Talk:Wahhabism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Chechen terrorists

In Russia, Chechen terrorists are often called Wahhabi's (vakhabits) in Russia. Would be to good to mention in the article and to know how's that true. Either they're real wahhabi's, or they're just funded by Saudi terrorists. 77.40.73.90 (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Forgetting about fundamental aspect of Wahhabism of attitude towards Jews

Before I say this, I just want everyone to know that I'm neither a right-winger, nor a hater, nor a paranoid. It's a complete shock to me that there is not a single mention of the suggestion in Wahhabism's founding tenants that Wahhabis kill Jews and the Jew Tree/Jew Stone. It may indeed be the case that most wahhabis don't believe in that aspect of it, or it may not be, but the point is that it is there and because of how "controversial" it is it deserves mention. It might even clear up misconceptions. Anyway, those are my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.64.194 (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Me Again. Here's a translation from the Hadith, "The day of judgment will not arrive until Muslims fight Jews, and Muslim will kill Jews until the Jew hides behind a tree or a stone. Then the tree and the stone will say, 'Oh Muslim, oh, servant of God, this is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.' Except one type of a tree, which is a Jew tree. That will not say that." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.64.194 (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually the particular statement that you mentioned is a hadeeth (saying) of Prophet Muhammad and should not be taken as specific to any particular group within Islam. Please, if you believe that hatred of the Jews is fundamental to Wahhabism please give some type of verifiable reference where this is indicated as a "fundamental apsect of wahhabism" instead of a general statement.Sharsalafee (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Wahaabiism is a Movement & Not A Sect

It was called 'Al-Mouwahhadoun' or 'The Unifiers' {of the Arabian Peninsula under Islamic Rule} but the West named it 'Wahaabiism' (a misnomer) after its spiritual leader's name in the 18th century AD. It ended up in the formation of the Saudi State. The movement followed the Hanbali School of Islamic Fiqha or Jurisprudence.Ilaila (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wahhabi = Salfi : No issue at all

I am also salfi myself, and I find no issue with either named as Wahhabi. I like both names and Wahhab has been named after our shaikh Abdul Wahhab Najdi. I live in Riyadh - Saudi Arabia. We have a huge community here of so called Salfi(Wahhabi), and we don't distinguish between. We love to be called Wahhabi as well as Salfi. So my suggestion is that in order to distinguish we (Wahhabi-Salafi) from earlist Salaf/Khalafs, one can write us as "Neo-Salafi", This makes better sense and easily distinguish among both.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.0.181 (talk) 12:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly written by a non salafi. "Neo-Salafi" is a term created by people opposed to salafi islam and to be honest, Allah knows your dishonest attempt to change things. But you are just a random poster, your opinion means nothing and I am requesting for an expert to view this section and look at the evidences I can provide to prove the wahabi term is derogatary. This perosn is definitely not a salafi. I have the contact details of salafi organisations all around the world and you are welcome to contact any of them, they will not accept any terms other than these three:

• Salafi
• Athariyah
• Ahlul Hadith

Seems to be a fake repeated comment by fake Wahabi. Earlier he was saying that he love to be called neo-salafi and now after an objection he is repeating his improved comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.237.39 (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

August 2009: expert needed

This article (and also Salafi) have stirred much controversy, such as calls of lack of neutrality/unbalance/bias which will need references to back up changes; misconceptions about what is Salafi and what is Wahhabi (sometimes used by opponents in a derogatory way, especially by neo-Conservatives); also the Beliefs section needs more citations and rewriting to match the references.

On the one hand we have here those who see the whole thing as a myth and an insult, hence questioning the whole article and especially alleged links to terrorism, or that the article is factually inaccurate; and on the other hand in the media we have those in the West -- especially the neo-Conservatives -- who claim that the idea of Wahhabism being a myth is a ruse by the Wahhabis and their supporters to hide their true identity and objectives (allegedly preferring to be seen as Salafis, say). It is not really safe to rely on Western media reports, and as J466 advises, we should look to scholarly sources.

See the many messages below. Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 21:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

BoogaLouie left a message on my talk page and very kindly offered; "I have made edits off and on to the Wahhabi article over the last couple of years and if there is some kind of mediation I would be happy to participate as an interested party."

