Talk:Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
Islam
Islam Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Muslim scholars task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
Saudi Arabia Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Saudi Arabia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Peer review Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.


Contents

[edit] What did Abdul al wahhab actually teach?

Someone said: I find this article very curious, if we take the book he wrote "kitab attawheed" how does this book diverge from islamic opinion? the article contains very little about what this man preached.

Some other said: "What this man preached" is more appropriately covered in "Wahhabism", which is linked in the first paragraph.
I think that it would be very appropriate to Abd al Wahhab's teachings here, at least in a short section listing what he added to/stressed in the normal sunni teachings. The article wahhabism may treat the subject more extensively, but that article may contain further developments of the movement, that are from after the life time of Wahhab. Said: Rursus ☻ 07:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
But the article of wahhabism doesn't treat the general moslem criticism against this cultic islam at all. Both pages should treat this subject. Said: Rursus ☻ 08:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I suppose a section on his beliefs wouldn't hurt, though the Wahhabism article is a separate issue entirely. MezzoMezzo 13:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed the clean-up tag

I removed the clean-up tag. It was put up there a while ago and no one mentioned here why it was put there, so... Whatever. If you have a reason for why it should be put back up, let me know. The article looks fine to me, though. 71.246.209.43 05:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

I have been trying to clean up this article and some parts are so bad I have deleated entire paragraphs. Going to try and work on this more as this article needs hours of attention.Please be very bold in deleating things! banana04131

I read through some scholarly journals on Islamic history. It's hard to find info on Wahhab, but based upon one credible journal (from Princeton University), I re-wrote the biography section. I'd like to find more info on what the 10 scholars wrote in response to Wahhab, though, as the journal only mentioned the one Mufti, not the other 9. In any case, I see someone named NubKnacker reverted my changes. Please explain why you did so here. 69.138.24.96 14:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and.. The reason why I largely removed a lot of info on his early life, until 1744, is because, as the journal I'd read said. Wahhab's early life was described by his followers, after he was dead. So, their claim, "He memorized the Qu'ran at the tender age of 10 only," is uncredible. If anyone else has another credible source which disputes this (such as a scholarly text or journal), please cite it.

The source for my changes (which were reverted) was from: [1] Traboulsi, Samer. Die Welt des Islams, Nov2002, Vol. 42 Issue 3, p373, 43p; (AN 9117682) 69.138.24.96 14:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I settled the dispute with NubKnacker. The changes were put back through. He just wanted me to mention my edit on the talk page. :) 69.138.24.96 15:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

This aritcle looks so much better in just two days! Just wanted to say how nice it is to see this happen. Banana04131

[edit] Not NPOV

This article was clearly not from a neutral point-of-view, so I asked that they peer-review it and I generally tried to bring some attention to it. Seeing the number of people editing it, yet STILL seeing how absolutely horrible the article is, I had no doubt that attempting to debate would be a waste of time.

It's poignantly obvious tha, because every time Muhammed, the Prophet, God's messenger was mentioned, the editors wrote "peace be upon him," which is a Muslim custom (Wikipedia is not for Muslims-only). Furthermore, it's poignantly obvious it's not from a neutral point-of-view from how the founder of Wahabbism\Salafi is described:

  • In horribly poor English with errors too numerous to list (For example, "He gained the popularity," "having choiced," "bacame," "Investigation were made," "got himself benefited there," etc)
  • As having "profound scholarship and righteousness"
  • "intelligent enough to memorize the Qur'an by heart at the very tender age of ten"
  • "a man of courage and enthusiasm"
  • His critics have been "ignorant and selfish scholars"
  • As a result of his teachings, "Peace and tranquility prevailed everywhere"

This article is of such low-quality that it should be removed. But Wahhab is famous enough that he deserves an article. 69.138.24.96 19:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the tags to more accurate ones: the "nonsense" one is reserved for Wikipedia:Patent nonsense (i.e. meaningless or totally confused text). This is just a matter of viewpoint and rather archaic style. Tearlach 21:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can see the only problem lies with the Full Biography section. I think if we remove the entire section, this article would be a normal, NPOV stub. It's redundant to have two biographies anyway. Uly 15:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ibn Abdul Wahhab's Death

It seems very peculiar that there is no mention of this man's death, it's circumstances or significance.

