Talk:Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab

Wording in "notable ideas" field of Infobox, citation linking to primary source having nothing to do with article sentence
Contested Edits
 * this
 * and this

As I explained in the edit summaries, "Replaced "absolute monotheism" with "puritanism", as he can't be said to be the one who introduced the doctrine of "absolute monotheism", as affirmed by brown p.245, he called for a return to it." , ""Replaced "oppposition to religious innovations" to "opposition to sufism", more specific" - this is supported by sources in the article and other sources, we can bring them and discuss them on the talk page if you'd like. I do not contest that we find the wording in the source, but the infobox details "notable idea(s)" and "absolute monotheism" is not a new idea.

I will revert the infobox content and await for your reply, please try and come to a consensus on here rather than reverting, biting on my talk page or leaving a misleading edit summary that lumps me in with IP vandals. ParthikS8 (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I'm fully aware that Wahhab didn't invent the concept of "absolute, unadulterated monotheism" within Islam, and that he wasn't the first to criticize religious innovations, prayers and devotional practices towards saints, tombs and shrines within Islam; in fact, the sources clearly state that he was considered (and regarded himself) more as a puritanical-revivalist preacher and reformer rather than an experienced scholar, but his "uncompromising message of strict monotheism that shunned many popular religious practices", which he deemed idolatrous, constitutes the ideological core of Wahhab's doctrine and theology, and, as I said before, the sources state that he criticized and opposed devotional practices that were widespread among all Sunni Muslims during his lifetime, not only those who adhered to Sufism; in fact, his own family and brother,  who were Hanbali jurists just like him, rejected his teachings alongside most Islamic scholars...  and they were not Sufis. Therefore, to make Wahhab simply look like an anti-Sufi puritan would be incorrect and a misrepresentation of his religious thought. Moreover, I disagree with presenting Wahhab's doctrine as "Salafi", because that would be partially incorrect: according to David Commins, the tendency to refer to Wahhab's doctrine as Salafi "is a recent development that first emerged among Wahhabism's defenders outside Arabia well before Wahhabis themselves adopted the term." --GenoV84 (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)




 * Thanks for the reply, I'd like to apologise for my rudeness above.


 * I very much agree with you that he was not just opposed to Sufism, as you have shown (although you didn't cite a particular source to show his father/brother were non-Sufis, I think we will both agree that he was opposed to more than just Sufism, based off the sources in the article). The question now is one of compromise and wording. I think we should keep the point on puritanism and sufism, as I have provided an explicit source for these in the article. At the same time, I agree with you that we would be mischaracterising him if we said that he was solely opposed to Sufism.

I think that first these should be made seperate ideas, so "Puritanism Opposition to Sufism" On the third line we should use a term that captures exactly what he is against. Previously, the notable ideas field said "opposition to religious innovations within Islam" I am not sure this quite captures all that he was against and it seems to make a judgement that which he opposed were innovations (and such judgements are not for Wikipedia to make). I would suggest "Opposition to perceived religious innovations within Islam" but this is far too long, we need something succinct.
 * Currently it says, "Puritanism, opposition to Sufism"


 * As for him representing Salafi doctrine, this is simply what is reported by numerous sources.


 * In summary, I suggest we keep "Puritanism" on the first line, and then put "Opposition to Sufism", on the next line down, and finally we should think of what to put on the third line. I am personally drawing a blank. Perhaps you can find sources which expound on exactly what his brother/father opposed him in, as the article just says they opposed his doctrine. ParthikS8 (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * On a sidenote, you will note the title of this section.
 * The following IP,, has re-added the content that both of us removed. Also numerous IPs seem to be adding content without sources/ explanation. Perhaps page protection is in order? ParthikS8 (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It's fine, don't worry about that. Thank you for your suggestions, and... I think we should propose page protection if vandals continue with their disruptive editing, but for the moment we should limit ourselves to warn them.
 * Before I begin to address the issue with "Puritanism" and "Opposition to Sufism" (which I agree with), I want to clarify one of my previous statements: when I said, referring to Wahhab's doctrine, that qualifying it as "Salafi" is partially incorrect, I didn't mean that it's wrong, but simply that it would be anachronistic, because Wahhabis adopted the term "Salafi" as a self-designation much later. Indeed, Wahhab's first followers denominated themselves as ahl al-Tawhid and al-Muwahhidun   ("Unitarians", or "those who affirm/defend the unity of God"),     and were called Wahhabis by their opponents.   According to Professor Abdullah Saeed, Wahhab should be considered one of the "Precursors" of the modern Salafi movement rather than a full-fledged modern Salafi, because he predates modern Salafism. Nevertheless, the Wahhabi movement is considered "the most influential expression of Salafism of the Islamist sort, both for its role in shaping (some might say: 'creating') modern Islamism, and for disseminating salafi ideas widely across the Muslim world." --GenoV84 (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's brother, Sulayman ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, and their father, 'Abd al-Wahhab, they both disagreed with Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and didn't share his doctrinal statements because they considered his teachings, and the way Wahhab intended to impose them in Arabia, too extreme and intolerant. According to the Arabian historian and Mufti of Mecca, Ahmad ibn al-Zayni Dahlan's account of the dispute between Wahhab and his brother Sulayman: "Sulayman [ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab] once asked his brother Muhammad [ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab], "How many are the pillars of Islam?" "Five," he answered. Sulayman replied, "No, you have added a sixth one: He who does not follow you is not a Muslim. This, to you, is the sixth pillar of Islam.""

Therefore, I think that the most appropriate insertion as the first line would be "Wahhabism", because it comprises Wahhab's theology and religious thought as a whole, then "Salafi Puritanism" as the second line and "Opposition to Sufism" as the third line, although he also opposed and criticized Shia Islam and the Ottoman Empire (the latter on a political and religious level), but these aren't new or notable ideas, as well as his opposition to Sufism and his puritanical-reformist approach to Sunni Muslim practices that he considered shirk and/or bidʻah.... In summary, if we had to indicate a specifically new and notable idea attributable only to Wahhab, it would be Wahhabism itself, since Wahhab is the founder of Wahhabism.--GenoV84 (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not responding earlier, I very much agree with your suggestions and have gone ahead and enacted them. Happy editing, ParthikS8 (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2021
Change "rafidah, which is an extreme Islamic sect" to "rafidah, which he regarded as an extreme Islamic sect".

Note: His view was subjective, so the article needs to make it clear that that was his view rather than stating it as a fact. David.webb271327 (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * From what I'm reading, it's the view of the source material, not the view of Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab, so the requested change would not be accurate. If this change should be made, you would need to provide a different source to be cited, and there may need to be a consensus supporting the change if we wind up with source material that says different things. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 18:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2022
It is absolutely ridiculous to have this guy's name in calligraphy rather than show his picture. He is not a saint by any means, do not glorify him like this while treating other religious figures with less respect. Insane. 73.211.240.226 (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The absence of pictures has nothing to do with respect and everything to do with no pictures being available. —C.Fred (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab.jpg