I'm just "passing through" really and undid a couple of mass deletions that I noticed; then saw that there were issues to be resolved. Esowteric+Talk 09:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Advice from Jayen466

J466 gave the following advice in a section below:

Salam. Esowteric mentioned to me that there is a dispute here. If it is an ongoing dispute always involving the same editors you could try WP:MEDCAB or, for longstanding problems involving many editors, WP:MEDCOM. Certainly, if you wanted the article to be locked and groundrules to be agreed between editors, mediation is the way to go. But first try to discuss and agree specific sections of text here on the talk page to see if agreement can be reached, and bring sources to the table. The reliability of US media is often poor when it comes to Islam; I recall a specific UN finding to that effect. It may be best to look for academic sources in google books: [1].

Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 10:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

please yes Id liek for the article to be locked and a mediator to agree an article because this article is nothing but propoganda and is completely inaccurate

Please get in touch to let me know how we go about doing this mediation. Thanks. All the best

David.Baratheon (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC) 12:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Facts about the real Wahhabism Sect

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.

The Wahhabist cannot tolerate other Sunni Muslims and Shia and nonbeliever, they believe they are the only right sect when they only came about less that 300 years ago. But the Islam religion existed for more than 1000 years before Wahhabism appeared. One who want to search the truth can simply ask themselves, how come the people who practiced Islam before Abdul-wahab could all be wrong and Bida' and his right. If you want to know how Wahhabism came about then, you should read the document "Confession of a British" by Hempher. Just google it and you can find it online.

Its very starnge how people state things on the internet as if they are dead facts even though there is no basis to what they are claiming. Its also serves us as a reminder that there is much garbage on teh internet that we should avoid listening to —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.211.126 (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL, welcome to Wikipedia. Look at the difference between descriptions of American Republicans and Democrats if you want a real laugh.131.247.83.135 (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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.

Actually, the term "Wahhabi" was used by Sulayman Ibn Abdul-Wahhab, when he refuted his brother, Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab--who is the founder of the Wahhabi movement. Other Sunni scholars also referred to the Wahhabi movement as "Wahhabis," as did the Wahhabis themselves. However, over time, as the followers of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab gained an increasingly worse reputation for their various innovations, pillage, and slaughter, the Wahhabis attempted to distance themselves from their earlier epithet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noor House (talk • contribs) 03:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sulayman Ibn Abdul-Wahhab never wrote a refutation of his brother; this is actually a myth spread predominantly by Sufis, as the beliefs of Sufis and Ibn Abdul Wahhab clash with one another. The supposed refutation doesn't exist and I guarantee it cannot be found anywhere. Also, neither the people this term supposedly refers to nor other types of Sunni Muslim scholars at the time ever used the term "Wahhabi"; the word wasn't coined later until, as was mentioned, the British coined it. Please keep sectarian polemics out of serious article discussion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I aggree, keep the sectarianism out of this and lets have a serious discussion, looking at serious sources. I can provide details of where to look at salafi sources in most regions of the planet. However as this is an english wiki I suggest using the salafi communities in UK, Canada and USA as sources. I have contactd details of teh salafi organisations in all three countries and think this is more of a reliable source than the media who have no clue about Islam. I agree that there is no such thing as wahhabism. It is a derogatary term and it shoudl be stated as such in the wiki article. The joker above claiming to be a "neo-salafi" is definitely not speaking the truth and is clearly someone pretending to be a salafi in order to sway this conversation. You will not provide any evidence of any scholars accepting the term neo salafi. thats a ridiculous claim and a contradiction in terms

David.Baratheon (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC) 16:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Made some changes to my previous comment on the discussion page

The paragraph before the last in the to "ashmoo" part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 22:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I am going to remove the biased comments from the article. Most Muslims believe that wahhabis are a deviant group, so it is obvious that the biased comments are going to be removed if you want to have a true article.Samsparky (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Samsparky

I have no problem with ensuring the article has a neutral point of view, but there's a few issues with your recent edits:

• Firstly, the template you're adding to the top isn't working and just places a redlink template message in the lead. I removed it but you've put it back without fixing it. Could you have a look at this please?
• Second, sentences like "Wahhabis claim that Wahhabism also denounces the practice of blind adherence" are unnecessary - Wahhabism is defined by what its adherents claim it is, whether or not they then practice what they preach. Saying "Wahhabis say wahhabism says" is a simple duplication.
• Thirdly, the phrase "it is said" should generally be avoided as it is weasel wording. It is said by who? If we cannot provide a referenced source for who says these things, we cannot include them in the article.

This isn't an overall criticism of your work on this page, but these are reasonably important issues in terms of readers comprehension. Euryalus (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Half the example you brought up were put up by me. And if you don't like it is said, replace it with it is a common held belief... If you don't like weasel wording then you have a lot of work to do in wikipedia.