[edit] Other

The claim that Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhab was referred to as a hadith rejecter is absoloutely unsubstantiated. It is simply ridiculous when one considers that another name the salafis go by is "Ahlul Hadith" or the "People of Hadith". Shaykh Rabee bin Hadee Al-Madhkalee elaborates in the following article: http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=SLF01&articleID=SLF010003&pfriend=

    Only the adherents of Wahhabi-ism regard the term "Ahlul Hadith" as being applicable to themselves.
    Ibn Abdul Wahhab is commonly regarded and referred to by the majority of the world's Islamic scholars 
    who do adhere to one of the four Madthabs as a hadith rejecter.
    Citing a POV (Wahhabi) Sheykh as evidence sufficient to silence criticism of detractors of the
    ideology is just plain bad business.

Also, it should be made clear that the "movement" is labelled as "Wahhabi" by its detractors and opponents. There is not a single person on earth who calls themselves "wahhabi".

    This is not entirely true, particularly in America where new converts are not always so 
    'clued in' to a groups acceptable/non-acceptable terminology. I personally know people who
    have at one time or another identified themselves as "Wahhabi". And, even adherents of the
    ideology who have been properly instructed not to call themselves "Wahhabi," while they 
    reject the usuage, recognize the name as being applied towards them.

The following is a good article for information on salafiyyah (salafism): http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=SLF02&articleID=SLF020001&pfriend= Also: http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=SLF01&articleID=SLF010007&pfriend=

    Oh, joy, more prosetylizing. Surprise, Surprise.

Moreover, the claim that Ibn Abdul Wahhab was condemened by the "scholars of the four madhabs" is ridiculius, as the four Imaams are regarded very highly in Salafiyyah, and their views are always taken into consideration.

    The "claim that Ibn Abdul Wahhab was condemened by the 'scholars of the four madhabs'" is so true
    and so well documented that suggesting it is ridiculus and therefore should be excluded ought to be a 
    crime punishable by being pelted to death with peanuts.

The above points should be taken into consideration in order to present a more accurate and factual article.

    The above should read:
    The above points should be taken into consideration in order to present a more POV and censored article.

Why do people call him the founder of a sect? Anyone reading his works sees that the only thing he did was to refute grave worship by using Qur'an and hadith-quotes. Nowhere did he base an argument on his own views. He was a refomers, wanting muslims to be more like the Prophet and his followers. I don't see how that is a "wierd sect that started terrorism."

That's because he IS the founder of a sect. You don't seem to understand the meaning of the term, please take a look at the Wikipedia article or any English dictionary. Wahhab and his followers hold doctrinal differences with the established majority of the religion, that makes them a sect by definition. The term "sect" doesn't say anything about what he actually believes or the validity of his beliefs, nor does it in anyway related to terrorism; those are your own opinion. Uly 19:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Indeed they call themselves salafist, not wahabbis, this should be specified. Both terms are equally pejorative from a western POV but not in the muslim world--equitor 23:21, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab Deserves His Own, Separate Article in Wikipedia

As the founder of his own sect, which has "exploded" with oil revenue onto the world political and religious scene, can anyone deny this guy's influence?! He has gotten the entire world's attention (when bombs start going off; people look around). Sure; he might have been "crazy"; maybe a thug, or a murderer, but definitely influential. The guy is either famous, or infamous. But, if I was going to look up the word "wahhabism", don't you think I should be able to look up an article about its founder? Not some crappy, "related" article. Really. (Oct.)

Comment not dated. Must be very obsolete by now, since ibn Abd al Wahhab have one article, Wahhabism another, and Salafism yet another. Trying to figure out how "the bombs" relate to Wahhabism – it's easy to paint black, but it's more demanding to understand real connexions, real connexions that might give associations to political and religious structures much, much nearer! However: this discussion should be archieved! There are comments from 2005. Said: Rursus ☻ 07:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Part of it is because there hasn't been much discussion here, I think. You got some comments from 2005, a comment or two in 2006, some now, that's about it. MezzoMezzo 13:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates for academic line

An anon editor commented on the article (see [1] and [2]) that it was not possible for Osama Bin Laden to be a student of al Wahhab because they lived in different time periods. I removed the text since it should be here on the talk page instead.

