good attempt and it can be done. Obviously input from more than just the two of us would help as well. What you're saying about the formation of Sunni Islam is true. And in regard to Salafis opposing taqlid, then yes most of them do, but we should also be careful not to step on anyone's toes. I don't know of any Salafi editors here on Wikipedia but we should be able to guess what they might find offensive. That isn't to say that we bend to the will of a certain POV, but for example, most Salafis seem to reject traditional fiqh madhhabs. Obviously they won't state it this way and might bring sources from their sheikhs which state otherwise. So a big concern here - especially when there aren't any editors here to represent the movement - is writing things in a one-sided way but we don't even know it.

As for Osama bin Laden, then as far as I know he has been described as both Qutbism and Salafist in the news, but his article only seems to mention him being Qutbist. Can you bring some good sources about this? I'm just playing devil's advocate here, as I imagine most of the Salafi movement might be bothered by an association with him, so unless there's a source which can't be denied, it might be best to remove him. I don't know. You might benefit more from other people's input on this one.

Anyway, you're taking good initiative per Wikipedia:Be bold so I hope my comments didn't discourage you in any way. I'm here to help, and remember that as an editor you are free to edit. Perhaps we can get some more feedback on here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we again start it.Sunnibarelvi (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As editors, we and others are free to moderate the template as we see fit. Are you sure starting it from scratch is a good use of time, though? If we just change it instead of starting it again, maybe we can work faster. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not then ,I have removed Egyptian Islamic Jehad and Osama bin Laden.Added Nour Party and others.What do you think now.Sunnibarelvi (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's good overall. There are some issues of taste I might do differently, but it's still a good template.

Here's a suggestion: since Salafism is an ideology, I would change the bottom part of the template from "Ideology" to "Related Ideologies." Islamic fundamentalism also includes non Salafis, as does Takfir, and Wahhabism is sometimes used to mean the same as Salafi and sometimes not. The same is true for Ahl al-Hadith, who emerged before Salafism did. Personally, I would move Ahl al-Hadith to the bottom with Wahhabism, Takfir and Islamic fundamentalism.

Other than that, it's probably ready to be put up on relevant articles. Perhaps we can start a new section for discussing where it should be. MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can all agree that this template should be placed in all articles under the Central figures, Organizations, Trends and Notable individuals sections. Surely, it can be put on other articles as well. Any suggestions, Sunnibarelvi? Or from anyone else? MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestions are fine and you should change them and insert it in relevant articles.Sunnibarelvi (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The template currently has listed the following "Central Figures":

• Ibn Taymiyyah
• Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya
• Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab
• Muhammad ibn al Uthaymeen

Whilst Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim might be highly respected by the Salafi movement, neither of them should be defined as Salafi given that they died about 700 years before the Salafi movement came into existence.

I would suggest removing both names and adding a new section entitled "Key Influences" where Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim can be listed.RookTaker (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While you're correct that Salafism is recent, the movement does lean primarily on authors such as Ahmad ibn Hanbal as well as more recent ones like IT and Ibn al Qayyim when they reference sources in their polemics. While I agree on the division between central figures (members of the movement) and key influences (people who predate the movement but are admired by it), I would also advocate the reinsertion of Ibn Hanbal's name along under key influences as well - Salafist discourse almost universally contains some sort of mention of Ibn Hanbal's polemics.

In the future, discussion regarding Ibn Abdul-Wahhab on the relevant talk pages could lead to discussion here. The person never used the term "Salafism" or "Salafist" as it is understood today and was a muqallid of the Hanbali school, leading a minority of analysts to assert that even he predates Salafism, though I have a feeling that would cause controversy on the talk page to him and it could be left to another time for now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging User:RookTaker in case he doesn't have this watchlisted. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:MezzoMezzo From what I have read, I'm not sure that all Salafis closely follow Ibn Hanbal. For example, Nasir al-Din al-Albani and Rashid Rida seemed to discourage following a particular imam including Ibn Hanbal. I think others (particularly those from Saudi Arabia) do indeed consider themselves to be Hanbali. Given that there seems to be a difference of opinion within the movement I would be hesitant in including Ibn Hanbal as a key influence for all Salafis.

As for, Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, it seems clear that he predates the Salafi movement given that he died a number of years before the movement came into existence. Or am I missing something. RookTaker (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:RookTaker, you're not missing anything. It's simple math and a review of Ibn Abdul Wahhab's work - he never talked about it. Historically, if I am not mistaken, the first to use Salafist for himself as part of something new was Rida and the first to talk about Salafism as a thing was Sayyed Qutb. Salafists sometime make mention of Dhahabi, IT and others mentioning the word but they only used it in the linguistic sense, not as an idea.