The reference are there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.43.2.1 (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about Samparsky?? Most muslims believe wahhabis a deviant group. If you use wahhabism as an adjective then every muslim and non muslim is against them. Don't invent a word, define a concept. So is Bin Laden a Wahhabi or are the senior Saudi clerics fought by Bin Ladin wahhabis ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.43.2.1 (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The existence of weasel words in other articles is not a good rationale for also having it here. "It is a common belief" has the same problem as "it is said" - it doesn't explain who holds this belief or give any evidence that it is in fact commonly held and not just the opinion of the editor. User:MezzoMezzo makes some further points about this below.

In passing could you also please sign your posts with the four tildes like this :~~~~ as it makes it easier to follow who is contributing to the conversation and in what order. Euryalus (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the comments based on your obvious massive POV is not good practice. "Most Muslims believe that wahhabis are a deviant group, so it is obvious that the biased comments are going to be removed" come on bro what is that are you being serious? Where is your proof or source that "most muslims think this" and even if most muslims do think that does that give you teh right to detail articles or does it invalidate the "wahhabi" beliefs? This nonsense is certainly not the way to resolve this page and it needs arbitration by a non biased, non muslim source, preferably high up the wiki food chain as this is quite a serious topic that could go on for a while

David.Baratheon (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC) 16:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wahhabi attributes

I honestly do not know how to use that template but I will try.

The reason why I wrote "Wahhabis say..." is because sometimes Wahhabis claim to possess certain attributes when they do not - they do not possess it and they also do not preach it.

I believe that saying "wahhabism is...", is stating a fact about them not only about what they preach - that is how it is understood in english - true or not?

Also, the statements where I put "it is said" were not referenced and I put it is said because I do not know if they are true or not. The author didn't reference.

I will make another edit attempt and you help me. I'm willing to accept useful advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsparky (talk • contribs) 10:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"It is said" and things like that technically count as Weasel words, so they should be avoided at all times. Also, avoid inserting POV; while you may feel that this group claims to have attributes they do not, this is opinion and not fact. Encyclopedic articles are just to tell who, what, where, when, why. Readers can make up their own minds as to the correctness of religious groups.

Also, watch the grammar and spelling. Proper nouns, such as "Wahhabis" and other groups of people should be capitalized. Make sure to pay attention to punctuation as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Let me get you some accurate sources then to prove my point.124.170.203.12 (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)samsparky

Creed controversy

The article does not make it clear that the essential distinction between the orthodox Sunni majority and the Wahhabi movement is in the matter of `Aqidah (Creed). The Wahhabis now pretend that "there is no such thing as Wahhabis," although this was the epithet given to them by the orthodox Sunni scholars who refuted the innovations and heresies of the Wahhabis two centuries ago. The traditional Sunni Muslims believe that Allah is is absolutely Incomparable and absolutely Transcendent (as in Free-of-Need--and NOT of altitude). The sayings of the Sunni scholars is that Allah is not a corporeal entity, and that Allah exists without being in one or in all locations. Among the most famous treatises on the Sunni Creed, the `Aqidah of At-Tahawiyy, the esteemed author, Abu Ja`far Al-Warraq At-Tahawiyy said:

"Allah is supremely glorified from all boundaries, extremities, sides, organs, and appendages or devices (adawaat). None of the six directions [above, below, right left, in front, or behind] contain Allah as is the case with all the creations."

This statement alone is adequate to refute the tashbih (the blasphemous belief in "God-resemblance") of the Wahhabi sect. Among the beliefs of the Wahhabis is that Allah is "sitting in person" (as Uthaimeen claims) above the creation and has a literal giant smiling face, large eyes, a pair of outstretched hands, a tibia, two enormous feet, and that Allah spends part of the day inside the creations. At-Tahawiyy said explicitly that Allah is clear of organs/appendages. The Wahhabis say otherwise. At-Tahawiyy said that Allah exists without being in directions. The Wahhabis say otherwise; they believe Allah is actually located in a very, very high place above the earth. As any native speaker of English can understand that idiomatic and figurative usage abounds in the English language, and that we don't take every phrase at "face value," one should be able to understand that Qur'anic Arabic also uses figurative language. Consequently, when Muslims say "Allahu Ta`aalaa" (God the Exalted), it obviously doesn't mean that God is literally located somewhere above our heads. When Muslms say Allah is "Exalted," we mean that Allah is Perfect and is clear or all created characteristics (such as, being in time, distance, or direction). Many of the words in the Qur'an may have a dozen or more different meanings in the Arabic language, and only a person who is out of touch with the heritage of Sunni scholarship/theology would insist that Allah, Who is the Creator of space and all that exists within space, is a spatial entity with corporeal characteristics. The so-called "Salafis" are only Sunni in name, but not in Creed or methodology. That is a simple fact of history.

