Talk:Wahhabism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
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.See comments
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
* Archive 1


Contents

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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:
  1. "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.
  2. "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
  3. "Whoever does something not approved by us will have it rejected." - Citation mentioned in the article
  4. 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"
  5. 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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#Critical 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)

[edit] 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)

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

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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".

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

[edit] 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)

  • Merge it

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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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] 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#More_dispute_over_the_Coup, 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 lies in 2 key aspects. First, the philosophical approach. But more importantly in the METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH (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 know 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)