You're right, Salafists are confused among themselves about fiqh but I was more thinking of aqida. Whether it's the Albanist Salafis in Jordan and Morocco or the more traditional ones in Saudi and Egypt, they all teach books of Ibn Hanbal like Usul al-Sunnah for aqida in the beginning stages. Granted, he doesn't have nearly the focus that IT and IAW do, but it's there. There's an honorable mention of it at Salafi_movement#History. Do you think that would warrant inclusion at least based on the movement's claim? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:MezzoMezzo Given that most Salafis claim to follow Ibn Hanbal it would probably be ok to list him in the influences section. The only thing to bear in mind is that Salafis such as Abduh and (to a lesser extent) Rida were very much inclined towards rationalism which Ibn Hanbal opposed. Please read for example Islam and Modernism in Egypt by Charles C. Adams where Rida and Abduh are shown to have opinions that are at polar opposites to Ibn Hanbal in creed (e.g. Darwinism etc, the reality of the Jinn etc...). This is clearly however a minority view within the movement. I will therefore leave it with you to add Ibn Hanbal if you think it is still appropriate given the above.

Lastly, if we are to add Ibn Hanbal to the Salafi template then it might also be worth considering adding Abu Hanifa to the Deobandi template given the schools strong attachment to him though this is a separate discussion. RookTaker (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:RookTaker, you know what...it doesn't make sense actually. Ha ha, sorry if I seem too fickle. But the Deobandi analogy makes sense...leaning that way in fiqh (and not even all Salafis do as you pointed out) wouldn't seem accurate. They do reference Ibn Hanbal's works despite the modernist leanings of their early figures like Rida, Abduh and Afghani but the internal dynamics and seeming paradoxes of any movement - Salafi, Deobandi, Barelvi, what have you - fits better in subsections of articles than on templates. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assalamualeikum. Hi, these books may useful for refernces. Book 1, Book 2 from Oliver H James. 36.80.237.110 (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst it seems quite clear that the views of Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida are quite different to conservative Salafi scholars (such as Muhammad ibn al Uthaymeen), both individuals have been classified as belonging to the Salafi movement by academics. There are literally dozens of references for this such as:

"In the late 1800s, reformers Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh established the Salafi, a movement to reform and renew Muslim life." John Esposito, The Islamic World: Past and Present, p. 165. Oxford University Press

"Salafiyya was a religious reform movement founded by the Egyptian Muhammed Abduh, a student of Jamal al-Din al-Afghani. Abduh and the Salafis sought to create a renaissance of Islamic culture and society...." Spencer D. Segalla, The Moroccan Soul. French Education, Colonial Ethnology, and Muslim Resistance, 1912-1956, p. 189. University of Nebraska Press.

I would therefore suggest that both names remain in the template, unless evidence is available for the contrary. Thanks RookTaker (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They were not salafi.They were actually modernist reformer.Just they used term "salafiyya" for their movement, does not mean that they should be included in this article.This templet is not about modernist movement this is about Salafi movement.Salafism in the sense which is the state religion of Saudi Arabia is according to Stephane Lacroix (a Postdoctoral Fellow and Lecturer at Sciences Po in Paris)

" As opposed to Wahhabism, Salafism refers here to all the hybridations that have taken place since the 1960s between the teachings of Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab and other Islamic schools of thought. Al-Albani’s discourse can therefore be a form of Salafism, while being critical of Wahhabism" (ref: https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/17210/ISIM_21_Al-Albani-s_Revolutionary_Approach_to_Hadith.pdf?sequence=1 , page-2)

and according to Dillon, Michael R: " Salafism of 19th century under such key figures as Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Muhammad Abdu, and Rashid Rida, which were referred to as Islamic modernists. Their form of Salafism was fundamentally different from contemporary Salafism (ref: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a509109.pdf , page-33)

The confusion you are facing can be understood from below qoute: " There has been some confusion in recent years because both the Islamic modernists and the contemporary Salafis refer (referred) to themselves as al-salafiyya, leading some observers to erroneously conclude a common ideological lineage. The earlier salafiyya, however, were predominantly rationalist Asharis. During an interview in Jordan, one Salafi emphasized this distinction by citing Muhammad Abduh’s interpretation of the jinn, a creature referenced in the Qur’an. According to this respondent, Abduh’s understanding of the jinn as microbes or germs demonstrates his rationalist credentials: not only does it indicate a metaphorical approach to the Qur’an, but it also implies the influence of the West on his thinking.17 Muhammad Abduh and other similar thinkers are frequently excoriated as deviant rationalists. Some go as far as to claim they were British agents, planted to specifically undermine the purity of Islam."(ref: http://archives.cerium.ca/IMG/pdf/WIKTOROWICZ_2006_Anatomy_of_the_Salafi_Movement.pdf ,Page-212) Ejaz92 (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ejaz92:, I'm not sure I understand your point. I have already mentioned that the Salafism of Abduh and Rida is different to the Salafism of most (if not all) contemporary Salafis. This does not mean that they didn't adhere to the Salafi movement. This is confirmed by the quotes you yourself have provided above (e.g. Their form of Salafism was fundamentally different from contemporary Salafism). Also, please refrain from removing content from the template until we come to a conclusion on the talk page.RookTaker (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @RookTaker: 1).Those who found the origine of salafism in the Islamic modernist movement they miss understood salafism for Islamism or Salafi approach of hadith study.In this respect Muslim brotherhood and like modernist offshoots are considered as Salafist in their eye.and if it is the case then why notentioning Hasan al-banna with abduh.Why abduh and rida only.Banna too called his movement brotherhood a salafi movement.