The belief that Allah is a spatial being with "real actual" organs and appendages is a doctrine that goes back to some of the pseudo-Hanbalis, who misunderstood and distorted the non-literal verses (muhkam) of the Qur'an (as well as, Hadith of the Prophet). As a result of the Wahhabis' erroneous methodology, they rendered various verses and Hadiths in opposition to each other, and incongruous with basic common sense. In summary the Eternal Creator was and place/space/direction were not. After Allah created place/space/direction, Allah did not transform and begin to exist in place, space, or direction. This is the belief of the Muslims and can be found in hundreds of classical books on the Sunni Islamic `Aqidah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noor House (talk • contribs) 04:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree and think that the statement on the beginning of the article stating that form of Salafism, and a religious movement within Sunni Islam. is simply wrong, although Wahhabis call themselves Ahl-u Sunnah. Their believe is neither considered right according to real Ahl-u Sunnah followers (following Imam Ma'tureedee or Ash'aree), nor are these and other imams considered on the right path by Wahhabis. They even say that Imam Abu Haneefah or Imam Gazali are wronged (in dalal). Therefore, the sentence above should be changed to the article stating that creed in Islam besides Ahl-u Sunnah, Shia and Kharijees. Concerning jurisprudence, they are part of Salafism. Sae1962 (talk) 04:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding sentence to lead

I've added It has developed considerable influence in the Muslim world through generous funding of mosques, schools and other means from Persian Gulf oil wealth. Such an important point deserves a sentence.

If people think it needs citations added I will add but there are already many citations in the International influence section --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it... The comment is not referenced and seems to clash with other sources i find. Some undermine the importance of building mosques, others believe these claim to be generalisation and only fitting a pattern that seems obvious to some.

Its unreferenced and unsubstantiated at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 00:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

How bad is this article ?

This article must be 2000 words of descriptive non-sense without any real substance.

Bingo. This is what happens when you have an article based on a boogeyman as MezzoMezzo puts it, rather than a real faith, like Salafism. --Enzuru 00:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It is still impossible to define a concept of wahhabism. It is impossible to define and identify the methodological grounds on which they base their thoughts. And the only commonality obvious to us, seems to be shared between sunnis of different sects and even shiites and sunnis. It seems less possible to define who they are and what they are about except angry and "nutty muslims".

I disagree. I think the very attributes most Salafis or Wahhabis are the true Islam is what is specific to them. For example, they are almost all unanimously against intercession of saints, while maybe half of Muslims (Barelvis are who dominant over Deobandis in Pakistan and India, Sufism which is influential in the Balkans and Central Asia and of course the Indian Subcontinent, and almost all Shi'a Muslims) practice it. --Enzuru 00:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 00:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is in no way academic and seems like a collection of BBC feature programs on islam...

Personally i must try to be modest and believe for a fact that there is no wahhabism, at least because supposed wahhabis and "other" sunni muslims do not know what the word means !! If muslims as a whole, secular muslims and muslim scholars don't know what "wahhabism" is then there must be something wrong !!

We all know the buzz word... This buzz word "WAHHABISM" seems to me to be a mixture of terrorism, 9/11, burqas, afghanistan, hezbollah, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey and ultra conservative muslims. An apple and an orange is an apple and an orange, its not an applorange or an orapple... its an apple and an orange.

You're right, there is Salafism, but not Wahhabism. It's a myth. --Enzuru 00:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There is only the buzz word. There is salafism, there is terrorism, there is resistance, there are shia conservatives there are sunni conservative, there is islam but there is no wahhabism.

Stop describing bits and pieces of different things and trying to group it into one big thing.

It may be nice and fun to some of you to do so. It might help you think you understand the rest of the world. BUT ITS STILL UNSUBSTANTIATED NONSENSE. (If this is how you want to keep understanding muslims and the rest of the world, if you're really having fun, if you're finding your purpose in life and believing you understand the world then keep tuning to the BBC and Fox. You might even write an article about flying pigs one of these days) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 00:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't complain. If you have ideas, put them out. We need to understand this. It is by no means a simple issue. --Enzuru 00:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Enzuru

I appreciate your responses. But we must agree to disagree. Not only salafis disagree with the veneration of saints. Egypt's Al Azhar for instance, as well as many sufis and non-sufis in the balkans, India, Indonesia, Malaysia frown on these "popular" practices etc...

