Talk:Wahhabism/Archive 2

Some editing, not enough
I've remove the worst material, and the apologia for the Saudi state. I suspect that someone in SA is being paid to monitor this article. I also notice that a whole section that used to be here, on Abd al-Wahhab, is completely missing. The destruction of Mecca and Ta'if, the early failures of the Saudis -- it's all gone. There are some people out there who would like some things to quietly disappear. Zora 06:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Zora! It's only my first few hours on this website, and I've already noticed your great interest in articles on Islamic and Arab subjects. As an expert on "Wahhabism" and a close observer of Saudi news, websites, and those of the Arab world, I assure you that no "Saudi" out there cares about this entry in Wikipedia! I sure haven't yet browsed the entire page's history, but I know almost all the main "Wahhabi" sites in English out there, and I doubt that their staff are at all concerned for the contents of Wikipedia (knowing its nature, for being free to all people on the planet to edit!). It is true that the Saudi regime is being hypocritical when it affects 'religiousness' while its keen subjects clearly see the contradictons of their ways with Islam and "Wahhabism" in particular, so I commend you for deleting the "apologetic" part. As for Ibn Abdul-Wahhab, he has many enemies out there, and that includes many 'rumours' too, I assure you. Not only do we need to be neutral in presenting this material, but we have to also stick to facts. The destruction of Makkah and Ta'if may not have happened like opponents to that "reformer" say, if at all! As for the early failures of the Saudis (and I think you mean the first 2 states beofore the current one that was established by Abdul-Aziz), that was due to their lack of military preparedness (compared to that of the Ottomans and their experience in warefare), so it's nothing really to essentially discredit the call for "reform" ibn Abdul-Wahhab came with. As for things "quietly disappearing", I don't think that's possible, Zora!! "Wahhabis" are on TV daily, or at least a section of them (the Jihadists), so everything revolving around them, in present and in the past, is only as LOUD as it can get.. SilkySword 23:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi unsigned - I very much doubt if what you say about the Saudis not caring is true - in fact I'm sure it's not. Zora, if chunks have been removed by editors without much track record, & with no adequate edit summary, just put'em back & explain here. But I'm sure I don't need to tell you that. Johnbod 16:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Johnbod. I just added my 'signatre' using those tildes. I forgot to add them earlier. So the comment above is mine. As for Saudis being active here, trust me, if anything then it's only a staunch supporter of Wahhabism who is new on this site and is not personally backed up by an establishment of any sort. I have made changes to the article as you can all notice, but I forgot to add the 'edit summary' in some cases when needed but I'll do my best to explain what I do next time. SilkySword 23:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Silkysword, you've turned the article into a tract promoting your version of Salafism, larded with dubious hadith. This is simply not acceptable. Unfortunately, I don't have time to revise right now. I'll put up warnings on the page. Zora 06:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and the guy that wrote the version of the article before I revised it has come and reverted it. Completely. Without any comment. Aaargh. Zora 06:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, I really don't think I can get how this website work!!! We try to be neutral, but we can't be factual??? You want to provide evidence, you want quotes and references, and when we do that you criticize us????? How is the article supposed to be like??? Just attacking the Salafis??? Is that what would make keep you pleased??? Did you contribute to the "Shia Islam" article? I don't think you did, becuase it was in a much worse shape than what you think was the case with this article after my editing!!! Everybody can say what they want, but they have to provide proofs, no? Well that's just what I did!!! These hadiths exist and all Sunnis accept the books they're contained in, but those who oppose Salafis really are ignorant of those hadiths, that's why they themselves are non-Salafis (or at least NOT YET, because honestly..once they do know these hadiths, there will be no reason to object the Salafi way! And, I'm sorry, but Zora..who are you again here? Aren't you just another editor like me??? What makes YOU the judge??? All editing I made can be easily referenced when I have the time, but those who claim otherwise cannot prove their claims (like those Sufis who claim they are on orthodoxy and Salafis are the heresy, that Salafis aren't Sunnis, bla bla bla). You know, you can do aaaaaaaaaaall you want with the article. I quit. SilkySword 08:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

SS, when a topic is hotly disputed, as Wahabism is, Wikipedia tries to present all notable positions as neutrally as possible. We give each group space to lay out its best arguments. The reader can look at all the arguments and decide which to believe. We don't promote one view over others, we don't try to exclude notable points of view (POVs).

You were giving your view and ONLY your view, and excluding others. There are a great many people who hate and loathe Wahhabism. You can't keep those views out of the article. However, they can't shut you out either.

It is possible for people who disagree utterly to work together and make a good article. It's difficult, but its been done. Zora 13:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Zora when she asserts that only good or authentic ahadeeth should be included in this article. Some of the ahadeeth mentioned by SS I have not heard before and have been unable to locate in my books.  If we plan to include ahadeeth not from al-Saheehayn, then it should be done only when that hadeeth has been verified by a trusted scholar of hadith like al-Albani, ibn Hajr, adh-Dhahabi, etc.  Regarding the ahadeeth posted by SS, here is what I have dug up:


 * "The best of generations are mine, then the one that follows, then the one that follows." - This hadeeth was narrated by Muslim (2533) and Bukhaari (2652) making it agreed upon and authentic.
 * "I advise you to fear Allah and to hear and obey your leader even if he may be a slave of Ethiopian origin. Surely he among you who lives after me will see great dispute, so adhere to my Sunnah and that of the Rightly-guided Caliphs who will come after me. Stick closely to this Sunnah, bite into it with your molars and beware of newly invented matters (in religion), for every newly invented matter (in religion) is a {cursed} innovation [bid'ah], and every innovation (surely) leads astray." - Narrated by Ahmad, 16692 and others; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in al-Saheehah, 45 and al-Tirmidhi said it is a saheeh hasan hadeeth
 * "Whoever does something not approved by us will have it rejected." - Citation mentioned in the article
 * Ibn Umar [ibn al-Khattab] reported that Allah's Messenger said: "There will surely happen to my nation what happened to the children of Israel, step for step. So much so that if there is among them those who openly have sex with their mothers, there will be among my nation those who do that. Surely the Israelites splintered into seventy-two sects and my nation will splinter into seventy-three sects, all of which will be in the Fire except one." When the Sahabah asked, "which one is it, O Messenger of Allah?" He replied: "The one followed by myself and my Companions" (collected by at-Tirmidhi) - I could not find this specific hadeeth. However, concerning the similar hadeeth, Wahb ibn Baqiyyah told us from Khaalid from Muhammad ibn ‘Amr from Abu Salamah from Abu Hurayrah who said: the Messenger of Allaah  (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The Jews were divided into seventy-one or seventy-two sects, and the Christians were divided into seventy-one or seventy-two sects, and my Ummah will be divided into seventy-three sects.” This was narrated by Abu Dawood in his Sunan, Kitaab al-Sunnah, Baab Sharh al-Sunnah. Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid said it is "saheeh"
 * Aysha reported that Allah's Messenger said: "Whoever honors or respects one who innovates (in the religion) will have helped to destroy Islam." (collected by al-Bayhaqi - I could not find what the scholars said about this hadeeth. That is important information.  You could check www.dorar.net for information on it.


 * Therefore, most of these ahadeeth are authentic or are supported by authentic narrations. However, I think more is needed in the way of citations. ZaydHammoudeh 03:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * just for the record though, I'm a Saudi and I do pass by such articles although not necessarily edit them, I suggest this article to be semi-protected since it is hotly disputed like this Habibko 04:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The article to be rewritten
Per ZaydHammoudeh and Zora comments above, the whole article needs to be rewritten since the current one is POV and lacking reliable sources. We need to show all views but they need to be well sourced. --Brian Wiseman 19:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to remove this vandalism: "Al Qaida means the Base. Where da homies (short for homos) hang out." ~Will

Veiled criticism

 * Photographs or drawings of human beings or other living things which contain a soul, unless you are the King of the country, where your picture is allowed to be shown everywhere

Uhmmm.. this seems like a veiled criticism against the House of Saud. I suggest a rewording. Randroide 10:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The English is bad (is it written by someone whose first language isn't English?). It also doesn't give a tenth enough info about Wahhabism (I've just read an article in the Independent that gives far more, and, indeed, came to Wiki to see if I could find more. I found it wanting). Ajarmitage 09:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda
Is this section accurate? It certainly doesn't seem to be sourced. J Milburn 19:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And regardless, isn't it Al-Qaeda? Xolver 20:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Al Qaeda is a Wahhabi sect Elakhna
 * It's a terrorist organization, not a religious sect. Furthermore, their ideology is most commonly considered to be Qutbism. MezzoMezzo 15:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I see the defense to the argument linking Osama bin Laden to Wahhabism, but no inference as to why people would think Al-Qaeda is Wahhabi. It seems to be a popular opinion, why do people think so? 2:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.251.49 (talk)

A simpler question
I am by no means an Arabic expert, but at the beginning of the second paragraph, should 'The term "Wahhabi" (Wahhābīya)...' not instead be rendered as follows: 'The term "Wahhabi" (Wahhābiy وهابي)...'? I would greatly appreciate a native speaker's expertise here. Thanks in advance. DThrax 19:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * sorry for the late aid!! but as I see it has been corrected in the main article Habibko 04:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Some more editing - neutralizing language
I have changed some of the wording in the introductory paragraph: "is a wrong term used for some of the good muslim people", which contained more than its fair share of normative language.

--Soundguy95 16:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Jon Stafford 09:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC) I've removed the potentially offensive descriptors "heretic" and "deviant" from the opening paragraph, as well as cleaned up the grammar a bit. However, I don't know enough about the details of Wahhabism to comfortably edit the content itself.

Wholly inadequate
I've taken a class from a very well respected mid-east scholar at the University of Washington, and this article needs quite a bit of work, especially considerng the influence Wahhabism has had on the present course of American foreign policy. The alliance between Sa'ud and Wahhab, used to consolidate political power in Saudi Arabia is FACT, it is not a disparagement of the Saudi state. Wahhabiism is a main pillar of political strength for the Saudi state, and it is inexorably woven into the fabric of their society, through their schools, political institutions, etc. It is the main reason there is stress/fracture in Saudi society resulting from the percieved western influence in their leaders -- A more robust understanding of Wahhabiism is VITALLY important, and Wiki should reflect that. I am shocked.... simply shocked. If I wasn't working 60 hours a week atm I would take this upon myself.. PLEASE will someone do some work on this article? -- MARCH 24, 2007

I agree. There needs to be some more explanation on what the beliefs of the Wahabi branch of Islam are. That would   help a lot. May 7, 2007

Moved to bottom of talk page from above
I removed references to "Islamofascism", that are continuously being added by Mike18xx, whose whole mission, based on his contributions to various articles, is to push forth the viewpoints of well-known bigots and hate-mongers, including the personalities and their websites. Islamofascism is a word that is a creation of the neocons, and has no real meaning and is a pejorative that does not deserve the light of the day on any article claiming objectivity. The same viewpoint can be expressed without resorting to name-calling.Abureem 15:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Islamofascism has its own wikipedia entry; it is notable when persons ranging from "neocons" (a buzzword for Jewish conservatives) to communists (Christopher Hitchens) so describe Wahhabism. Furthermore, that Muhammad was a "hate-monger" concerning "unbelievers" is amply demonstrated by his own quotations -- so it's just blatant hypocrisy to chide opponants for it.--Mike18xx 06:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your words for Muhammad provide ample evidence for your own bias. Wikipedia is not a place to inject your own personal views.Abureem 16:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there is precedent. If homophobia and and "fascist" has it's own articles on here, then "Islamafascist" and "Islamaphobia" and their derivatives can be put up in a section under "controversies". If Said articles are created, then they can use this article as a reference/link as long as it's put in a neutral and mature manner. If the Nazi article can be impartially written, certainly a section on here can do the same. --Hourick 18:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Unjustified, non-neutral language
If the point of Wikipedia is to allow editors to come in and add inflammatory, subjective language to the articles, then this completely removes its sense of objectivity. I removed the edits by Mike18xx about Wahhabism being described as "islamofascism", a completely pejorative word that has been created by the neocon admin, only in use among the right-wingers. Bush used it once NOT to describe wahhabism, but to describe certain terrorist elements. If it is assumed that wahhabism is Saudi official line, then for SURE, Bush wasn't referring to wahhabism in general. Even that was criticized heavily and he has since never used it again. IF tomorrow, a liberal party guy creates a Judo-fascist for the Likud part, and other left-wingers put it in play, would we then tack that word onto the article? The user protectwoman whose whole agenda in Wikipedia life is also like Mike18xx, then sends me a warning of too many reverts. In addition, she removes a perfectly reasonable section describing the fading definition aspect of the title. The article relies on muslimmatters.org, but it was not referenced as a 'source' of information but rather, the article collects tons of secondary references to show why the definition is highly subjective. As a relatively new user to Wikipedia, I am getting disillusioned by these attempts to color articles one way or the other based on one's SUBJECTIVE feelings. PLEASE HELP me understand. Abureem 16:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Our goal is to provide facts, in a neutral point of view. If notable critics make statements about Wahhabism that happens to use a neologism, WP:NEO does not prohibit the inclusion of the neologism. The policy at WP:NEO I believe has more to do with the use of neologisms to describe the subject of the article, not in the context of being quoted by a notable source. --ProtectWomen 08:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

CNN quote
While interesting, the CNN quote lacks any citation. Can someone please add that information, and the context of the quotation as well? Thank you. ThuranX 12:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point, I added reference now. Abureem 15:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone do something about this person causing repeated vandalism
He has added this: -Screw Wahhabism -and destroyed junnat al baqi (you bastards) at least 3 times IP:74.107.75.210

I think he should be banned.Abureem 16:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

very inaccurate
This is a very inaccurate article. I am sorry for this strong statement. I read the comments and I agree that there is a great deal of misconceptions and manupilation. I am currently working on a small lecture to be presented on Wahabissm and I hope I will further prefect this article once I have aducate data.