"Salafism .......... that emerged in late 19th century under such key figures as Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Muhammad Abdu, and Rashid Rida, which were referred to as Islamic modernists" [From the same document where youbquoted from] Moreover we already have Islamic modernism named article on wikipedia.You why not you make different templete for it.

Here is so more proof: " This is why some scholars wrongly describe al-Afghani and Abdu as the fathers of salafiyya—they are definitely not, and all their thinking is a movement away from the salafism of Wahhabism or the traditionalism of Sunni thought."

(http://conflictsforum.org/briefings/Wahhabism-Salafism-and-Islamism.pdf )

See what salafis aay about the early Salafiyyah:

http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/downloads/pdf/MNJ180008.pdf

Ejaz92 (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's true what Ejaz92 said, and the references he gave its good. it's kinda mixed up in the grouping of Salafi template. The western media tend to think that there is only one kind salafist for various groups. While in academic literature level, they are able to recognizing the difference between the groups. Because sometime the diferences are very broad. In my country even the tradiotionalits Ash'arite will use salafi/salafiya to self describe. Because it refer to salaf (3 early generation). The most common think between them is an aim/effort to mimic/follow Islamic law as early Islam (salaf), but they have different approach/intrepertation of it. And sometime somegroup went to far and become extreeme, some become too soft.

It's true that Rashid Rida, Abduh, Sayid Qutb, Al-Banna/IslamicBrotherhood more into moderninst than salafist(traditionalis). while Jihadism and politicalParty usually is mixed between the two(not pure salafist nor islamism/IB). the vary specification between groups are usually in credo,manhaj, political stance, jihad stance, view on democracy and litte bit jurisprudence. for some addition referencces: Why Salafism and Terrorism Mostly Don't Mix, Terrorism:Myths and Facts. ibensis (What’s the Story?) 10:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ejaz92: @Ibensis: I still don't understand the point. I have already stated that the views of Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida are quite different to conservative Salafi scholars (such as Muhammad ibn al Uthaymeen). This is obvious and your quotes further prove this. However, like pretty much all groups, the Salafi movement is not a monolithic entity. If you read the Salafi Movement article you will see that we already have sub-categories such as Madkhalism, Salafist activism, Salafist jihadism and Qutbism. Each sub-category is still part of the Salafi movement but differs from on another in some respects. Perhaps we should add a new category to the Salafi Movement article to cover Abduh and Rida. What are your thoughts on this? Anyhow, Abduh and Rida certainly considered themselves as belonging to the Salafi movement. For example we read that:

"Muhammad Abduh referred to his movement as Salafi, with an agenda of confronting Western imperialism and reforming Islamic Society at once. Abduh argued that the early generations of Muslims (al-salaf al-salihin) had produced a vibrant civilization"

Chris Heffelfinger, Radical Islam in America: Salafism's Journey from Arabia to the West, Chapter 2, p.3

"Like other reformers of his time, 'Abduh argues for a return to the "simple" and "pristine" Islam of the salaf"

The Oxford Handbook of Islam and Politics, p 33

"A thorough report into the historical development of these factions would necessarily begin with a careful analysis of the links between the indigenous Egyptian Salafi movement of Abduh and Rida"

Richard Gauvain, Salafi Ritual Purity: In the Presence of God, p 33

As such, I see no reason for removing Abduh and Rida from the Salafi movement template. As for Hasan al-Banna, I have found no evidence that he belonged to the Salafi movement so I don't believe he should be added. RookTaker (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RookTaker: 

1).