I didn't say only Salafis. I said it was a stance that distinguishes Salafism from many other Muslims such as Barelvis, most Sufis, and Shi'a Musims. --Enzuru 01:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sufis are getting a "bad rep" their beliefs and practices are being stereotyped, by the same type of people that make up words such as wahhabism, but also by muslims unfortunatly.. Sufis (and barvilis although i know much less about them) have a different philosphical tradition/school and a different school of kalam, but they agree more then it is believed with the whole of sunni tradition.

No, the issue is that Sufism is especially diverse. Orders are completely different, for example, the Bektashi order drinks alcohol and shaves their beards and don't pray. The Chisti order is huge on grave worship, especially the Barelvi. --Enzuru 01:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to ask you to cite major groups when citing sub-groups. Then let me respond to you and say that salafis too differ from region to region but more importantly then from madhab to madhab (Maliki, Hanbali etc..).

That belongs in the article on Salafism, because like I said, Wahabbism is more about the boogeyman idea of Salafism or terrorism or whatever. We both agree on this. --Enzuru 01:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

For your information salafis are being influenced immensely by sufi traditions mainly the anasheed and the chants common in sufi tradition.

That's fine, cross-pollination is to be expected to extents I suppose. --Enzuru 01:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If i am complaining it is because a group of people are hoping for a quick fix to the problems they have with islam. They refuse to even acknowledge that muslims know anything about their religion, and only base their statements on what the want to be true.

That is precisely my brother what you are trying to do as well. There is no quick fix to this article, if you want things to be shown correctly you need to discuss them with us, bring sources, and tell us what we need to change, so we can all agree and improve this article and all other articles on Wikipedia. --Enzuru 01:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What i am trying to do is convince a group of people discussing something that only exists to them using beliefs that only exists in their minds :-D

All we are doing is using the wrong words in order to understand something made up of different things yet that don't form one consistent and coherent whole.

You need to bring sources for everything, just remember that! We can do anything you want, as long as we have valid sources to prove it. --Enzuru 01:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sufism is vast i know that and thank you for pointing that out to me :-) But it seems more vast then you think it is if you are going to completly alienate sufism from certain parts of the world or even salafism. Yes even salafism. If you want to draw a paradox between some "sufi orders" and salafism i again ask that you mention the major sufi groups and that you differentiate between the major madhabs followed by salafis (Hanafi, shafei, hanbali, maliki).

That belongs in the article about Salafism that they follow one of the four major madhabs or no madhab at all. This article is about a group that the media and books cite exists, and saying what the world says about this group. Often the media, books, and even Sunnis will say Wahhabis don't follow a madhab. --Enzuru 01:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not judge me i probably started contributing to this page before you did. If i wanted a quick fix i wouldn't have discussed the issue with you.

Sorry if I came off as rude brother, do forgive me. --Enzuru 01:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Its this tradition of stereotyping and mystifying that's plainly repulsive. Human beings are human beings, stereotyping and mystifying makes other human beings an inch closer to being less human in the eyes of those who mystify and undermine others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 01:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There is No "grave worship" in Sufism rather intercession, lets not pander to that idea. Secondly the Wahabbi movement which designates itself as "Salafi", has it's origins in the 19th century innovations, Ibn Tamiyyah and Wahaab are its founders in many respects, just because they claim to be following original islam does not make it so, based solely on the extreme lengths they are willing to go. (Water Stirs (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC))

Exactly, thank you Water Stirs. --Enzuru 21:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Water stirs you have just proved that this point of view that "wahhabism" started in the 19th century is complete garbage. You state that its founder is apparently ibn taimiyah RA. WHile I disaggree, he is most definitely one of our scholars and he died RA many centuries before the 19th century so you have contradicted yourself and proved a point to everyone that people opposed to salafism is based on lies and fallacies.

David.Baratheon (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC) 16:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

To Enzuru: Regarding my edits

You acknowledged that wahhabism is a "boogeyman". Yet you don't seem to have a problem linking it to certain countries. I assume that is because you are thinking of salafism when you have to link certain parts of the world to this vague and arguably non-existent concept.