Fading definitions section
I know the name 'Wahhabi' is controversial and has been the subject of much debate here, but has the 'Fading Definitions' section?

Here are my issues with the section:

1. The term Wahhabi has been often conflated with a lot of other issues and pejoratives. What issues? What perjoratives?

2. Due to its different representations in different contexts [11] What representations? What contexts?

3. Again, in some ways, it may have lost any real, significant meaning 'May' have lost? This sounds like someone's opinion.

4. however some Salafis, albeit very few, refer to themselves as Wahhabis, such as in Indonesia. Finally, we get some specifics (Indonesian Salafis), but what does 'very few' mean.

The naming controversy definitely needs some coverage, but I think this section is so vague that it doesn't really actually say anything. (The naming problems are already near the beginning of the article). 10:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. The issues you brought up in the article need to be addressed and the current version of that section doesn't do that.  We need more references for this, any in mind? MezzoMezzo 12:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * None. Personally, I don't think the section says anything that isn't said in the 2nd paragraph of the intro. I'd chop the whole section, but thought I'd put it to Talk: first. Ashmoo 21:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is fun, we're actually working things out here.


 * So first we have the suggestion to keep the section and get more references. We then have the suggestion that the same information is already contained.  So we all agree that irrespective of where in the article said information appears, it should still be in it somewhere.  Is that correct? MezzoMezzo 21:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What is 'said information'? My contention is that the section doesn't really say anything and would be impossible to source. If you have some sources, please include them, so we can edit the text to add specifics. Ashmoo 21:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was referring how, as you mentioned, the section doesn't say anything that isn't said in the 2nd paragraph. Your issue doesn't seem to be the info itself as you're alright with it being at least in the 2nd paragraph, just not with a separate section referenced only by a blog.  Is my assessment correct or incorrect?  (I'm trying to take things one step at a time here.) MezzoMezzo 23:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. I understand (I think). Definitely,there needs to be some detailing of the perjorative nature of the term 'Wahabbism'. My position is to keep the 2nd para (it says what needs to be said and is sourced) and remove the 'Fading...' section. When I did this, my change was reverted. I encourage you though, to make the changes you see fit (remember WP:BOLD) and I'll modify them or use talk if I have any problems. Ashmoo 12:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable, though considering Abureem objected i'd feel more comfortable making the edit after getting feedback from him on this. MezzoMezzo 04:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in getting back on this... I first added back the section but then removed it in favor of leaving a reference for linked article. The reason I feel that the referenced article is important because it provides tons of references to the usage of "wahhabism" in all sorts of contexts. Unfortunately the wikipedia section does not sufficiently address the fact that the term really means all sorts of different things to different people. If someone wants to extract most/all of the references from the article in question and lay it out here, that is fine too. My attachment is not to the article, but to its valuable content. Abureem 12:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

On beliefs
It is recommanded to give examples for readers to understand the belief section: Example:
 * Listening to music in praise of Muhammad

(It could be better to say that their belief is against Music in general even if that Music includes praising the prophet) the way it is put now may be understood as if the music is ok but the music praising the prophet is not.


 * Praying to God while visiting tombs (praying near Muhammad's tomb is also considered polytheism by the Wahhabis)

it recommanded to give examples here also


 * Using non-literal explanations of God's attributes exclusively in preference to literal explanations.

Here I recomand examples like believing that god has a hand, a foot and a throne to sit on.


 * Celebrating Mawlid

I recomand making it clear, celebrating birthdays.

I can help with references..thanksChubeat8 04:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

When wahabis is derogatory term only then what need is there to Elaborate a Derogatory Movements faiths.Whose faith are these any way? Salafis/ahle hadiths or some other saudi origin movement. Any way they are not referenced and seems not neutral .Shabiha 19:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabiha (talk • contribs)

NPOV edits
i removed those beleifs which are unreferenced.They seems not neutralalso.Shabiha 15:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I see what you were trying to say now. There seems to be a bit of a language barrier here.  One of the points under belief was referenced, but your edit was in good faith and does seem helpful. MezzoMezzo 23:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Changes in the lead
Made some changes which I do not think people will find POV or at all controversial. --Leroy65X 19:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
BoogaLouie has added a few references, and I want to take this into discussion here rather than with edit warring. My problem with the sources is that they are not neutral (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). Just because a person X or Y writes a book does not mean that he is now a legitimate source. An organization like Freedom House is known to be a dissident Saudi organization, whose sole purpose is anti-Saudi rhetoric. That's not my beef. My beef is using an organization like this to make a comment on what they are against. It would be like asking Ann Coulter about the history of liberalism and assuming that to be "fact". I even backed off on leaving most of the info. as long as it is clear that these are allegations, but that hasn't satisfied BoogaLouie, so I thought it would be good to discuss first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abureem (talk • contribs) 16:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What reason do we have to believe Freedom House is not a reputable source? What reason do you have to allege any connection between a rightwing opinion columnist like Ann Coultier, and an organization putting out a transparent report based on publications obtained from mosques and Islamic Centers in America? What reason do you have to believe Freedom House "is known to be a dissident Saudi organization, whose sole purpose is anti-Saudi rhetoric"? It is an international organization and Saudi Arabia is just one of dozens of countries it rates. Even if they were such a dissident organization, why was the link to their report deleted from the Wahhabism links section?
 * I must ask you, if there is an edit war do you seriously thing your claims will withstand scrutiny of wikipedia editors, mediators, etc.? --BoogaLouie 16:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, Why have you deleted the source (the link to http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/special_report/45.pdf "Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology") but left the quotes from the source???? --BoogaLouie 16:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are some links to disputing FreedomHouse's neutrality: http://www.saudiembassy.net/2006News/Press/PressDetail.asp?cIndex=297

Links to neocons: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1476. http://www.alternet.org/story/15275/ Abureem (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

'Salafi' is tantamount to 'Ahle Sunnah wal-Jamaa' in Islamic Fiqha (or jurisprudence)
meaning 'AsSalaf AsSaleh' (The Righteous {=Ripened} Predecessors), otherwise (without the word 'AsSaleh') it will include all 'isms' which existed among the Muslim predecessors.

non-academic purely low value contents
things like this paragraph: `` Wahabism is also thought to have had a large impact on the Qatar peninsula. It was embraced by many of the tribes of the peninsula and was a motivating factor in the efforts of the Al Thani clan (the current ruling dynasty of Qatar) to resist attempted conquest by the Al Khalifa clan (the current ruling dynasty of Bahrain) who rejected Wahhabism. Wahhabism also set Qatar apart from the rest of the Persian Gulf States. This may have been part of the reason that Qatar did not join the United Arab Emirates as was suggested by the British at the time.[citation needed] ``

As if Qatar whose official channel Aljazeera that most criticized the Wahabi kingdom is all pro-Wahabism; also as if Bahrain is planning to conquer Qatar!! POV, original research and non-sence is what can describe this paragraph. Seems like the way this article goes, it gives an impression that Wahabism is two beatiful paragraph that is growing in new believers. To better balance, a good load of Wahabi criticism and more expantion on the Wahabi belief is necessary. How can we learn the way with the you write articles like this Chubeat8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chubeat8 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a bit difficult to give explanation of the beliefs of a group which, for all intensive purposes, only seems to exist as either slur or a bogeyman. MezzoMezzo 06:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to explain that some users use bolgs and other people opinions as reference. MezzoMezzo expect some templets of POV and Dispute if you keep citing references from blogs to legitimize nonsense here ok please! ThaaanksChubeat8 01:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, has your disruptive editing and Wikistalking gone so far that you can't even be bothered to read page histories right now? I wasn't the one that added that blog reference, please stop accusing me of things I didn't do.  You have followed me onto multiple articles and accused me of this now, which is in violation of the official No personal attacks policy.  You really need to cool it because this is getting old. MezzoMezzo 04:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I would find it helpful as a reader of these edits if I had some idea of the qualifictions, (formal education, life experiences, etc) of the writers that would provide credibility to their comments made on this subject. I would also appreciate some comments on the idea that Islam, regardless of "sect" should be regarded as a theocracy versus a religion when these discussions take place. Pncfzfn (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Support
I gave you my Consent to Merge Salafi page into Wahabi page as this is the truth which is accepted by all except SomeSalafis .Are You agree? Shabiha (t 11:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The wahabism and Salafism are Same theories even let me Say Ahle Hadith is another name of followers of Ibn-e-Taemia and Abdul Wahab. The Salafi article has a long quotation citing that How it is different With Wahabism is debatable. The Modern Scholars of saudi Arabia their theories are Known as Wahabi/Salafi. We Can also Infer Conclusion by the Criticism of Various Other Movements in Islam What does they say in Opposition of this Saudi Islam? I have Studied that all Other Movements Considers them Same and any One can search wahabi or Criticism of Salafi on net.Msoamu (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge it

Oppose

 * I don't know who you're addressing here, but you already suggested to merge the Salafi and Wahhabi articles and a number of editors here explained why that is a bad idea. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't support a merge. There was a Wahhabist political movement in the 18th century, and the term is widely (if usually erroneously) used today in many different contexts. The article needs a lot of work, however. -- Slacker (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Also oppose. Wahhabism and Salafism have very different histories. Also the article already notes and gives a long quote to those who oppose its use. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

History
The History has a long section on Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab but this is just the beginning of the Wahhabi history. It needs to be trimmed and more history added. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit War in progress in article Wahhabism between User:Xe Cahzytr Ryz and User:BoogaLouie/User:CreazySuit
How about it, guys? Do you think you can talk to each other point-by-point rather than simply reverting each other every day?

Also, are User:BoogaLouie and User:CreazySuit in fact the same person, may I ask? Note that recently, while both users are prolific, there are days when User:BoogaLouie is prolific and User:CreazySuit is quiet and vice-versa, but both users are doing the same aggressive deletes on User:Xe Cahzytr Ryz.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Erxnmedia, are you serious? User:BoogaLouie and I have had disputes on several pages like Talk:Mohammed_Mosaddeq, and you think we are "in fact the same person", you've got to be kidding me. I don't think you're even familiar with the topic at hand. If you were, you'd know that User:Xe Cahzytr Ryz is littering the article with POV material from Wahabi websbites that do not conform with WP:RS. He's violating WP:RS and {{WP:NOR]], and not listening to anyone. --CreazySuit (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but who would know more about Lutheranism than a Lutheran? I don't think you are taking his points one by one and rebutting them or balancing them, you are simply wiping out every edit he does. If you are going to hit the delete key, at least rebut or balance his points in Talk page so it is clear why you are less POV than he is. As it is, it's just you against him, back and forth, twice a day (never 3 times!), ad infinitum.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sort of with CreazySuit here. Although I do think that User:Xe Cahzytr Ryz does make some useful edits, he also introduces a lot of POV material and changes sections that are the result of months of back-and-forth from different editors. If User:Xe Cahzytr Ryz would make his edits in small pieces and gain consensus for each one, he would get further.