I assume the article means that Bin Laden follows the teachings of al Wahhab, but wasn't a student of his. Akamad 05:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Correct. --Striver 05:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

Did a few changes. If anyone doesn't like them, let me know. Banana04131 01:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

Lets rename this to Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, to make it more consistence with names like "X ibn Abd-Allah" --Striver 15:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Works Section

I want to add a section that lists the books written by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Are there any objections? ZaydHammoudeh 07:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Since I have not heard anyone disagree with the recommendation to include a list of books/treatises by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, I will include one. ZaydHammoudeh 22:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

Corrected all instances of "al-Wahhab" to "Ibn Abdul Wahhab". 86.140.45.3 12:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bringing references and citations

I am actually in the process of doing research on this dude's life, so i'm going to see how much I can contribute in the way of sources cited. Anyone else with the time to help would be much appreciated. The only sticking point I noticed in the last version was under the criticism section about an individual named al-Alusi. While I just put citations needed tags by the other unreferenced parts, i've temporarily removed the parts about that guy. I can find no reference to him outside of this Wikipedia article and to my best knowledge, there was no Salafi movement before the advent of individuals like ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and Muhammad Abduh. If anyone else can find some good sources on al-Alusi then please update the article and reference them. MezzoMezzo 02:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I added some citations and also material to the subsection on his childhood. It was a substantial addition on my part so I thought i'd look for feedback here to see if my edits were acceptable changes. Please leave any ideas and suggestions here. MezzoMezzo 20:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restructuring

I have some suggestions for restructuring the article that I wanted to discuss here. First, I think the Legacy section should be after the Briography section; I think this would make sense because first you read the bio, then you see the legacy part, which is the effect someone has once they're dead. Also, I think the Commentary sub-section should be moved from biography to legacy as I think it would fit better there. I'm looking for some feedback. MezzoMezzo 16:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and take care of that now. MezzoMezzo 14:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent vandalism

Recently, this article was vandalized by User:Suyuti with the following:

  • "owever this reference is incorrect as it is by a non-Muslim plus due to the fact that both his brother and his father are well-known to have a died having a bad opinion of M Ibn Abdul Wahhab as shown by the scholars of his day and many others."

First of all, it is extremely bigoted to say that references by non-Muslims are not acceptable for articles on Islam and Muslims; I don't think I even need to go into how many official Wikipedia policies that violates. Second of all, if it is so well known then why is there no evidence of it (but much evidence for the fact that both his father and brother accepted him)? If anyone would like to go into this then I have no problem pointing all the holes in this fabrication, though I am not expecting anyone reasonable to do so as the proof is clear. As for the user who did this, I will be watching this article now and if this edit is done again then I will have to report it. I am also posting this here so it is out in a public forum for any and all of my fellow good and rational editors to see. MezzoMezzo 19:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, MezzoMezzo! Wikipedia is the summed-up image of the truth (not necessarily the truth itself) provided by all humankind, moslems and christians and others alike. It should here be noted, that I am positive towards moslems to criticize the West "civilization" – but the system is as follows: all critical standpoints shall be supported by citations from outside sources, the criticism must be reasonable, truthful and logical, otherwise the wikipedia editing process will slowly make the criticism wither away. Said: Rursus ☻ 07:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. MezzoMezzo 13:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I edited some bad grammar and changed one section from 'From death to the present' to 'Alliance with the House of Saud' which is what was actually described in the section. I removed the 'cleanup' most of the article appears in a decent form, although not perfect. Seth J. Frantzman 17:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Good job, the article looks much better. The only issue I take was the assertion that ibn Abdul Wahhab's teachings gave rise to the ideology if bin Laden - as we can see from the actual article on Osama bin Laden, it was actually Sayyid and Muhammad Qutb along with Abdullah Azzam that gave rise to his ideology. MezzoMezzo 20:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Saudi arabia.jpg

Image:Saudi arabia.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banu Khalid

Banu Khalid are Maliki and Hanbali Sunnis. This is an indisputable fact. Any source that would say that Banu Khalid are Shi'ites does not know what it's talking about, with all due respect. For your information there is only one Shi'ite bedouin tribe in Saudi Arabia, Banu Yam, and they live almost two thousand miles away from the Banu Khalid and are Ismailis. -- Slacker (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: "The Ottomans reached as far as Al-Hasa by 1550 as they sought to curb Portuguese expansion. With Ottoman help, local merchants partially revived the spice trade, especially in pepper, but the Sunnite Banu Khalid expelled Ottoman forces in 1670." From Britannica [3].