That is a very good point. But according to the media (which is significant for Wikipedia's notability guidelines), it does exist and is prominent in these countries. Please don't blame me brother, I'm not the one making these accusations. --Enzuru 01:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If it is salafism that you are thinking of then i don't think you would disagree that this social and political manifestation of islamic beliefs is solely present in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE. By the way i was the one to add Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE, i did so a few months ago !! But also added Mauritania, Algeria, Egypt, Pakistan and a few other countries. The purpose of that was to emphasise the "salafist nature" of what we are talking about.

I understand. Can you tell me precisely what the source we are citing says? That is what we should in general go by. If nothing, we need to take out the phrase altogether. --Enzuru 01:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That said all sunni muslims (even shiites although differently) to say the least look at the ways of the salaf (the followers of the prophet) as an example to follow or to understand religion...

Yes, we do, however, all Muslims are Shi'a of Muhammad, do we call them all Shi'a? All Muslims follow the Sunnah, are we all Sunnis? You can't play with names like that, that isn't a logical argument. --Enzuru 01:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

My friend you seem to compensate your lack of knowledge with the belief that i am playing with words. The point of the argument is that salafis (are those who base their "political" beliefs and their way of life on those of the salaf). That said those that have a salafist (believe they follow the ways of the salaf) are spread all around the world. I am sunni i love respect etc... the salaf, but i do not grow my beard without shaving it (to name an example). I do not belong to this group of people called the salafis, yet many despite the differences amongst them do follow the ways of the salaf.

What in the world are you talking about? That has nothing to do with a lack of knowledge. The term Salafi is found, but RARELY found outside of contemporary literature to describe the modern movement known as Salafism. You are playing with words, it has nothing to do with my lack of knowledge. All Sunnis are not Salafis, because accordiong to the modern definition, Salafism is a new movement of Islam that differs from other Sunnis in clear and defined ways. You make up a difference between Salfafis and Salafists, can you show me somewhere where a secular scholar actually makes this difference? Someone in academia? No, you cannot. --Enzuru 02:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh my god we must be living a world apart. We must share very different experiences with islam and "political islam". I live in Kuwait about 10% of our parliament are Salafis and about 20% are part of other islamist groups (they are all sunni muslims in a country that is 80% sunni). Salafism is not a sect, its a politically conservative, modern political manifestation of sunni islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 02:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that is the issue bro, but 10% still isn't popular. Like I said, 15% of Saudi Arabia is Shi'a but no one says Shi'a Islam is popular in Saudi Arabia, you know what I'm saying? Popular is a very loose and dangerous word. According to Wikipedia, it can be classified as a weasel word. --Enzuru 03:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That said there are "conservative muslims" everywhere, and if that is also part of what salafi means then salafism is found in different parts of the world, since in different parts of the muslim world there are some that are more conservative the the mainstream.

Salafism or Wahhabism simply isn't conservative Islam. If Salafism and Wahhabism didn't exist this article wouldn't, the fact is that the media says it exists, thousands of books say it exists, and there are even websites for Salafis at least like Salafi Publications. It may just a boogeyman, but that still is existence, afterall, even the article on Boogyman exists anyway. --Enzuru 01:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please quote where i said salafis don't exist !! Please don't turn me into a fanatic because i disagree with you. Please you tell me if you are convinced wahhabism exists why did you cll it a boogeyman and say it didn;t exist ?? :-) Salafism is the political and legal manifestation of a "very conservative way of life" in modern states based on the teachings of the quran the sunnah and the understanding of islam by the salaf.

I was not saying you said Salafism doesn't exist, I was using an inclusive phrase. However, I don't believe Wahhabism exists, I believe it is a myth made by the media and other sources, so I don't know why you're saying I believe it exists. I am not turning you into a fanatic, now please, don't make false accusations. I have been respectful to you, now please be respectful of me. And yes, Salafism says it is what you described, that has nothing to do with our argument. --Enzuru 02:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You are obviously not a salafist, i certainly am not. But they do exist everywhere. In India, certainly in Pakistan, Indonesia, Kuwait, Egypt, Bosnia etc...

I don't think its fair to label some countries with this "scary word" and not others...Kuwait is very different then Saudi Arabia, the UAE is modernising very differently then Kuwait, many people in the "gulf region" come from different parts of the middle-east region (even central asia and the indian subcontinent). Attributing one attitude, one culture to a group that is not only diverse ethnically, but culturally diverse within the same ethnicities is wrong.