 * As it is, it is too hard for other editors to seperate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, so he just gets a blanket reversion. Ashmoo (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * User:BoogaLouie and User:CreazySuit are in fact very different people and have outstanding disagreements on the Iran Iraq war and Mossadeq but we both edit Iranian and Shia oriented articles and agree on some things.
 * I have tried to go over User:Xe Cahzytr Ryz additions and clean them up rather than "simply wiping" them out. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Criticism" section
The Ahmed Raza Khan citation seems out of place for this article, and there are style and layout issues with the entire addition. I'm reverting. I think there's a place for this, but it should fit the context of this article. Twalls (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To begin with, it's a bit odd to have such detailed criticism of a group that, as discussed in the article, may or may not even exist. Most often when such criticism is issued against "Wahhabis", the word Wahhabis tends to refer to any other random group of Muslims that the critic happens to disagree with. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am Just adding what other Movements and their Prominent Scholars said about this Movement.Editors should Support the same Policy Everywhere on all articles/Movement.If You think that there is Style and layout issue then You may help in editing but Dont Delete a Valid ,fair and Neutral Sourced Content.which is also relevant.

I am also edting it again..Msoamu (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't style or layout, the issue is what exactly is being criticized. There is no group today currently calling itself Wahhabi, nor is there a group holding the typical beliefs people speak of when talking about Wahhabis.  The closest thing are Salafis, which is an actual movement but still different from the bogeyman people speak of when they use the term "Wahhabi". MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So I think all Other Users according this Thesis of Yours are wrong because they are editing NON existing group.The Sourced Content/facts are wrong?

So Now in this Current Context You should Support Merging it into Closest thing i.e Salafism.These are Just your Personal Opinions I am sorry to say that Article doesn't Support You.Msoamu (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been fairly patient with your baseless personal attacks over editing disputes up until now. That's fine if we have differing opinions about the direction of articles but if you choose to attack me personally again instead of just disagreeing with my opinion then I will have to take this to the admin's noticeboards.  I thought we had worked things out since your temporary ban ended a while back but based on this and your comments on other talk pages it seems that may not be the case.  Disagree politely with other editors and keep your personal comments to yourself.


 * As for your comments on the article, please check the section "Wahhabism and Salafism" and my entire point is explained quite well. What I have said here is completely supported by the material there as the issue with the term Wahhabi is explained.  As for the merge, that's just silly.  Please don't put words in my mouth so blatantly, it's an obvious Straw man and only hurts your position. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I always think that criticism should be worked into the article--not put in its own section, but there is definitely room for some criticism. One of the main books in English about Wahhabish (Hamid Alger) is rather critical and would mix in well with the work by Delong-Bas is actually rather friendly and kind of annoyed some Muslim scholars. gren グレン 23:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

From Talk:Wahhabism/Comment (misplaced)
the entire naming is inaccurate. Wahhabism is an Ibadhi (Not Sunni) sect founded in North Africa in the 2nd Hijri century by Abdulwahhab bin Abdulrahman bin Rustum Al Ibadhi. Muslim clerics (Sunnis) in Morroco and Al Andalus at that time issued Fatwas against that "wahhabism" for its religious heresy and unislamic believes.

when the 1st Saudi State (Sunni of the Hanbali sect, Not Wahhabi) rised powerfully in the 18th century , the enemies of it couldn't fight it on ideological level so they decided to dig in the several hudreds of years old fatwas of the Muslim clerics in Morroco and Andalus inorder to label the new Saudi State by "Wahhabism" (by looking at the name of the father of Imam Muhammad) and consider it an "infidel" and isolate it from expansioning and to scare the naive Muslims.

the term "wahhabism" unfortunately kept being used in this improfessional way through media. it has to be corrected and this page has to be about that sect which was founded in north Africa 1200 years ago not the Sunnis of the 1st Saudi State. i really hope Wikipedia to enlighten the world about these facts and to end this misconception.

for more Academic and reliable information, you may read the book "CORRECTING HISTORICAL MISTAKE ABOUT THE WAHHABIS" by Dr.Muhammad Sa'ad Al-Shuwai'er. its in Arabic though but it is all free and he published it for free on the internet.

its on the page http://www.saaid.net/monawein/sh/18.htm you may download the entire book from here in the form of microsoft word file http://www.saaid.net/monawein/sh/18.doc the same page says you may aquire the book in several languages (for a charity small price) by emailing him mshowaier@saudi.net.sa

--77.31.246.198 (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Saudi-Intellectual

Incessant use of a misnomer
I am sick and tired of seeing the "same old, same old.." themes being propagated on Wikipedia. A few facts:

1. Don't bother quoting globalsecurity.org. I have had personal email contact with the chap who maintains the site, and it is as clear as the daylight sun that he doesn't have any clue as to whether the stuff he posts is correct. When I lambasted him about his content on "salafi Islam" (I use inverted commas deliberately), he changed the content at my behest, thus indicating two things: one, his content wasn't correct in the first place; two, he accepts contributions from any Tom, Dick or Harry, much in the same way as Wikipedia.

2. "Wahhabism" is villified among citizens of the Indian subcontinent, and it is my considered opinion that any person who speaks out against their ridiculous blind following of so-called religious leaders, is labelled a "Wahhabi". There are plenty of fairy tales circulated with examples of utter insanity attributed to people, who are subsequently deemed "Wahhabi".

3. Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab did not lay down anything new, as attested to by his works. Any opposition to his call comes from two quarters - non-Muslims, and/or Muslims who are mistaken, ignorant and very foolish.

I exhort any and all who read the wiki page, to go to thewahhabimyth.com and read all that is there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.197.46 (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. GlobalSecurity.org is not a completely unreliable site--I don't know too much about it--but, suffice it to say that if its analysis should be used it should be in the realm of political distinctions about Wahhabi and not theological ones.  Its usage here is symptomatic of Wikipedia and the tendency to use easy to find online sources instead of authoritative textual ones.  That being said, there is not that much written about Wahhabism in English from authoritative sources--and regardless of its accuracy, thewahhabimyth.com is not an authoritative source.  In terms of academic press Wahhabi Islam by Delong-Bas is about our only source on religious aspects.  And, it's not exactly an unfavorable view.
 * To make change (and we need to) we need more concrete recommendations with an understanding of Wikipedia policy (WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:V). What reliable English language sources do you recommend we use to discuss the directly religious aspects?  Alger's book is problematic because it is a polemic written from the perspective of a Shia who finds Wahhabis intolerant of Shia...  What else do you propose?  I think using Delong-Bas and others to analyze the teaching of Ibn Wahhab and then separating that from the more wide-net-contemporary-usage of Wahhabism is an important distinction.  But, please give recommendations. gren グレン 21:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I do agree that while not authoritative on theology, globalsecurity captures the political implications quite well. Regarding theology, the user above has said it best. Works such as Alger's are polemical and not up to part with WP:RS; in the English language, Delong-Bas's is the best that I know of in terms of academic value.  Abualrub's book, which I believe is in the recommended reading section of the article, is in English, extensive, and makes use of historical and academic for most sources rather than polemical/POV ones, though it falls into polemics in certain chapters and has a handful of citation mistakes that I have found (the book is now out of print but I have one of the few copies from the final set that was printed).


 * I don't know about the Wahhabi Myth website, but I have the book which the site is based on. It too has its share of polemical material though the historical/political citations are useful.  The site doesn't actually provide any cited sources and thus comes off as a sort of POV magnet.  In English, those are the main materials I know of that aren't written from strictly Shi'a/Sufi poitns of view (which are almost wholly polemical and extremely negative).  Grenavitar, do you happen to have anything on hand you would suggest? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Naming controversy
In rewriting the intro to try to be neutral and concise, I removed:
 * Often, it is adherents of the Shia sect that insist on the "Wahhabi" label.

This sounds like a stereotype, but if anyone would like to document this or a more neutral-sounding claim, that might be appropriate. -- Beland 22:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It is somewhat true. Nonetheless these shias we speak tend to be conservative (radical ?) and consider some sunnis to be their arch-nemesis. It is prevalent amongst shiites, especially those influences and/or following the iranian Marjaas and the wilayat al fakih ideology. But saying all shiites use this term is an exaggeration... I would say many and not all —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 18:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is bias and lacks all the credibility
How can you talk about wahabism using non-wahabi (non-Islamic) references!!?? Maybe in the international influence section only you can do that but for the rest of the article you must reference what these people believe. For incidence, if you want to talk about Christianity you can't go and ask a Hindi about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.63.105 (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is complicated by the fact that wahhabis generally deny the term. Also, ignoring outside sources limits the article. For example would you want an article on communism using only communist writings?


 * The original editor is wrong. An article on any system of thought should include both descriptions of what its adherents say about it and what others say about it. This is the NPOV. Ashmoo (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, ignoring outside sources limits the article. For example would you want an article on communism using only communist writings? Yeah but i bet you wouldn't be that upset by an article about american democracy using only american sources. But i agree we should diversify... now all that needs to be done for that to happen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 01:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hempher and "Confessions of a British Spy,"
I propose creating a Conspiracy theories section for information on Hempher and "Confessions of a British Spy," --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Contoversial Name
The name of the article is highly offensive and IT MUST BE CHANGED. You do NOT name the article on Islam "Mohammedanism" r do not name the article on Muhammad "Mahound"!!! this is the exact degree of inappropriateness and POV-ness the name was first used by the enemies of the movement and to persist on using the name is biased, offensive and derogatory. It also gives incorrect ideas about the nature and the aims of the movement. I demad the article be renamed to something more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xe Cahzytr Ryz (talk • contribs) 07:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC) ' I REQUEST ALL THOSE WHO SUPPORT MY VIEW TO STATE THEIR SUPPORT HERE AND ALSO PROVIDE SUGGESTIONS A NEW NAME. WE CAN ALSO MERGE THE ARTICLE WITH THE SALAFISM ARTICLE. PLEASE SUPPORT ME HERE. DO NOT LET BIASED ENEMIES OF THE MOVEMENT TAKE ONE MORE STEP TO RIDICULE OR DEFACE THE MOVEMENT PLEASE OFFER YOUR SUPPORT. ' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xe Cahzytr Ryz (talk • contribs) 07:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While it is unfortunate that the Wahhabism is considered offensive by some of the people it is used to describe, the fact of the matter is that 'Wahhabism' is commonly used in English to describe the movement. Wikipedia only reflects current usage and should not be used for advocacy. If you can get the whole of the English speaking word to stop using the term, then Wikipedia will change it too. Ashmoo (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There was a time when europe referred to Muhammad as "Mahound". Until recently, about the the time of the first world war (and also the second world war), Islam was known as Muhammedanism and Muslims as Muhammedaners or something like that. To a muslim, of course, this was intolerable. Yes, you ae right, we have to stop the usage of the term. WHY NOT START WITH WIKIPEDIA? (of course remaining inside the POV limits). as you can see in the latest edit, I have come close to that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xe Cahzytr Ryz (talk • contribs) 15:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Why not start with Wikipedia?' Because an encyclopedia's role is to reflect the current literature not engage in advocacy, no matter how well intentioned. It is as simple as that. Ashmoo (talk) 08:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I AGREE THE NAME SHOULD BE CHANGED Wikipedia should be an academic more then a mass media influenced, pseudo-intelectual "encyclopedia".

How about we add the title search negro to african american (With all due respect) Maybe we should call israelis yahud (jews) when citing palestinian or arab points of view, its very prevalent in arabic (formal big budget and respectable news outlets too).

Wahhabism was started as an insult and out of biasm, continuing to use it is an insult and the institutionalisation of biasm. Maybe we should encourage and reference Nazi german literature about inferior races too. Wikipedia (CORRECT ME IF IM MISTAKEN) is not here to serve anglo-saxons, it here as an encyclopedia, and english is the language of choice. That said western cultural bias should not prevalent, even if the language is English.