It isn't an indisputable fact, for a number of reasons:

  1. The Wikipedia article itself notes that the vast majority of the tribe are Maliki or Hanbali Sunnis - notice that it does not say "all", nor is the claim referenced.
  2. Gene Gurney in his Kingdoms of Asia, the Middle East and Africa (Crown Publishers, NY, 1986) notes in the event of Ibn Abdul Wahhab's expulsion from 'Uyainah that this was "at the instigation of the Bani Khalid, who were Shiites..."
  3. During his own account of this incident, Ahmad Ibn Hajar Ibn Muhammad al-Butami al-Bin Ali, a Judge in Qatar, also notes that Ibn Ura'ir and his tribe were Ithna Asheri Shi'a. This is in his book Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab: His Salafi Creed, Reformist Movement and Scholar's Praise of Him.
  4. A similar account is mentioned in former Saudi Grand Mufti Bin Baaz's book Imam Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab: His Mission and Biography. This is in the third edition which was put out by the Gen. Administration of Publishing and Translations in Riyadh maybe ten years back or so.

With this in mind - and also considering the fact that I had referenced that paragraph earlier with Judge Butami's book, so it already was referenced - the more proper thing to do would to have been to ask me to justify it here first, not to remove it and declare "don't bother looking for a reliable source that will confirm that they're Shi'ites because there aren't any" as you did on my talk page. Come on man, that's the kind of comments I would expect from a twelve year old.
I've brought you reliable sources claiming that Ibn Urai'ir and his tribe who encouraged the guy's expulsion were Shi'ite, and that is ample justification for inserting it back into the article. However, if you can find a reliable secondary source disputing that the individual and tribes in question were Shi'a, then the mature thing to do would be to leave both references and mention that there is a difference in opinion on that matter, as there obviously is. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok listen, man. I'm not trying to be immature, here. God knows I've seen your work on other articles (like Fatimah) and I respect what you do. However, the fact that Al Uray'ir are Sunnis is indeed indisputable. 99.99999% of the Banu Khalid in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf are Sunnis, in fact. The reason I said "vast majority" and not "all" in the Banu Khalid article, is (1) I don't like using the word "all" because there will always be individual exceptions in any group of people (2) some Banu Khalid families that ended up in southern Iraq may have converted to Shi'ism (though I've yet to confirm this myself), but that happened decades after Ibn Abd el-Wahhab died. The fact that you would use that qualification as a loophole to argue that the cheifly clan of tribe were the only members of the tribe that happened to be Shi'as without actually researching this extraordinary claim yourself is disappointing. Now, I'm sure you're a very knowledgeable person, and in 99 out of 100 disputes I wouldn't be able to argue with you with the certitude that I'm showing here. But everything you've said on the issue of Bani Khalid shows that you're wading into an issue on which you have zero knowledge, while the topic of Saudi tribes, and Bani Khalid in particular happens to be my forte. I mean you even speak of Bani Khalid and Al Ura'yir in the past tense as if they were some ancient, extinct people. Don't you know that the Al Uray'ir clan still exists? Aren't you aware that the mother of King Abdul Aziz's two eldest sons were from Al 'Uray'ir (including King Saud)? Would the Imam of the Wahhabis have his firstborn and heir apparent mothered by a Shi'a woman? It says on your page that you're Muslim, do you even know that most Bani Khalid think they're descendents of Khalid ibn al-Walid? What kind of Shi'a tribe would try to claim descent from Khalid ibn al-Walid or call itself Bani Khalid? They might as well be called Bani Yazid!
I'm sorry if my message to you on your talk page offended you in any way; that was not my intention. Believe me, if it was a case me trying to insert info in an article, and I was sure of that info, I would go to the library, gather the sources, and use them. But you're the one who inserted the word "Shi'ite", not me. I'm just too busy these days to go to the library and look for sources on something so elementary and obvious. I think you need to exercise some good faith here and not simply rely on a technicality ("I have a source that says X, ergo I will insert X in article, even though I don't actually know that it's true aside from reading it in X"). Imagine if you were arguing on Arabic Wikipedia with someone who insisted on saying that George Washington was Jewish, and imagine that that person had "sources" in Arabic by non-specialists that "confirmed" his erroneous information, and that few if any reliable sources actually say that he's not Jewish because it's considered so obvious and unremarkable. Imagine further that the other guy won't be swayed by Arabic sources because he can't read them. Picture that scenario and you'll know how I feel.