I am a Shi'a, and yes, they exist everywhere. Shi'a Islam exists in Saudi Arabia, at around 15% of the population, does that make it popular? No. That is what your edit says. Change the terminology and I have no issue. --Enzuru 02:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If there are shia in Saudi Arabia then there are shia in Saudi Arabia... If there are salafis in Pakistan then there are salafis in Pakistan. If their numbers are increasing (they being wahhabis and/or salafis) then it is becoming more popular. Had Iran not been shiite (shiites as we know have a problem with some of the salaf) then it would have most probably been described as salafist state... Maybe even wahhabi :-)

Its a simplification, meaning its to simple, vague and overall "somewhat untrue".

Okay, that's fine. Now tell me, how should we fix this issue? You haven't told us what to do yet, that is the only way things will get done brother. --

Enzuru 01:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 01:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Very Very simple we remove all that is not referenced.

That isn't the exact way we go about it, we don't remove everything, but we do remove oustanding statements with little to no credibility. Anyway, it is Ramadan, and Muslims are not allowed to fight especially during Ramadan. Please, let's make this a debate, not a fight. I feel you have been rude to me and expect an apology, just like I apologize and apologized again if I came off as rude to you. --Enzuru 02:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And i am guessing "oustanding statements with little to no credibility" are statements that don't further your interests... Its ok we're all human, the same goes for me.

The problem my friend is that in the context of what is true and correct this whole article is outstanding with little or no credibility...But i have to insist we remove it all. All those serious and invested enough can find references to all their pre-held beliefs. Besides it will only increase the quality of the this eternally non-substantive article.

I didn't feel like we were fighting :-) especially not after you apologised... but since we have such different characters its only fair that i apologise to you to.

I also would like to wish you a happy ramadan and eid in advance. I am not going to reply to the rest of your comments since i need to sleep now. Hoping to see you soon.

regards, Bonassra

The Prophetic Core of truth about Osama bin Laden

If one looks at the hadith of Muhammed and St. Paul of the Light of the Damascus it is obvious that Osama bin Laden is the "Ad-Dajjal: the false Mahdi of Islam. That he is Sunni is no surprise; but it is his descent from the "one-eyed" one that should raise the attention of the sufis and the righteous scholars of Allah. The heaviest authority on the one-eyed or "evil one" Muhammed saw in his vision of the Ad-Dajjal that Gabriel showed him is written in the hadith in which Muhammed described one characteristic by which the "Ad-Dajjal" would be known: he would offer men "Jannat" or "Heaven"; but in reality would deliver them into "Jahannah/ ("Gehenna: the dung heap"). This sounds very much like Osama bin Laden's offers of virgins to those who die for him as the payment of the holy warrior as of the 7th heaven. But the hadith or "saying" of Muhammed further states that the Ad-Dajjal or Antichrist will try to put his enemies in the camp of "Satan" or even "Satan the Devil" as of "Jahannah": but they are actually the "peacemakers" that Lord Jesus and Muhammed said would be called "the children of the Most High". It is these who Muhammed said would be called "his people: the People of Salvation". Now we have arrived at the lesson of Fatimah; for every Jew Christian or Muslim who die for peace: but will not kill for it; for they know who "lives by the sword shall die by the sword".

Let us now compare what St. Paul wrote about Osama bin Laden as the Antichrist; If one reads Thessalonians II 2: 3-4 one will get what I call a "shock" of recognition. Here is the quote in full after St. Paul discusses the day of Christ to come;

"Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,

Who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sits as God in the House of God, showing himself that he is God."

While some might be amused by such recondrite blasphemy it certainly seems that Osama bin Laden has judged the West and, apparently with Allah's help, has carried out his judgment on the "great Satan" of the corrupt West as if he were, indeed; "God". By sitting on the throne of Mecca spiritually it is Osama who has done more than just begun World War III; he has made sure that it will be the last War; the Holy War; the showdown between what radical Islam calls "the people of Salvation" and the fallen West. While some might smile at such antics with the power the west possesses in it's arsenal we might look again at the prophetic core of belief that is driving the forces intent on their coming Armegeddeon; but the fundamentalism of the Sunni against the Shi'a has been the retrograde development is Islam that has brought the House of saud to it's moral destruction. And it is their embrace of the false jihadis that has raised up the "Judas of Islam"; the "fatted calf" whose death from the Zulfiqar is more about the death from his "exposure" to the Word of God; but the sword in the west has another name: Excalibur. Unicorn144 (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Put your posts at the end of the talk page. No original research allowed. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never read so much religious rubbish in my life. I have a better thoery, there is no god, lailah! --James Wanten (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have an even better theory: there's no me or you either! Beat that! Nshuks7 (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Meaning - definition

Words are assigned meaning by their usage. Wahhabism is a frequently used would applied to a somewhat fuzzy set. The users of this word include the following groups; 1. Western media, 2. Western academics?, 3. Western governments?, 4. ...., 5. ...., ...