THE TITLE SHOULD BE CHANGED AND WAHHABISM AS A KEYWORD SHOULD LEAD TO THE NEW TITLE NAME That wouldn't alienate the "simple" english speakers, all whilst maintaining NEUTRALITY, and being RESPECTFUL and PROFESSIONAL


 * Actually Wikipedia's goal is to provide facts and information not present the current literary position. That would be advocacy through majority which you said yourself is unacceptable. I have no opinion as to what the title should be. All I know is that if a person's name is Bob it is rude to call him Jim. So if the Wahabists want to call themselves something else it is their matter. Call it whatever you want though, it doesn't change the fact that Wahabis wanted to destroy the shrine of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) and believe that anybody who is not a wahabi should be killed and they have killed and continue to kill thousands upon thousands of Shias (Maybe more?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qbadge (talk • contribs) 19:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow!! Where have all the smart people gone ???
I really find it surprising that after so much time this article is still as bad as when i first visited it. I'm surprised that despite all the discussion KEY ISSUES have not been brought up. Guys this article is supposed to be objective... an academic like article. The contents so far are childish and simple.

Guys there is a reason "wahabis" don't call themselves wahabis and it doesn't just have to do with the pejorative label so often sensed with the use of the word wahabi. They don't call themselves wahabis mainly because to the "wahabis" (saudi/salafi clerics) "wahabism" literally does not exist !!! Very simply because their method of deriving Fiqh is similar to the rest of sunni scholars !

The whole essence of any religious group (or sub-group) lies in their understanding of the religion in question (in this case Islam). The essence of that group (and its understanding of the religion) lies in 2 key aspects. First, the philosophical approach. But more importantly in the METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH (FIQH).

Fiqh
There are four methodological schools. Hanbali, Maliki, Shafii and Hanafi. These schools differ in the means through which they derive "the answer" to different questions within islamic jurisprudence (please refer to madhabs or the 4 names mentioned above).

"Wahabis" use these same different approaches, although many wahabis are known to be hanbalis. That said, a madhab is not a source of ready answers, its a methodological approach. Even non-"wahabi" sunni scholars do not imitate... They are scholars what's the point of copy-pasting if ur a scholar ??!! Doesn't that defeat the purpose of being a scholar in the first place ???

A madhab is only a source of ready answers if ur not a scholar (alemm or plural form ulemma) then u can refer to an expert's (alemm) answer or a madhab's answer if their exists a consensus.

PLEASE GUYS WORK ON THE FIQH PART ITS THE CORE THE ESSENTIAL THE FOCAL THE CENTRAL THE MAIN THE ONE AND ONLY TENANT OF THIS ARTICLE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 04:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Why were the contributions deleted ?
I added a large paragraph to the the introductory and fiqh parts. Can you please tell me why they were deleted ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 02:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

MERGE SALAFISM AND WAHABISM USING THE WORD SALAFISM AS A TITLE
I don't seem to be the only one to have a problem with the name. Not just is it an institutionalization of bias, Its literally nonsensical !!

Merging the two it would do no harm to wikipedia, and at the same time respect the opinions and contributions of half a dozen people who contributed to this discussion asking for salafism to be merged with wahabism.

How about at least discussing the suggestion to merge

I hope that my comments regarding Fiqh weren't removed because they questioned the sense in calling salafis "wahabis" !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 03:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a reply
I addressed two key issues and still haven't gotten a reply. I am particularly interested in why the additions i made to the fiqh section were removed.

I insist on getting a reply. Its deceiving to withhold contributions. IS THIS A FORM OF CENSORSHIP WIKIPEDIA ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 23:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it was because a lot of your edits seems like your own personal opinion and are not attributed or sourced to reliable sources. Additionally, I have read the section you added four times time, and still am not sure exactly what it is trying to say. Ashmoo (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your replies... These edits aren't my personal opinion.

I am briefly explaining what fiqh is (an explanation not so different from the fiqh page in wikipedia) and linking that to "wahhabism". The article contains contradictions which imply that "wahhabism" is a fifth school of jurisprudence and/or a "sect" which is simply not true. I am attempting to "unbridge" the gap between the philosophical/existential/political aspect of "wahhabism" and the scientific approach to fiqh.

This is very basic "islamology". There is a reason they refuse the label of wahhabism despite holding Muhammad Bin abdel wahab in very high regards. His scholastic teachings on fiqh are irrelevant and the methodology used by Bin Abdel Wahab precede him by centuries. Its the same reason other sunni islamic scholars in a constant state of debate and disagreement with "wahhabi" scholars do not call them wahhabis.

Scholars in Saudi Arabia are not Wahhabi scholars. They are Saudi Arabian, mainly Hanbali and Shafii scholars, who don't necessarily have anything to do with Bin Abdel Wahab. Are Nieztche, Sartre, Foucault and Heiddeger cartesians because Descartes is the father of modern philosophy ?

I personally do not care much for "wahhabis" nor am i hateful of them. And my main concern is not their feelings, although i have always believed respect to be important. All i am saying is whoever these "wahhabis" may be they are definitely not a school or an orientation nor a brand within islam. At best they are an orientation within society and the politics of a particular society.

Let me make myself clear by giving you a simple example. "Wahhabi" clerics in Saudi Arabia do not consider women's driving in itself wrong or forbidden (islamic view as per the most senior clerics in Saudi Arabia). What is wrong are the implications of women driving.

What is wrong is defying the will of the many who despite progressively reducing in numbers are nonetheless significant and are still opposed to women driving, especially when it comes as a result of foreign pressure (believe it or not the will of the people does matter in Saudi Arabia :-)  and it should when it leads to popular uproar).

On the other hand if we take the example of alcohol, alcohol and its consumption are forbidden regardless of anything else.

I agree with our friend that said that the term was coined for political reasons and that these scholars do not form an ism or an independent school in any ways whatsoever, especially not within Fiqh.

Wahhabism if used should be used to describe the 18th century mouvement by Ibn Abdel Wahab and shouldn't be linked with modern day Saudi Arabia, in the same way the enlightenment shouldn't be linked with Bertrand Russell, Karl Marx or Adam Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 13:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I appreciate your input, you are obviously very knowledgeable on this subject. Still, wikipedia requires all statements be sourced WP:V to reliable sources WP:RS. This is especially important in article on religion, I believe. I suggest to quickly add sources to your additions of the fiqh section. Ashmoo (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I will do so as soon as i can. Finding reliable and credible sources is somewhat difficult for me, i am not part of the conservative tide. I know what i mentioned because we consider it basic knowledge in matters of islam and because you can easily get this basic information. But for a person like me to get credible academic sources in arabic is not as easy as it seems.

Regardless i will do my best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 22:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

How bad is this article
U know an article about islam is bad when the most credible source is the BBC. And when most references if not all are from western and internet based western sources.

Come one guys u could at least put some effort into it.

How can u talk about islam, be an expert at it when you know nothing about it, and when you don't reference muslim scholars about it.

At least reference other sunni scholars. It only makes sense that muslim sources used outnumber western sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 01:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, please add any notable, reliable sources you have. Ashmoo (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 14:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There are all sorts of credible sources used in this article and plenty of effort has been made. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes well the question is, how come the article is still this bad?

Notice how the credible sources you talk about all dismiss the idea of wahhabism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 18:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Reminder - COMMENT N. 24 CONTROVERSIAL NAME
This was posted some time ago by a contributor. I think it should be addressed.

The name of the article is highly offensive and IT MUST BE CHANGED. You do NOT name the article on Islam "Mohammedanism" r do not name the article on Muhammad "Mahound"!!! this is the exact degree of inappropriateness and POV-ness the name was first used by the enemies of the movement and to persist on using the name is biased, offensive and derogatory. It also gives incorrect ideas about the nature and the aims of the movement. I demad the article be renamed to something more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xe Cahzytr Ryz (talk • contribs) 07:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC) I REQUEST ALL THOSE WHO SUPPORT MY VIEW TO STATE THEIR SUPPORT HERE AND ALSO PROVIDE SUGGESTIONS A NEW NAME. WE CAN ALSO MERGE THE ARTICLE WITH THE SALAFISM ARTICLE. PLEASE SUPPORT ME HERE. DO NOT LET BIASED ENEMIES OF THE MOVEMENT TAKE ONE MORE STEP TO RIDICULE OR DEFACE THE MOVEMENT PLEASE OFFER YOUR SUPPORT

I agree with our friend here...

Wahhabism might be a popular word in western mass media, and it might be a used word in the english language. But wikipedia isn't here to indulge the simple anglo-saxon audience. Its here to serve information and knowledge let facts and logic rule. How about we add negro to the title search to african american...How about we debate the use of the word Negro on the negroes' page (i apologize just for having to use the word) Maybe we should link zionist to Israelis

THE TITLE IS A COMPLETE INSULT AND AN INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF BIASM AND BIGGOTTRY


 * There is no conspiracy to ridicule any religious group, quite simply this is an English language encyclopedia, so common English language terms are used. It is unfortunate that the English word for the movement is considered derogatory by those whom it describes, but wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such must reflect the current state of the world and language use. When the English speaking world stops using the term, wikipedia will change accordingly. Ashmoo (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying and believe me i am not accusing anybody of being conspiratorial. I understand what you mean when you say it's an "english" language encyclopedia. But that statement in no way counters my point.

If the word is so prevalent in english the keyword should be available, and it should link us to the appropriate search page. Thats about as relevant as the "english" language should be. The question is what is the appropriate search page ? Or in other words, what title should be used ?

The abstract concept behind these english words belong to the humanities. It is the appropriate names that should be used and not those that are most prevalent amongst non specialised anglo-saxons. In order to do so an appropriate understanding is required, facts and reason should prevail and not the indulgence of simple people.

I emphasise again my main concern is not the derogatory label, but the nonsense behind the use of the word. Its just wrong there is no wahab "ISM" It actually defeats the purpose of Ibn Abdel Wahab's teachings for there to be a wahabism. There is a salafism YES there was an Ibn Wahab YES But there is no Wahabism. I believe you have a more then appropriate reference which shows you the origin of the word Wahabism conjured by the colonial brits of 19th century India (oddly enough that source is one of the only muslim sources). There is no distinct phenomenon called wahhabism. Please refer to the linked article, i think you will find that the explanation regarding why the word was first used is still valid today.

You even have an western source that states that "wahabis belong to no school and as such may be said to belong to the school of Ibn Hanbal". Does that mean that they, the ones with no school are a school in themselves ? No that means that they "may be said" to belong to the school of Ibn Hanbal. Encouraging a return to the ways of the salaf el salih, hence salafism. (Many people myself included define salafism as the social and political manifestation of islamists active in the realm of social affairs and politics, encouraging the ways of the first three generations of muslims).

There is nothing that makes them unique and distinct. Whoever they may be...

I emphasise again that i don't believe anybody to be conspiratorial. But i am against institutionalised biasm that's all.

Do you know that up until very recently the word wahhabism didn't exist in French. The french "equivalent" was salafisme

I strongly suggest the title page wahhabism be fused with Mohamed Bin Abdel Wahab or Salafism page. I realise that this topic being of such importance may make you hesitate to do that.

So i would like to suggest you put my proposition up for discussion. Or wait to get further contributions to this page, i believe you will find that other then the suggestions made by islamophobes you will get more of the type of request i made.

Please note that i am not the first contributor to make such suggestions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 15:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look through the sources for the article, you will see that there are many books and articles (in English) that talk about Wahhabbism, so in the minds of these Western authors at least, Wahhabbism exists. I think this article should be here, to explain what these authors are talking about when they use the term Wahhabbism, even if it is just to explain that Wahhabbism doesn't really exist at all. Ashmoo (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ashmoo. Wahhabiism is an entry in at least two reputable encyclopedias of Islam. Merging it with salafism is not a good idea. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

To Boogalouie
When you speak of reputable encyclopedias of Islam are you speaking of the two western sources used in this article ? Don't you think the fact that these "reliable" sources were authored by westerners actually makes them less interesting in view of what i have been saying ? :-)

One of the main points i am trying to make is that the most credible sources are in fact those authored by muslim scholars (whether they be British, Arab or Malay). These sources you mention if i 'm not mistaken are British and american. I believe its important to rely mainly on sunni muslim scholars AND those "accused" or labelled of being wahhabis.