"Rashid Rida popularized the term 'Salafī' to describe a particular movement (i.e.,Islamic modernism) that he spearheaded. That movement sought to reject the ossification of the madhhabs , and rethink through the standard issues of fiqh and modernity, at times in very liberal ways. A young scholar by the name of Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani read an article by Rida, and then took this term and used it to describe another, completely different movement. Ironically, the movement that Rida spearheaded eventually became Modernist Islam and dropped the 'Salafī' label, and the legal methodology that al-Albānī championed – with a very minimal overlap with Rida's vision of Islam – retained the appellation Salafī'. Eventually, al-Albānī's label was adopted by the Najdī daʿwah as well, until it spread in all trends of the movement. Otherwise, before this century, the term 'Salafī' was not used as a common label and proper noun. Therefore, the term 'Salafī' has attached itself to an age-old school of theology, the Atharī school"

(On salafi islam by dr.yasir qadi)

Whatever proofs you are providing can be answered : a). " There has been some confusion in recent years because both the Islamic modernists and the contemporary Salafis refer (referred) to themselves as al-salafiyya, leading some observers to erroneously conclude a common ideological lineage. The earlier salafiyya, however, were predominantly rationalist Asharis. During an interview in Jordan, one Salafi emphasized this distinction by citing Muhammad Abduh’s interpretation of the jinn, a creature referenced in the Qur’an. According to this respondent, Abduh’s understanding of the jinn as microbes or germs demonstrates his rationalist credentials: not only does it indicate a metaphorical approach to the Qur’an, but it also implies the influence of the West on his thinking.17 Muhammad Abduh and other similar thinkers are frequently excoriated as deviant rationalists. Some go as far as to claim they were British agents, planted to specifically undermine the purity of Islam."(ref: http://archives.cerium.ca/IMG/pdf/ WIKTOROWICZ_2006_Anatomy_of_the_Salafi_ Movement.pdf)

( WIKTOROWICZ and dr.yasir qadhi is regarded as the most relieble and usefull article on net for the study of salafism.)

or

b).Those who found the origine of salafism in the Islamic modernist movement they miss understood salafism for Islamism or Salafi approach of hadith study.

2).you said:

" However, like pretty much all groups, the Salafi movement is not a monolithic entity. If you read the Salafi Movement article you will see that we already have sub- categories such as Madkhalism , Salafist activism, Salafist jihadism and Qutbism . Each sub-category is still part of the Salafi movement but differs from on another in some respects"

Ans: All the sub-group you named is actually groups with in the salafism they all are salafi in creed(i.e., Atharis anti-kalaamis), creed of scholars like inb taymiyya, inb Qaiyyim etc. They all consider ibn abdul wahhab as the first salafi figure in the modern era. They all stemed from wahhabi movement.These are the conditions on which a group is considered as salafi.

Take an example: when we say the word "salary" what does it mean?If I am saying I got my salary today would it mean that I got "salt" today?Offcourse not. If you see the history of the word "salary" you would find that the word came from a Latin word "salārium" which meant salt money, because salt was the salary for ancient roman military, labourers.But now when we use the word salary we always mean money(paper currency).In the same respect the word salafism came from the slogans of the figures from Islamic modernist movement, for which we already have an article.

3). as for you suggestion to give a place to abduh and rida in the Salafi movement article, I would say you are right we should add them and their movement but under the heading "Other usage of the word salafism" or any heading like this.

finally I would request you to read with open mind from start to end our discussion.
Hope you would find the correct understanding.

Ejaz92 (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been rather busy of late so didn't have time to respond. Unfortunately, I am finding it rather difficult to understand your last response. You state for example, that "All the sub-group you named is actually groups with in the salafism they all are salafi in creed". The Salafi Movement is not a creed but a movement within Sunni Islam. You also state that "They all consider ibn abdul wahhab as the first salafi figure". Do they? I have never heard of any Salafi describe Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab as the "first Salafi". In fact, the Salafi movement came into existence many years after Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab died so I fail to see how this could be accurate. You also state that, "They all stemed from wahhabi movement.These are the conditions on which a group is considered as salafi." I don't believe that this is accurate either. Some Salafis have been quite critical of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab including Nasir al-Din al-Albani. Could you respond to the quotes I gave above which clearly indicate that both Abduh / Rida were part of the Salafi movement. i.e.

"Muhammad Abduh referred to his movement as Salafi, with an agenda of confronting Western imperialism and reforming Islamic Society at once. Abduh argued that the early generations of Muslims (al-salaf al-salihin) had produced a vibrant civilization"

Chris Heffelfinger, Radical Islam in America: Salafism's Journey from Arabia to the West, Chapter 2, p.3

"Like other reformers of his time, 'Abduh argues for a return to the "simple" and "pristine" Islam of the salaf"

The Oxford Handbook of Islam and Politics, p 33

"A thorough report into the historical development of these factions would necessarily begin with a careful analysis of the links between the indigenous Egyptian Salafi movement of Abduh and Rida"

Richard Gauvain, Salafi Ritual Purity: In the Presence of God, p 33 RookTaker (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per talk suggestions I've overhauled the template and restructured it. I hope you all like the new template. Sakimonk ^talk 15:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]