I don't know who this judge Butami is, but he's certainly not a specialist on history or on Arab tribes. "Kingdoms of Asia" won't cut it either as it doesn't seem like it specializes in Saudi history enough to tell a Shia tribe from a Sunni one. Britannica trumps all three of your sources as it's written by specialists and has been revised over decades, yet you simply ignored it. Don't you see you're just going to the first source that shares your opinion without actually having investigating its reliability on the subject and without having any sense or knowledge of the subject yourself? If you want reliable sources on Arab tribes, there are plenty of books and articles by specialists who lived in that region among those tribes and knew what they were talking about. I could point you to some websites and books in Arabic, but it doesn't look like you can read Arabic. Go to the library for an hour and look at some reliable sources like Lorimer's Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf, Dickson's "Arab of the Desert" or "Kuwait and its Neighbors", Doughty's "Travels in Arabia Deserta", or a book by St. John Philby. There's also Alexei Vassiliev's "History of Saudi Arabia". I warn you though, it won't be easy finding info on any Saudi tribe's religion; they rarely discuss a Saudi tribe's religion unless there's something remarkable about it (i.e. if it's Shi'i), and that's not the case with Bani Khalid. Anyway if you find any reliable source on Arab tribes that claims the Bani Khalid to be a Shi'ite tribe, I promise you I'll convert to Shi'ism and visit Najaf next Ashura. I'm that certain.
You may decide after reading this to insist on relying on the letter of the law and not bother to actually find out for yourself whether this information is true. Fine. After finals are over in a month or so, I plan to go to the library and add citations to English and Arabic sources on the Bani Khalid page. I'll just use those sources here and we'll see how that goes. In the meantime, please feel free to make my tribe Shi'ite, Mormon, Greek Orthodox, or even Vajrayāna Buddhists if you like. Take care. -- Slacker (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
What I see in the above is that you feel that:
  • I have zero knowledge on this subject
  • I haven't done my research properly
  • The sources listed are not particularly reliable or informed on the subject
  • I am simply searching for sources that confirm my own personal opinion
The issue I take with that is that you have no way of knowing any of the above. You don't know the extent of my knowledge, you don't know how much research i've done, you don't know what my opinion is, and you haven't read the books i've listen. Just because they don't seem to jive with your view doesn't mean they're inaccurate. What I have here is several sources that support that point, and a person who claims to have much knowledge on the subject telling me the sources are wrong. I don't know you or how much you know; what would be more logical for me to follow?
Do we have conflicting sources? Yes, however, the notion that Brittanica trumps the others is a subjective matter. We aren't in the business of rating sources here. If you would like to wait until after finals (as I am swamped as well) i'll help you look into the issue more. But the bottom line is, we have conflicting sources; as a free online Encyclopedia, we should make all the information available to readers, especially if there is a dispute so that they may know. That's the best I can do to help you out, and believe me I would much rather work with you than argue with you. But I cannot, in good conscience, remove references because I think they're wrong without any compelling proof that those specific sources are bunk. I'm sorry. I hope this doesn't damage any future work we may do together here or elsewhere. MezzoMezzo 14:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I will respond in detail after finals. Briefly, I did not ask you to defer to my knowledge of this subject; I simply asked you to go research for yourself (and yes I do have a way of knowing that you haven't: I know that from everything you've said about it. Can you prove me wrong?). A good place for you to start is Lorimer's Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf (look for it at your library). Until then, assuming this is a "conflict of sources", then why should your sources trump mine (Britannica and Lorimer)? The logical thing to do for the time being is to remove the word "Shi'ite" (which YOU introduced) until we can return to the issue and sort out the reliability of the sources in detail, because, since you mention conscience, I can't in good conscience allow you mislead readers about Bani Khalid on the basis of three unreliable sources. -- Slacker (talk) 07:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to prove you wrong on my knowledge, as you're the one making the claim; the Burden of proof lies on you with that. However, I will check out that book you've mentioned when I get the chance as learning more is always a good thing.
I also never claimed my sources trumped yours; I simply pointed out that yours don't automatically trump mine. It's not one or the other. We have obvious conflicting sources; as I said before, removing the content you disagree with based on your sources is one sided. Readers should have access to all the information and if there is a dispute then they should be made aware so they may weigh the evidences and make their own decisions, rather than us making it for them here on this talk page.
You have also once again called all three of the sources I used unreliable despite having not read them. You have to understand that I can't take statements like that seriously for obvious reasons. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