Even if muslim sources are not the most credible and the most reliable (i don't how they wouldn't be since we are talking of a concept supposedly within islam, islamic science and islamic jurisprudence), these two "reliable" sources shrink and are arguably irrelevant when wahhabism is placed and examined in the context of islamology (islamic science/theology). Also if you noticed one of these western sources that you mention uses the word wahhabism in the same way i use it, only to get it accross to others that the concept doesn't exist.

If your enquiring about children heart problems, your most reliable sources would most probably be a heart doctor and a pediatric doctor, not a historian of medicine or even a historian of child heart problems ( unless he was a doctor himself or unless you were enquiring about the history of child heart problems ) :-D It would be like asking me to write about american football because i know most of the rules and can easily write a coherent essay. Or writing an article on female testicles !! Why ? because wahhabism in islam doesn't exist !! Wahhabism only exists in that it is an anglo-saxon conceptualization and labeling of armed struggle and/or terrorism by muslims under the banner of islam.

You said merging it with salafism is not a good idea. I'm hesitant about that too to say the truth... Although i think its very appropriate to merge the contents of this page with Mohamed Bin Abdel Wahab, especially since he supposedly started this whole thing. What do you think ?

I don't mean to offend you BoogaLouie but are you of Persian descent ? I saw many references to the shah and historical persian figures on your profile page.

You have overlooked the basic premise of my argument, i can only assume you haven't glanced at the content of my explanation on Fiqh. copied from below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 00:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That the sources are western is not evidence of their inferiority to non-Western sources. We don't exclude non-US sources in favor of US government sources for an article on the U.S. government, or non-Marxist-Leninist sources to Marxist Leninists authors for an article on Marxism Leninism. (In fact I think wikipeida policy is for secondary sources to be used, which would exclude using Wahhabi sources when writing about Wahhabiism.) --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to say that all I've learned from your complaint is that you really, really, really don't like people to use the term wahhabiism, that you've picked up some pomo jargon ("anglo-saxon conceptualization"), and that you have a mistaken idea of how the article describes wahhabiism (that it labels it as "armed struggle and/or terrorism by muslims under the banner of islam"). No mater how intense your feelings and energetic your posting you have to have more than this. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if wahhabi fiqh is identical to a particular pre-existing madhhab - and we can't just take your word for it - why does that mean that there is no wahhabi movement that an encyclopedia should mention? that the term should not be used? that use of the term is some kind of western conspiracy? --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Western sources written by people that are not muslim scholars regarding Fiqh (i assume you know what i am talking about) are certainly inferior to sources written by western, or any other Fiqh scholars, in the same way that articles written by physicists about nuclear physics are more reliable then articles written by historians of Hiroshima about the same topic.

While its true that non-specialised scholars can give us a certain input, they are nonethless not specialised in this field. My argument, as well as the argument of the "western sources", islamic scholars and the Wahhabis, is that there is no reason within the study of islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) to believe that there is an independent school of islamic belief called "wahhabism".

What you refer to (Wahhabism) is in fact the "ideology" guiding a social and political manifestation of "conservative" islamism also known as salafism (which is probably too simplistic an explanation too). Conservative in the sense that they are conservative vis-a vis change in a given society's "mode" of functioning; the same way republicans are conservatives in capitalist america, in the same way Mao was a conservative in communist China. Your Wahhabism is not a school of muslim beliefs on what is permissible and what is not, it is the interaction of a certain group of people, and their ideology dealing with contemporary civic society, with contemporary civic society. Its the "bad cop" version of what the other cop, "the good cop" believes in.

It is in fact up to you to show that there is a "wahhabism" !!! So who are the Wahhabis ? Is Bin Laden a Wahhabi or is Saudi Arabia's senior cleric who was called an infidel by Bin Laden a Wahhabi ? Please give me any significant link between the teachings Mohamed Bin Abdel Wahab and any living person today around who carries the "banner of wahabism".

You talk about referencing, don't you see what most references in the text say? Most of these references (including all the citations and quotes), by muslim academics or otherwise argue that its a label placed on rival muslim groups, that the people called wahhabis are misunderstood and as such tagged with a different name. Also sources in the article sate that the naming was invented for political purposes and is used for the same purposes. Also many references used are taken out of litterature that critic the use of the word wahhabi and mainly use it in the way i do, to prove it doesn't exist. You and i are only using the word Wahhabism because of the established status quo and not because of any real and meaningful reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 02:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe your concern to be in the realm of the social and the political and not islam, hence islamic science. The "more reliable" muslim scholars (note: i emphasise muslim and not "wahhabi") deal with islam and its sciences, which should be at the basis of any study of islam"ism in the socio-political realm. Common sense no?

How should we determine whether there exists an independent entity known as wahhabism if not through the means of Fiqh. Fiqh is what islam deems to be permissible and what it deems not to be. If two people believe in the same thing what differentiates them ? You could argue that what differentiates them is that they are two different people... What if they agree on a certain issue, how can you seperate them on account of that issue if they believe in the same thing. Being two different people doesn't make them different on that issue, at least not untill a difference emerges.

A cat has four feet, a dog has four feet yet a cat is not a Dog

The reason i also spoke of "armed struggle/terrorism is because there is an obvious linkage between the use of the word Wahhabism with terrorism (or as some consider it armed struggle/resistance). Not only within some of the articles in Wikipedia, but most importantly in the minds of the "anglo-saxon" masses, as well as western mass media. Hence by merging the contents of this article with Salafism and Mohamed Bin Abdel Wahab pages you will satisfy the curiosity of those seeking to know about "wahhabism" and resolve the problem posed by the fact that such an important theme like Wahhabism has such a poor article, an article i add, with little constructive meaning.

You asked three simple questions allow me to give you three simple answers:

1-Why does that mean that there is no wahhabi movement that an encyclopedia should mention?

2-that the term should not be used?

3-that use of the term is some kind of western conspiracy?"

1- Like i have already mentionned... the keyword should be available, and it should link to the appropriate page. Meaning that if you type "Wahhabism" you would have a result.

2- The term should be used, since it should be used as a keyword

3- No i don't believe it to be some kind of western conspiracy. I believe it to be a form of western idiocy.

To Boogalouie: Let's be nice...

First of all i think it's very important that we abide by wikipedias rules and be manner-full and assume good faith. "Picked some pomo jargon" ? No my friend, i haven't picked up any "pomo jargon". If you like, i can gladly take the time to explain to you what a concept is. PLEASE BE POLITE, there is no need to try to demean others.

You speak of conspiracy... Please let me reiterate what i have already stated and say, i do not think that there is a conspiracy, nor do i think you capable of being conspiratorial.

I can see that you are picking up on my discussion with Ashmoo through the use of "conspiracy", please do not do that, i believe that any attempt to insult me, and twist my arguments should at least be original and creative. Ashmoo used that word in a constructive and sensible way and i quickly made sure to emphasise that i was not accusing anybody of such behaviour. On the other hand i wonder why you reuse that argument when its clearly irrelevant... Maybe its because you do not take the time to read what others say ?

I have, more then once; stated that i believe the word wahhabism should be used as a keyword.

I have already mentionned that wahhabism should not be dismissed from being used by wikipedia.

I do not believe in conspiracies to be that wide spread, at best conspiracy is greed combined with the intelligence of some and the stupidity of others.

I hope your not going to continue picking from the discussions i have with others, not only does it hurt the overall quality of the debate but its also futile.

I would like to ask you to be nice, and focus more and debating the issue at hand rather then me.

Ps: The reason i asked whether you were Persian or not was to determine whether there was any possibility of there being biasm on your part. The fact that you haven't answered the question can only make me assume. I guess at this stage any answer to that question wouldn't be very trustworthy.

Also i respectfully ask that you do not cut off my replies by putting your answers in the middle of my replies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 01:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

To Ashmoo
I state again that i believe that Wikipedia should serve as a proper encyclopedia and not as a tool to satisfy the curiosity of the simple. Even the simple won't be that confused if the Keyword Wahhabism refers them to Mohamed Bin Abdel Wahab and/or salafism, especially if that article has a very big and highlighted part referring to Wahhabism, explaining it (whatever it might be to the english speaker) and explaining its link to the title head and the concept behind that title...

You talk of the word being very common in the English language, i speak of a concept and a context. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a dictionnary.

I understand that you need references. I will try my best to get them as soon as possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 00:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I am the first to fight dictionary entries in Wikipedia and am current engaged on other talk pages doing just that. But given the sources, it is obvious that in the western world Wahhabbism does exist as a concept. Now, you may think this is 'western idiocy', but unfortunately, wikipedia is not an advocacy site, so we only report what the literature says. If the literature talks about 'wahhabbis', we mention it. Provide some reliable sources stating otherwise and we'll include them.
 * You have also mentioned many times that differing approaches to Fiqh is the only way you can get a different label in Islam. Providing a source for this would also be good, as I don't know enough about Islam to know whether this is generally accepted, or just your own interpretation. Ashmoo (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And one final piece of advice. If you are going to spend 3 paragraphs being offending at someone saying 'pomo jargon', you might want to consider avoiding words such as childish, you know nothing about it, CENSORSHIP & BIASM AND BIGGOTTRY. I know you never directed them at anyone specifically, but they do sound aggressive. (Also, 'biasm' isn't an English word). And implying someone is biased due to the imagined ethnicity is also very poor manners on wikipedia. Peace, Ashmoo (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ashmo:

I was offended by a few things. Mainly i was offended that he attempted to portray me as an idiot... I in all modesty, don't believe in things simply because i "pick up pomo-jargon".

Common Ashmoo we're not barganing are we now ? Its very clear that i wasn't accusing him, you or anybody else of being ignorant. "you (a hypothetical person used to refer to the academics) cannot write about something when you know nothing about it" PLEASE...


 * -) Regarding "censorship" and "Biasm and biggotry"...

Again i wasn't speaking to you or Boogalouie... I want to add that i am a relatively new contributor to wikipedia and up until the time i posted these comments i thought that "admins" and wikipedia personnel managed the contributions of participants.

Also i can't find where i accused Booga of being childish... Maybe because i didn't

Let's not make this personal, let's not get to upset, let's not use harsh words to attack others. Let's not bargain and try to gang up on others, especially when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I wasn't implying he was biased due to an imagined background, i was ENQUIRING about possible personal bias, and IMPLIED that in a topic such as this personal bias might be more common then usually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 17:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If Wahhabism exists as a concept how come the article is of such poor quality (refer to the quality rating), its been up for at lest a year ?

If Wahhabism exists as a concept within islam how come most references used state directly or indirectly that wahhabism doesn't exist. A careful reading of the articles shows that they merely use the word because it is a "popular" term. They seem to be writing to say that there is no such thing as wahhabism. I have been using the word does that mean that the concept exists ? Obviously something does exist, whatever it is it does have any claim to be part of islamic science.

I have to strongly disagree with what you said regarding the sources used in this article. Its the lack of support for the existence of an independent concept of Wahhabism that is making this article unable to construct a concept to the word Wahhabism. The word and the contents of the references is used mainly (particularly in the first half or so of the article ) either to merely describe what people understand to be wahhabism or to refute the existence of such a concept. That is why after so long the article is still rated as a "start-page" article.

Those that are attempting to define an independent idea of "wahhabism" are mixing things together and picking on chunks of information as defining Wahhabism. There obviously is a difficulty in defining what it is.

What i said regarding fiqh is common sense in addition to being accepted by islamic scholarly tradition. It is not possible to place another label on what is already part of traditional islam. What you are trying to label here, has nothing to do with islam and islamic belief, but has to do with "activism" in the realm of society and politics. In other words its not possible to place a label because the "islamic" basis supposedly behind it has already existed even before Bin Abdel Wahab. Its the modern form of this activism that is new and in question, and since Abdel Wahab's scholarly tradition is part of traditional Hanbali islam he shouldn't be attributed a new label. You are linking Wahhab's so-called "activism" with the modern activism.

There is no "conceptualisation" of wahhabist thinking in this article, only descriptions and the use of resources that directly or indirectly deny the existence of "a wahhabism". Our job here is not to report literature, its to construct meaning for words using references. A dictionnary would only "report" that meaning, an encyclopedia engages in examining the concept behind that word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Complaints And reminder by Bonassra Regarding the naming
This dispute is going over the same ground. I agree with Ashmo. Please provide some reputable sources that say Wahhabiism does not exist, or does not exist becaue it is not a school of fiqh, or is an invention of "anglo-saxon conceptualization" or something similar. It will be put in the article.

Readers can then decide whether they agree with your sources or the sources that say it does exist. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Like i said i will do that. You should know that some of the references already mentioned have stated some of the things i am saying. Its not as if everything i said is not backed by reference, i just haven't taken the time yet to link what i have said to the references since i'm spending most of my time here discussing. Some of the authors already mentioned may include Quintan, Al-uthaymeen, Bin Ghanam, Albutaimi, Glasse, Bin Baaz etc...

I'll also try to get you references that have to do with the basics of fiqh. Its relevance in islam and broader islamic culture.

You have to understand that many of these things are very basic to the muslim scholastic community. Much of what i am supposed to reference is like asking me to reference what it is i stopped learning in 9 th grade...Most literature i have read since then has had less to do with basic islamic science and more to do with philosophy and politics.

Besides old muslim scholars are not really known for writing in english, especially the pioneers of fiqh that finished establishing the methodological and agreed upon basis right after the Mongolian invasion of 15th century Iraq and Syria.

Please note that i am not "really really really ... bothered" by the use of the word because i feel insulted. Its because i am amazed at how something so basic can be overlooked. BELIEVE ME if i can calmly and intelligently discuss this issue i won't be upset.

Also to prove to you that what i am citing is not of my own making, i will copy paste previous contributions. You will see that some do not see any sense in calling anything wahhabism. That others speak of fiqh and how there is "Nothing As 'Wahhabism' in Fiqha (or jurisprudence)of Islam". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 18:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT 20 " Nothing As 'Wahhabism' in Fiqha (or jurisprudence)of Islam"

" It is a meaningless term, it is a misnomer, they follow the beliefs of Ahle Sunnah wal-Jammaa, and do not form any 'ism'. The term 'Wahhabism' was coined by the British Colonizers in the 18th century when the newly formed rising first dynasty of KSA under the auspices of Amir Mohammad bin AsSaud & Sheikh Mohammad bin Abdul Wahhab came into conflict with the former to protect their country, & came into circulation thenceforth & with the detractors thereafter. [edit]'Salafi' is tantamount to 'Ahle Sunnah wal-Jamaa' in Islamic Fiqha (or jurisprudence) "

COMMENT 21 " meaning 'AsSalaf AsSaleh' (The Righteous {=Ripened} Predecessors), otherwise (without the word 'AsSaleh') it will include all 'isms' which existed among the Muslim predecessors. [edit]This article is bias and lacks all the credibility "

COMMENT 22 " How can you talk about wahabism using non-wahabi (non-Islamic) references!!?? Maybe in the international influence section only you can do that but for the rest of the article you must reference what these people believe. For incidence, if you want to talk about Christianity you can't go and ask a Hindi about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.63.105 (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC) The problem is complicated by the fact that wahhabis generally deny the term. Also, ignoring outside sources limits the article. For example would you want an article on communism using only communist writings? The original editor is wrong. An article on any system of thought should include both descriptions of what its adherents say about it and what others say about it. This is the NPOV. Ashmoo (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Also, ignoring outside sources limits the article. For example would you want an article on communism using only communist writings? Yeah but i bet you wouldn't be that upset by an article about american democracy using only american sources. But i agree we should diversify... now all that needs to be done for that to happen " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 01:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT 24 "Contoversial Name"

" The name of the article is highly offensive and IT MUST BE CHANGED... ... the name was first used by the enemies of the movement and to persist on using the name is biased, offensive and derogatory. It also gives incorrect ideas about the nature and the aims of the movement. I demad the article be renamed to something more appropriate "  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 18:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Bonassra, I think maybe you misunderstand what wikipedia is trying to do. Please, please read these articles before editing or replying on the talk page: WP:V & WP:OR. Wikipedia is just here to report the existing literature. On wikipedia, everything you put in an article must be backed up with a source. Whether something is true or not is irrelevant, being able to prove it is.
 * Also, could I ask you to please reduce the size of your comments. It takes a long time to read through them and at the end, I am not always sure what your key point is. Ashmoo (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The way forward
Bonassra, my understanding is that 'Wahhabbism' as it is used by the sources in the article is only intended to describe a 'movement' with Salafi Islam, rather than a different sect or form of Islam. And many if not most of the sources talk about Wahhabbism as if it exists. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise but so far you haven't provided any sources for the multiple assertions that you have made and claimed are obvious and elementary. Wikipedia relies on sources, not editor's assurances, so please provide sources as soon as possible. Ashmoo (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how you got the impression that it is described as a mouvement within salafi islam.

I am basing what i said on referece 2, 3, 4,18, 19, 30. They say different things that agree with my overall point of view —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 16:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sources 3 & 5 both refer to Wahhabbism as a 'movement' while mentioning that the term is vaguely defined and perjorative. Ashmoo (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:CITEKILL
My edits were reverted by with the edit summary "better before", so I'm opening it up to discussion here to get more feedback from other editors. In the current version, the first sentence of the lead is illegible because of the cite clutter. Practically every word is cited (especially taking into consideration the next few sentences).

"Wahhabism (الوهابية, al-Wahhābiya(h)) or Wahhabi mission (الدعوة الوهابية, ad-Da'wa al-Wahhābiya(h) ) is a sect,  religious movement or branch of Islam."

It's not necessary to cite 10 sources just to say, "Wahhabism is a sect, religious movement or branch of Islam". Also, "Sect, "religious movemen", and "branch" essentially mean the same thing, or they're close enough that, for the sake of readability, it would be better to pick just one word instead of offering all 3 options. The first sentence of the lead should define the topic but, while this sentence starts to define the topic, it would be a lot more helpful if it was more informative. This is my proposed change:

"Wahhabism (الوهابية, al-Wahhābiya(h)) or Wahhabi mission (, ad-Da'wa al-Wahhābiya(h)) is the exonym of a strictly conservative, orthodox reform movement of Islam primarily practiced in Saudi Arabia that is based on the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792)."

The version you suggested is problematic as it states that Wahhabism is "orthodox". This is a value judgement and it is not for Wikipedia to determine who is orthodox and who is heterodox. For what it's worth, most Muslims (from both the Sunni and Shia) consider Wahhabism to be far from orthodox. See for example, Simon Valentine, Force and Fanaticism. Oxford University Press. MontyKind (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I took away some sources that only defined Wahhabism in passing and didn't have anything unique to add, and I left a few that defined it more in depth. I'm less concerned with the exact wording and more concerned with getting rid of the clutter and defining the topic more specifically, so people can look at this article and (1) be able to read it, and (2) know what it's about. It seems key to mention Abd al-Wahhab and the fact that it's very conservative. Thoughts? —PermStrump ( talk )  13:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I see a few different issues here. Multiple citations can be helpful for establishing due weight on points of potential dispute, but they're generally not helpful to the reader. My own preference if there are more than 2 or 3, and it makes sense to keep them all, is to put them inside a single ref with bullet points.


 * Regarding the term "exonym", I think it would be a good choice if we were trying to construct a definition ourselves, but it doesn't reflect the RSs I've just checked, on which more below.


 * The issue of sect/branch/movement has recently come up in a related context in Talk:Salafi_movement. To recap my concern expressed there, the term "sect" falls under the broad category discussed in the last paragraph of WP:RNPOV, though the distinction here is not precisely between technical and popular use. It is sometimes used as a neutral synonym for "branch" and "denomination", particularly in older books, although this usage appears to be falling out of favor. It also has a derogatory connotation, both vague and technical, in a number of contexts and can be considered a WP:LABEL. The term "movement" appears to convey a different sense.


 * For Salafism, as I recall for the sources I've checked, there is broad support for both branch/etc and movement. I've just checked a number of encyclopedias to see what they say about Wahhabism, including all the ones I usually consult, and a couple of others. To summarize the quotes given below, "movement" appears to be by far the predominant usage, although EI2, which avoids the use of any of these terms highlights that the term also refers to a doctrine. Here are the opening passages, roughly in decreasing order of weight I would give to these sources:

Openings from encyclopedias
WAHHABIYYA, a term used to denote (a) the doctrine and (b) the followers of Muhammad b. cAbd al-Wahhab. Brill Enc of Islam, 2nd ed

Wahhābīyah An eighteenth-century religious revival (tajdīd) and reform (islāh) movement founded in Nejd in Saudi Arabia by the scholar and jurist Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb (1702/3–1791/2). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World

WAHHA¯B¯IYAH. An Islamic renewal group established by Muhammad ibn EAbd al-Wahha¯b (d. AH 1206/1792 CE), the Wahha¯b¯ıyah continues to the present in the Arabian Peninsula. The term Wahha¯b¯ı was originally used by opponents of the movement, who charged that it was a new form of Islam, but the name eventually gained wide acceptance. Encyclopedia of Religion 2nd ed (MacMillan)

Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, Muhammad (1703–92) Founder of a revivalist and reformist religious movement centered in Najd in  central Arabia and commonly referred to as the Wahhabiyya or Wahhabis, The Princeton Encyclopeidia of Islamic Political Thought (NB: no article of Wahhabism)

Wahhabis (The Oxford Dictionary of Islam) Eighteenth-century reformist/revivalist movement for sociomoral reconstruction of society.

MUWAHHIDUN The movement was started by a religious scholar from Najd (Saudi Arabia), Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792), schooled by ulama (Islamic clergy) in what is now Iraq, Iran, and the Hijaz (western Arabia). The Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa (2nd Edition) (MacMillan)

The Wahhabiyya is a conservative reform movement launched in eighteenth-century Arabia by Muhammad b.Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792) Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim world (MacMillan)

Wahhabism (Arabic: Wahhabiyya) Named after its founder, mUhammad ibn abd al-Wahhab (d. 1792), Wahhabism is the most important form of militant Islamic reformism to arise in the Arabian Peninsula. [...] It refers to a set of doctrines and practices and to a sectarian movement comprised of those who embrace them. Encyclopedia of Islam, InfoBase

Wahhabism. (Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World) Wahhabism refers to a conservative interpretation of Islam founded as a revival and reform movement in eighteenth-century Arabia

Wahabism (A Dictionary of Contemporary World History (3 ed.), Oxford) An Islamic movement which developed during the eighteenth century in central Arabia, providing a rigorous, puritanical interpretation of Sunni teaching.

Wahhābī ISLAMIC MOVEMENT Wahhābī, also spelled Wahābī, any member of the Muslim reform movement founded by Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb in the 18th century in Najd, central Arabia, and adopted in 1744 by the Saʿūdī family. (Britannica) (NB: unsigned recent entry, so low weight)

Wahhābīya (The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, Oxford) An ultra-conservative, puritanical Muslim movement adhering to the Ḥanbalite law, although it regards itself as ghair muqallidīn, non-adherent to parties, but defending truth.