How am I making the claim? Are you serious? I'm not trying to insert the word "Sunni", even though I referred you to two eminently reliable sources for it; you're the one who's claiming the Bani Khalid to be Shi'ite! And how is it one sided to remove the word "Shi'ite" which you admit is disputed, yet it is somehow not one-sided to completely ignore my sources and insist on adding the disputed claim? I could have just kept reverting and adding citations to Lorimer and Britannica exactly like you're doing, but I'm trying to be reasonable here and resolve this later in a more detailed manner. Also, if you've actually read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources, you would know that you can't just cite ANY source; you have to actually demonstrate that those sources are reliable on this subject: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. ." Whether I've read these 3 sources or not is not relevant, but FYI I don't have to read them to know they're unreliable on Bani Khalid. A source that says the Earth is flat is not reliable on physics, a source that says New York lies on the Pacific Ocean is unreliable on geography, and a source that says that Bani Khalid is a Shi'ite tribe is unreliable on Saudi history. -- Slacker (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if you could quote me exactly where Ibn Baz claims that Bani Khalid are Shi'ites, and specify whether those were his words or the words of an editor, I would consider that a huge favor. -- Slacker (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The initial claim about my knowledge on this subject was made here, which was just words but it still doesn't feel good to read comments like that. As for the dispute over the claim, that doesn't necessitate the "Shi'a" comments removal at all; in fact if there is a dispute then readers should be made aware of it. If you would like to add a sentence for the readers making note of this then I would have no problem with that. I considered adding such a sentence myself but I don't want to preempt your position here.
Also, I have read the official Wikipedia:Verifiability policy numerous times as well as the section on reliable sources and find your insinuation that I haven't actually read it unhelpful in improving this article. As for the sentence you've quoted, I haven't breached that at all; the sources I have provided do directly support the information as it is presented in the article and it is appropriate for the claims made.
As for your claim that you don't have to read it to know that it is unreliable, that is, in this case, false. We aren't discussing if the earth is flat or not. If you feel the claim is really that out there then we should both bring more information to the table to get to the bottom of this; your own personal view and your word alone is not a basis for declaring something unreliable, as your word is not a valid source for Saudi history just as my word isn't.
In regard to Bin Baaz's statements, I can work on getting them for you. I had it on hand with me when I initially added the reference but it is not currently with me now, if I go back (I don't want to reveal too much personal information about where I crash at, etc.) in the next few days I can find it for you. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok this is probably the last set of questions I'll ask you because this is getting frustrating, and I've decided not to wait for finals to get this over with. Now,are you saying this is all because I said you didn't know anything about this subject? It's just a matter of pride for you and not a matter of actually getting to the truth? I already apologized earlier, but hey I'm not going to dance around this; you clearly didn't know anything about Bani Khalid judging by what you said earlier. There's nothing wrong with not knowing that, but to engage in sophistry over something you clearly have little knowledge of is wrong, and as a Muslim you should know this. As for the claim being disputed, I meant it was disputed between me and you, not between scholars. Among people who actually matter, there is no dispute, and I'm not going to pretend there is a dispute just to please you. I challenge you to find even single source that says there is a dispute over this question. Show me one specialist scholarly work that says something along the lines of "there is evidence to suggest they were X, while others believe they were Y". There aren't any. All sources either say they were Sunnis, or much more often, simply leave it unstated or implied because it's considered obvious. You're trying to convince us that every scholar in the world who wrote about this simply failed to notice that Bani Khalid were Shi'ites and were waiting for some retired Air Force Colonel who can't even read Arabic and a couple of Wahhabi polemical tracts to uncover this information. That doesn't constitute a dispute. Ibn Baz once argued that the Sun orbited the Earth, that didn't mean the issue was disputed. You claim your three sources support their claim. Well, how? Did they visit the Bani Khalid? Do they cite a source? (I'm probably wasting my breath asking you this question)