Eperoton (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite
It sounds like there were no objections to basing the definition on the blind sample of encyclopedic entries quoted above. I believe their weight supports defining it as a doctrine (a term used by the standard academic reference Encyclopedia of Islam, among others, and similar in meaning to the term "interpretation" used in other quotes), as well as a movement. The term Wahhabi mission is used by Commins in his book, but it doesn't appear anywhere in this sample or indeed in many other RSs, so it doesn't seem to have enough weight to be featured in the opening sentence. I've also clarified the structure of the following sentence. Eperoton (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Wahhabism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://wahhabism-info.com/Essay/Chapter02.htm
 * Added tag to http://faculty.uca.edu/markm/tpi_narrative_middleeast.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006080326/http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2010112487888&archiveissuedate=24%2F11%2F2010 to http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2010112487888&archiveissuedate=24%2F11%2F2010
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150509160541/http://www.hakikatkitabevi.com/download/english/14-ConfessionsOf%20ABritishSpy.pdf to http://www.hakikatkitabevi.com/download/english/14-ConfessionsOf%20ABritishSpy.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/news/bn2005/bn-2005-01-28.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Constant vandalism, false bias
Someone is engaging in an constant vandalism, for example the fragment "In general, mainstream Sunni Muslims condemn Wahhabism for being a major factor behind the rise of such groups as al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram, while also inspiring movements such as the Taliban." was moved under the Sunni section with the words added "In general, mainstream Sunni Muslims" despite the fact that this fragment was for years under the Shia section and the sources given to support added alleged condemnetion do not state that "mainstream Sunni Muslims condemn wahhabism", ironically, they all state that wahhabism is nothing but fundamentalist Sunnism. What's more, under the Sunni section, it's non stop reversed that the criticism of wahhabism comes mainly and primarely from the Sufi sources, and not the modern, mainstream non-Sufi Sunni Islam. Bralevis are sufis, so are the deens of al Azhar, so is Somalian paramilitary Ahlu Sunna Waljama'a, Lebanese Al-Ahbash movement, Indonesia's Nahdlatul Ulama. All the "Sunni" organizations mentioned in the section, are Sufis. Someone has a bias to keep alive, whilst adding things that aren't in the sources given. The truth is that nobody on the mainstream Sunnism condemns "wahhabism", it's critics are either Sufis or non-Sunni Shias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.72.109 (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Firstly, Sufi's are a subset of Sunnis. Secondly, the groups mentioned all self identify as Sunni (see for example Al-Azhar university). Thirdly, academic sources such as Force and Fanaticism by Simon Valentine, Oxford University Press. pp. 16–17 states that
 * The majority of mainstream Sunni and Shia Muslims worldwide would strongly disagree with the interpretation of Wahhabism outlined aove. Rather than see Wahhabism as a reform movement, many Muslims would reject it in the strongest terms as firqa, a new faction, a vile sect.
 * If you feel that "nobody on the mainstream Sunnism condemns wahhabism" then you need to provide evidence per WP:IRS and WP:PROVEIT. Otherwise, it is nothing but your personal point of view. MontyKind (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You clearly have a bias, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, therefore it presents facts, not opinions. Simon Vakentine presented his opinion, not a fact. Save for Sufis and Shias, no Sunni muslim will say that Salafism/"Wahhabism" isn't Sunni Islam. It's an official faith in Saudi Arabia, so how can it be non-Sunni? The Saudis don't know that their movement has nothing to do with islam. ALL the "Sunni" criticism in the section comes from the Sufi organizations. It is therefore bias and chosen based upon the Sufi sources to suit your narrative that supposedly Sunnis oppose orthodox Sunni Islam. You still didnt answer why you've moved sourced fragment from the Shia section to the Sunni one by adding fragment "In general, mainstream Sunni Muslims", which clearly violates Wikipedia's rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.72.109 (talk) 07:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * >>Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, therefore it presents facts, not opinions. Simon Vakentine presented his opinion, not a fact.<<
 * "Facts" are determined from reliable sources per WP:IRS, and yes the book Force and Fanaticism by Simon Valentine is a reliable source since it has been peer reviewed and published by Oxford University Press. That is about as reliable as you can get. If you think that the source is unreliable then explain your reasons here.
 * >>It's an official faith in Saudi Arabia, so how can it be non-Sunni?<<
 * Where did I or any other editor claim that Wahabis are non-Sunni. Which part of the article claims this?
 * >>ALL the "Sunni" criticism in the section comes from the Sufi organizations.<<
 * I have already stated above that the groups mentioned self identify as Sunni (see for example Al-Azhar university). If you think they are "Sufi" then you need to provide evidence. Also, as mentioned above, Sufism is a movement within Sunni Islam so it is not a contradiction. Did you read my last response or is it a simple case of I didn't hear that.
 * >>The Saudis don't know that their movement has nothing to do with islam.<<
 * What does this even mean?
 * >>It is therefore bias and chosen based upon the Sufi sources to suit your narrative that supposedly Sunnis oppose orthodox Sunni Islam.<<
 * The sources all seem reliable from peer reviewed academic works. Which sources do you believe are "Sufi"? Also, the section is not about Sunni's opposing "orthodox Sunni Islam". It is about certain Sunni groups opposing Wahhabism. MontyKind (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no such a thing as Wahhabism, it is orthodox Sunni Islam. You clearly have underlining bias and you guard it. Ask "Wahhabi" clerics if they are Wahhabis, all will say that there's no such a thing and they just adhere to orthodox sunnah. ALL mentioned in the alleged Sunni criticism section are Sufis, including al-Azhar University (according to a 2011 report issued by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Al Azhar is strongly Sufi in character ), whose leading head imam, Ahmed el-Tayeb, is a Sufi. Sufis hate orthodox Islam because there's no place in it for dancing, praying to saints and tombs and such. You still avoid the answer why you've moved sourced fragment from the Shia section to the Sunni one by adding fragment "In general, mainstream Sunni Muslims". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.72.109 (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Your polemic statement that "Sufis hate orthodox Islam because there's no place in it for dancing, praying to saints and tombs and such" is nothing more than sectarian garbage. An anti-Wahhabi could equally state that "Wahhabis hate orthodox Islam because there's no place in it for anthropomorphism, man-worship, hatred for the Prophet (s) and such". Wikipedia however isn't based on personal beliefs either way, it's based on reliable sources.
 * Now, you seem not to understand the basic point that being a Sufi doesn't mean that one is not a Sunni. On the contrary, Sufism is a movement within Sunni Islam and some of the greatest historical Sunni figures such as Nawawi, Ghazali etc.. were both Sunnis and Sufis. Even the beloved of the Wahhabi sect Ibn Taymiyyah was a follower of the Qadiri sufi order. So the claim that "Al Azhar is strongly Sufi in character " doesn't mean that it is non Sunni. The two are not mutually exclusive. Further, reliable sources explicit state that Al-Azhar is Sunni. e.g. Oxford Bibliographies Online Research Guide by Oxford University Press, page 3 clearly states that:


 * The university-mosque of al-Azhar, situated in Cairo, Egypt, is the foremost center of Sunni religious learning in the Muslim world and plays a significant religious, intellectual, and political role in Egypt and beyond.


 * Not only is Al-Azhar Sunni, it is the "foremost center of Sunni religious learning". That is about as explicit as it gets. There are literally dozens of other sources which prove this also.


 * Lastly, the statement "In general, mainstream Sunni Muslims" is backed up by the academic source entitled Force and Fanaticism by Simon Valentine, Oxford University Press. pp. 16–17 which states that
 * The majority of mainstream Sunni and Shia Muslims worldwide would strongly disagree with the interpretation of Wahhabism outlined above. Rather than see Wahhabism as a reform movement, many Muslims would reject it in the strongest terms as firqa, a new faction, a vile sect. MontyKind (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Wahhabism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140418220740/http://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholarly/theses/2009/Sep/09Sep_Dillon.pdf to http://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholarly/theses/2009/Sep/09Sep_Dillon.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121219045347/http://www.info.gov.sa/portals/kingdom/KingdomHistory.html to http://www.info.gov.sa/portals/kingdom/KingdomHistory.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160503215333/http://www.globalpolitician.com/23661-saudi to http://www.globalpolitician.com/23661-saudi

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead banners
Could you explain these banners? The lead seems to be about the normal length for a well-developed article of this size. It's true that it has one more paragraph than is recommended by WP:LEADLENGTH, but they are short paragraphs. Eperoton (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you . I'll remove the banners if we don't hear from soon. MontyKind (talk) 10:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the number of paragraphs is the problem, but more so the content. For example is that fact that some call them a "vile sect" really need to be mentioned in the lead? Or something like this The US State Department has estimated that over the past four decades the capital Riyadh has invested more than $10bn (£6bn) into charitable foundations in an attempt to replace mainstream Sunni Islam with the harsh intolerance of its Wahhabism. ? If you lot think such things should be kept then we'll keep them but I think a rewrite could be good. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with the content as it is a summary of the article. As such, I feel that the lead should be kept as it is. MontyKind (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So you think that the examples I gave are a summary and not details that should be in the body only? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think these two topics (Saudi investment in the spread of Salafi/Wahhabi doctrines and harsh criticism of Wahhabism by some Muslims) should be covered in the lead in some form, though their coverage in the lead could perhaps be condensed and otherwise improved with additional RSs. These are specific issues that should be discussed with specific proposals. Overall I think the lead is a passable summary of the topic and doesn't call for those banners. Eperoton (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the banner about length, but I would like to keep the other banner there until we have at least made a start on improving it. What would you say is the best way about going to improve it? Should I highlight the parts I think are too detailed for the lead? Or should we start a new lead from scratch? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure why the lead needs to be rewritten as it seems to be a perfectly good summary of the article per WP:LEAD. As such, I would be inclined to remove the other tag also. If you feel that particular improvements can be made then you are more than welcome to make suggestions here. MontyKind (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Should the "leadbanner" now be removed?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Seeing that the rewrite proposal hasn't gotten any support so far, I would say yes. Eperoton (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed it based on this discussion. MontyKind (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Wahhabism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.cfr.org/world/cultural-terrorism-wahhabi-islam/p5234
 * Added tag to http://www.cfr.org/religion/mideast-threat-s-hard-define/p4702
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140727011019/http://www.scarrdc.org/uploads/2/6/5/4/26549924/bederkawahhabism.pdf to http://www.scarrdc.org/uploads/2/6/5/4/26549924/bederkawahhabism.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160804012750/http://www.islamdaily.org/en/wahabism/8411.saudi-prince-salman-the-term-wahhabi-was-coined-by.htm to http://www.islamdaily.org/en/wahabism/8411.saudi-prince-salman-the-term-wahhabi-was-coined-by.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.cfr.org/religion/mideast-threat-s-hard-define/p4702
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303102919/http://www.ibnsaud.info/main/9452.htm to http://www.ibnsaud.info/main/9452.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140312020104/http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2009032032701 to http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2009032032701
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140312014207/http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2010021463363 to http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2010021463363
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140427031354/http://www.globalpolitician.com/default.asp?23661-saudi to http://www.globalpolitician.com/default.asp?23661-saudi

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wahhabism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140321022500/http://www.netplaces.com/middle-east-guide/saudi-arabia-crossroads-of-islam/whats-a-wahhabi.htm to http://www.netplaces.com/middle-east-guide/saudi-arabia-crossroads-of-islam/whats-a-wahhabi.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.islamdaily.org/en/wahabism/1423.the-wahhabi-war-against-infidels-and-flowers.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Kiterunners's edits
I and then reverted 's edits, but on closer inspection I actually agree with them. For the first clause, the change does better reflect the cited source. Though the second clause was deleted without explanation, when I checked the first ref, it failed verification. In fact, it doesn't even mention Wahhabism. I can't access the second ref, but the obviously spurious first ref makes it suspect. Eperoton (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, let me explain why I deleted the second clause. It minimizes the impact of Ibn Taymiyyah on said movement https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ibn-Taymiyyah "He is also the source of the Wahhābiyyah, a mid-18th-century traditionalist movement of Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiterunners (talk • contribs) 14:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If the source doesn't support the content then I would be happy for the change to be made. MontyKind (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggest additions to History section (in Algeria, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq)
Greetings,

Wahhabi/Salafist groups were heavily involved in the Algerian Civil War, killing up 200,000 people.

Wahhabi terrorism in Pakistan has killed around 50,000 people since the 2000's.

Wahhabi groups and Saudi backing also provided the ideological basis of Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization policies in the 1980's (introduction of laws demanding stoning for adultery, imprisonment or death penalty for female rape victims, call for takfir/murder of dissenting Muslim citizens as well as the whole Ahmadiyya community, etc., etc.).

Additionally, they are playing a major role in the Syrian civil war, with ISIS and Al-Nusra/Army of Conquest/Islamic Front as the principal rebel factions, and contributed to the Sectarian violence in Iraq (2006–08).

Those are pretty notable chapters in the movement's recent history, I suggest that discussion of this should be added in the History section. Thank you.113.53.218.72 (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2018
...religious salafi movement...

Cross link salafi to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement Werenomads (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Danski454 (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

== Hubbard, Ben (31 May 2015). "Saudis Turn Birthplace of Wahhabism Ideology Into Tourist Spot" – via NYTimes.com didn't mention anything about the government of Saudi renovating the tomb of mohammad bin abd alwahhab to become a visiting point. ==

I live in ouyaynah the birth place of mohammed bin abdulwahhab (no wahhabis whatsoever btw bc it's a made up term by haters and western "experts" who also think "madrasahs" is anything but the arabic word for *&$^ing school) and only a wall of his old clay house has stood the test of time. and his grave is an unmarked as all other graves that nobody knows nor is interested to know which one it is.

the guy is a scholar who is respected by many in saudi but everyone here thinks of him as just an imam who helped bring back to people in remote areas such as najd the sunni teaching due to people forgetting them and beginning to improvise their own version and charlatans profiting off of other people, people worshiping graves, and etc... thus he traveled to iraq and syria and brought back the knowledge he had with him.

I'm oversimplifying things due to the urgency to point out that even in his "hometown" where a lot of people firmly believe in a lot of what he talks about, we would never refer to ourselves as wahhabis or salafis or any other made up word to describe ourselves except muslims who follow the sunni path. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.184.3.98 (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Peace, Alliance and Diplomacy between sects of Islam
Assalaamu Alaikum. I was reading Sunni_Islam and Madhhab (click on them to see). How come details of the Movements and Conferences below are not clearly included in those articles? Whatever is written is too light. I tried to ad the links below in "See also" as I remain busy. However the edits got reverted as spamlinks and unnecessary instead of being improved.


 * Amman Message
 * Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
 * Member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
 * International Islamic Unity Conference (Iran)
 * Al-Azhar Shia Fatwa
 * The World Forum for Proximity of Islamic Schools of Thought

Verycuriousboy (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

in Lede: Please clarify "the ideology of the Islamic State of Iraq."
"I Thought They Were All Muslims?" President George W. Bush allegedly was unaware that there were two major sects of Islam just two months before the President ordered troops to invade.

The article says: "Wahhabism has been accused of being "a source of global terrorism",[34][35] inspiring the ideology of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL),[36]"

Only an expert would know: 1) what the second clause means, and 2) what the relationship between the two clauses is. Also, lazy links should not replace effort (such as good writing).

See also MOS:LEDE:  Provide an accessible overview  The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. ...It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. ...avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions,... In general, specialized terminology  and symbols should be avoided in an introduction. ... Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar. ... Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it. ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:84D0:87DB:DB6A:24B (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hasn't everyone heard of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant?— Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 02:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Addition of Hempher theory in the opening sentence
Per WP:LEAD, the opening sentence should contain only the information that is essential for defining the subject. It is currently based on opening sentences from a dozen major encyclopedias, quoted in ref a, in order to establish WP:NPOV for it. Adding information that is not mentioned in the body of RSs when defining the subject violates NPOV in general, but particularly so for the piece of information you're trying to add. Of the 4 sources you're citing, 3 are for primary sources, and evaluating them for historical accuracy or any source of significance for allegations derived from it violates WP:PRIMARY. The fourth is from a secondary source, which although it comes form a blog, can be considered reliable, since it is a blog hosted by Harvard University and the text is by Bernard Haykel, who's a specialist on the topic. That source calls this allegation a "Turkish conspiracy theory—probably fabricated by one Ayyub Sabri Pasha". We don't currently have a single secondary RS that gives credence to this theory or considers it even significant enough for it to be mentioned anywhere in the lead, let along the opening sentence. It is covered elsewhere in the article in proportion to its prominence in the body of RSs, as NPOV dictates. Eperoton (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

dispute over religious demographics
(Same thing happened back in September.)

Edit by 80.184.81.48 replaced this paragraph in the lede:

Estimates of the number of adherents to Wahhabism vary, with one source (Michael Izady) giving a figure of less than 5 million Wahhabis in the Persian Gulf region, (compared to 28.5 million Sunnis and 89 million Shia).[21][22]

with this

''The majority of the world's Wahhabis are from Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia.[15] 46.87% of Qataris[15] and 44.8% of Emiratis are Wahhabis.[15] 5.7% of Bahrainis are Wahhabis and 2.17% of Kuwaitis are Wahhabis.[15] Wahhabis are the "dominant minority" in Saudi Arabia.[16] There are 4 million Saudi Wahhabis since 22.9% of Saudis are Wahhabis (concentrated in Najd).[17][15]''

Which duplicates the Population  section later in the article

One of the more detailed estimates of religious population in the Persian Gulf is by Mehrdad Izady who estimates, "using cultural and not confessional criteria", only than 4.56 million Wahhabis in the Persian Gulf region, about 4 million from Saudi Arabia, (mostly the Najd), and the rest coming overwhelmingly from the Emirates and Qatar.[15] Most Sunni Qataris are Wahhabis (46.87% of all Qataris)[15] and 44.8% of Emiratis are Wahhabis,[15] 5.7% of Bahrainis are Wahhabis, and 2.17% of Kuwaitis are Wahhabis.[15]

I'm going to revert it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Wahhabism are simply distinguished from other Muslims by considering Ibn Abd al-Wahhab a major Imam. The core of their beliefs is in line with Hanbalis and other Sunni schools in general. Giving demographical estimates is therefore very problematic here especially since they themselves don't identify by this term.
 * Izady is a very unrliable source. While his maps are useful at an introductory level, upon closer inspection they appear to be rife with errors. Izzady himself has no credentials in Islamic studies. He seems to make up figures based on his own estimates.--  K a t h o v o  talk 11:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggest page is deleted
Why wikipedia insists on misleading people by having a page about something that doesn't exist is quite bizarre

Wahhabism simply doesn't exist, the word wahhabi  is just an insult from the name of Salafi scholar and islamic revivalist muhammad ibn Abdul wahhab

We already have a page about salafism, which is merely the idea muslims should actually practice islam as it was practiced by muhammad and his companions and the first three generations of muslims -I.e pure original islam, which is what people mean when they talk about ""Wahhabism"", so why have this duplication The only reason can be islamophobia and an attempt to insult muslims

The non-existences of Wahhabism is even acknowledged in the article Crown Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud for example has attacked the term as 'a doctrine that doesn't exist here (Saudi Arabia)' and dared users of the term to locate any "deviance of the form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia from the teachings of the Quran and Prophetic Hadiths".

The only term you will ever hear a muslim use to describe themselves as adhering to a pure unadulterated islam as practiced originally is Salafi

So let's delete this article and clear up and Improve the salafism page 87.244.94.46 (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Reply to request for deletion
Dear user: Wikipedia is the compendium of ALL human knowledge whether it exits or not. Therefore although the term "Wahhabi" may fall into disuse, it must be kept as record of history. I also suggest you read the article on the disused term "Mohammedan." Messiaindarain (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The term isn't in the least likely to fall into disuse. It's the prevalent term for specifically the brand of Islam sponsored by the Saudi government. Defining it as "merely" what Muhammad and the companions taught is simply Wahhabi POV. We don't adopt the POV of the sect which is the subject of the article. We follow what WP:RS say about the subject of the article. For that reason there is not the slightest likelihood that this article would be deleted. DeCausa (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete this page for the honesty of knowledge Wahhaism is Salafi. But enemies of Saudi Arabia invented it. And you here supporting the claim. most of article is false and not correc> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkhunani (talk • contribs) 11:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read the essay on verifiability, not truth and perhaps you will understand.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Haneef James Oliver
An editor tried to add the following:
 * Author Haneef James Oliver completely refutes the term "Wahhabi" in his book "The Wahhabi Myth". Moreover, he argues with fact based answers as to why Salafis can't be called Wahhabis?.

The URL is not to the book, but to an advert for the book. Some user-generated reviews of this book on internet bookshops seem favourable, so maybe it is a good book to read. However it is published by www.trafford.com, so it is self-published. WP:RSSELF says "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Toddy1 (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Major issues and criticisms with the topic
Issue #1 The whole page is about Wahhabism which is basically a word used to refer to Salafi/Sunni Muslims by other groups. Those called Wahhabis never refer to themselves as Wahhabis and the term is usually used to demean the group similar to (please pardon the expression) when you call black people n*****. Sure the origin of the word isn’t bad, in the case of Wahhabism it’s a reference to the Sheikh Muhamman Ibn Abdulwahhab, and in the case of the n word it refers to the word negro which is the color black. The word Wahhabism is generally associated with terrorism, extremism, among other negative things and this is not a coincidence. The term is strictly political and used by people against the sect referred to by the term.

Issue #2 and much more importantly Since this wikipedia and not a blog, the information in the article should not be the opinion of the writer with the sources being opinions of other writers. When you read this article it is almost 70% opinions with the sources being opinions too. This makes the whole topic a biased mess with each side. To further understand my point, take a look at the first paragraph of the article pasted below.

Wahhabism (Arabic: الوهابية, al-Wahhābiyah) is an Islamic doctrine and religious movement founded by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.[a] It has been variously described as "ultraconservative", "far-right"[1] "austere",[2] "fundamentalist",[3] or "puritan(ical)";[4][5] as an Islamic "reform movement" to restore "pure monotheistic worship" (tawhid) by devotees;[6][7] and as a "deviant sectarian movement",[7] "vile sect"[8] and a distortion of Islam by its detractors.[2][9] The term Wahhabi(sm) is often used polemically and adherents commonly reject its use, preferring to be called Salafi or muwahhid,[10][11][12] claiming to emphasize the principle of tawhid[13] (the "uniqueness" and "unity" of God)[14] or monotheism, dismissing other Muslims as practising shirk (idolatry).[15] It follows the theology of Ibn Taymiyyah and the Hanbali school of jurisprudence,[6] although a small minority of Hanbali leaders renounced ibn Abd al-Wahhab's views due to Ottoman influence.[5]

I hope this shows how unwikipedia-worthy this writing is.

My suggestion This article is extremely messy, opinions and facts are mixed together and needs a complete rewrite. Until that happens I suggest putting a notification on the article that it is very opinionated to warn readers not to take information written in the article as facts.

To be honest I don’t think this topic is going to be written according to the Wikipedia guidelines any time soon due to the inherent issues with the topic discussed in issue #1.

Thanks 4eebwiki (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Vahhabism
Vahhabism wikipedia is wrong... Vahhabism is not hambali. But its terrorist groups 2409:4071:D8C:5D4C:0:0:7B4A:E12 (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Dawa
At Wahhabism, there is a link to DAB page Dawa which needs to be fixed. This is not a requested edit, because I don't know the answer. If the page had a lower protection level, I would have added a dn tag. Narky Blert (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC) Vahhabism is going to terrorist activities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:D8C:5D4C:0:0:7B4A:E12 (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Page move without discussion
@Shadowwarrior8: While it is good to edit boldly, the page move you made is not the sort of uncontroversial correction that should be made without discussion. Wahhabism is the clear WP:COMMONNAME for this subject in English, so very good reasons indeed would be needed to move away from this. That said, you are welcome to start a move request discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323 Okay, thanks for the reminder. I am aware that Wahhabism is a commonname.

But I think using this exonym alone is quite misleading in this article since term generally refers to a wide swathe of religious groups of seperate origins that shares common doctrines. Sometimes, conservative movements with opposing doctrines are also used to denote "Wahhabism".

Hence I suggest that this article title should be more precise to denote the Arabian regional movement descended from Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his students.

And this is why I suggested the title Muwahhidun (Wahhabi), since:
 * There are multiple Muwahhidun movements historically
 * There are multiple movements getting referred to as "Wahhabi"
 * A seperate article is needed to for the term Wahhabi, which is different from the movement of Muwahhdin-Wahhabi

Hence the title Muwahhidin(Wahhabi) shall be more precise, accurate and less confusing. Moroever, the existing links of "Wahhabism" shall always lead to here; since it automatically redirects here. Meanwhile "Wahhabi" when used as a pejoritave epithet or to denote other movements not descended from Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, someone needs to create a seperate article for the label. Something similar to Fascist (insult).

Thank you

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It makes sense that there were multiple movements historically whose adherents called themselves Muwahhidun, since this is quite a generic term. This weakens the case for using the term to denote Wahhabis. However, are there really multiple movements that are referred to as Wahhabi? I understand it as quite specific to the Saudi tradition and overseas movements that have adopted its traditions. As you say, it would be consistent with other pages on religion to have a separate page on Wahhabis, just as there are separate pages on Christianity and Christians. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * On a technical note, in terms of WP:CRITERIA, the fact that you need to clarify the term "Muwahhidun" with "(Wahhabi)" tells you that Wahhabi is the more precise term, so why not simply be concise and use the most precise term? A term that immediately requires disambiguation when used as a title is plainly inferior to a term that requires no such disambiguation. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)