Just to clarify, my arguments earlier were an appeal to your good faith by mentioning a couple of source in order to convince you to take out the word temporarily till we could get back to the argument later. Now, however, since I plan to outline the sources and settle the issue, I'm going to ask you one more question and I would appreciate a straight answer: what would it take to convince you that this claim is false? In other words, what constitutes the "proof" you were asking for earlier? Thank you. Slacker (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't an issue of pride at all; that is a secondary issue but nevertheless still an issue and flies in the face of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. It also makes you look rather unreasonable when you throw out accusations such as me having no knowledge on the subject simply for taking a contrary position to you, as you have no real way of knowing the extent of my knowledge on this subject. The official Wikipedia:Civility policy is also relevant here, as it is difficult to take you seriously when much of your position seems to revolve around discrediting me as an editor without any actual proof of the statements. And even in this last comment you've taken my mentioning of this and run to an extreme with it, suggesting it could be a pride issue rather than a legitimate dispute. That's dodging the issue and again, doesn't bode well for your case.
In regard to the claim dispute, you are also blatantly putting words in my mouth. I never claimed any scholar on the subject said there was a dispute; however, we have multiple contrary sources here and those contradictions in and of themselves are a dispute. You are also once again attempting to discredit the opposing point of view rather than discuss the issue at hand by attacking the authors of books you haven't read (re: your comments above about the three men). I am also going to warn you that Wahhabi is a religious slur, so please don't use it in discussion.
As for the nature of these sources, as I mentioned before I don't have access to them at the moment. I apologize if you would prefer to get this finished before finals but that isn't going to be possible.
To convince me that the claim is false, there are a number of things you could theoretically do. Maybe I misread the sources. I don't think I did, but obviously if you go back over them and say "see Mezzo, that's not actually what they said" then I would indeed be mistaken. From what I remember when I had them in front of me and added them to the article, they stated my addition to the article clearly. Barring that, I am not comfortable removing viable sources entirely because there is a dispute. Even if we collect more contrary evidence, that simply makes it a minority opinion, but it is not for us as editors of Wikipedia to decide on the readers' behalf that it's necessarily a wrong opinion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As Wikipedia editors we can decide that some sources are not reliable on a given subject. In fact, there's an entire noticeboard here devoted to judging whether a given source can be used on a given subject. What you're advocating is not a minority opinion; it is an error. By your logic, even typos would be considered minority opinions. I have a feeling that I can buy you a ticket to Saudi Arabia to meet the Shaikh of Bani Khalid himself and he could tell you that he's not Shi'ite, but that still wouldn't convince you. Frankly, it no longer matters to me whether or not you have finals, MezzoMezzo. You wouldn't wait till after finals for me to bring my soruces and instead insisted on keeping the word in there, so why should I wait for you to finish finals? I'll place the sources, and if you choose to ignore or reject them, I'll ask for a third opinion, and if need be, arbitration. -- Slacker (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I didn't know "Wahhabi" had become a "slur". I simply used the term as shorthand for scholars who support I.A.Wahhab's movement, and meant no offence. It is, however, almost offensive how two of Wahhab's followers seem to have automatically assumed that those who opposed them must have been Shi'ites. Actually, now that I think of it, Ibn Baz can also be disregarded as a non-neutral source on Bani Khalid because they opposed his spiritual forefather (we can't rely on Khomeini for reliable info on Umar, after all, can we?). -- Slacker (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

All things aside, per what you've provided on my talk page for the time being Shi'ite should indeed be removed from the article. I am very impressed by the work you did as well. Consider this one resolved. I'll expand on your talk page. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date and Place of Birth

Who has disputed this info exactly (especially the place of birth)? -- Slacker (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Childhood

The section on childhood has this sentence:

Thus, there are only two official histories of ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his religious movement: Ibn Ghannam's Rawdhat al-Afkar wal-Afham (commonly known as Tarikh Najd) and Ibn Bishr's 'Unwan al-Majd fi Tarikh Najd.

I dont know myself, but it seems to me like the second title is more likely to be commonly known as Tarikh Najd since it actually has those words in the title.Bassemkhalifa (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That is correct, Taareekh Najd is Ibn Bishr's work. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
You would expect that to be the case, but in reality it's not. Ibn Ghannam's work is known Tarikh Najd and Ibn Bishr's is known as Unwan al-Majd for short. Ibn Ghannam's work was published under the title Tarikh Najd al-Musamma Rawdhat al-Afkar, etc. ("The History of Najd called Rawdhat al Afkar ..."). Whether that was his original title or the initial words were added by copyists, I do not know, but that is the reason. -- Slacker (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Well i'll be damned. I guess that needs to be changed back then. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)