These groups use the term Wahhabism to describe ...............

This term is rejected by the following groups 1. ....,2. ...., 3. ... They reject its use on the following grounds .........

All referenced. This would appear to meet WP standards on POV and verifiability.

Where is the problem? 203.59.51.154 (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I know this is gonna blow up but...

I think the recent edits by Stomaco have been good, especially since he threw a quote in there. What objections do we have? --Enzuru 08:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Christian Trumpet Sounding a valid source?

I think we need to stick with news or secular scholarly sources, unless we are being specific about what certain Muslim or Christian groups think. --Enzuru 23:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, the article is based on partisan Islamic sources, so its only fair to include partisan Christian sources. Not that I agree with either delusions of divinity. Either way, even secular could be considered partisan, being a (former) Muslim myself turned atheist I could see how Muslims could object to "secular" sources. --James Wanten (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The article shouldn't be based on Islamic or Christian sources, this is an encyclopedia and should be based solely upon secular scholarship, with references to polemical or partisan sources only when needed. And I thought somewhere else you stated you were a Christian. --Enzuru 23:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Christian converted to Islam, then to atheism. Hence why stopped editing too, as I considered it un-Islamic, the wiki not the editing. --James Wanten (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Of and was it not shias who came out with the concept of al-taqqiyah? First you should correct yourself, We should look into our shirts before pointing fingers on others. --James Wanten (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of anything, I was just curious, I thought you were going to state that you went from a Muslim to an atheist to a Christian actually. And taqiyya is used by most Shi'a Muslims not just for the fun of it, but when one's life is in danger: something which Wikipedia rarely entails. No fingers were pointed, sir. --Enzuru 00:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Normally, one does not go from atheism back to religion. Interestingly enough I've never really read much into Shiasm, although I've always wanted to... I've had this affinity for Ali I think he was a very noble and honorable man, apart form the time when he burnt some atheists, depending on which hadith you accept to be true. --James Wanten (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I love it for the sake of the humanism, pluralism, and spiritualism it re-injects in Islam. As Imam Ali (AS) said, "Whoever is not your brother in faith is your brother in humanity." --Enzuru 18:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, www.christiantrumpetsounding.com is not a valid source. As it is obviously biased, it can't be used as a reliable source WP:RS for merely stating facts. And as a source for attributed opinions I think it fails the Notability test WP:N as there is no indication that the website represents any sort of respected or even sizable opinion. Ashmoo (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of Intro

I have come back to this article after a one month absence and saw that the intro has suffered much change for the worse. Right from the first sentence it is rife with POV commentary on 'Wahhabbism'. I tried to improve what I saw as problems, but in the end just reverted to the 6 Oct version, as there was nothing new that I felt was any sort of improvement. The intro should be giving an overview the article's topic. Value judgements on the topic should be briefly mentioned and then outlined in later sections. Here are explanations of my major problems:

• fundamentalist reintepretation. 'Fundamentalist' is one of those words which has no clear meaning, especially when applied to non-Christian religions. 'Reinterpretation' is cleary derogatory, especially when applied to Islam.
• considered in his subjective opinion. This is a lot of redundant words in an attempt to stress it was 'only his opinion'.
• the violent reinterpretation of jihad. A plain English reading of this would indicate that Jihad was reinterpreted in a violet manner, such as all scholars with a different interpretation being killed. I'm 90% sure that is not what the original author meant though. Either way, the (non-notable) source fails to support either of my readings of the text.

Ashmoo (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to keep things under control, though recently I think it blew up more than usual. Why don't you do what I've asked others to do: lay out a plan of attack for our editing of this article so we know what we need to do and what should be done. --Enzuru 18:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

At the moment I'm happy to just maintain the existing version and remove any egrarious violations of WP policy. If you wish to improve the article, I suggest you lay out a plan of attack. I will be happy to offer any feedback. Ashmoo (talk) 10:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this article should exist at all, and should be merged with Salafism. But, for the time being, I choose to just moderate this article to make sure it stays balanced. So, I don't plan any huge changes to it myself. --Enzuru 21:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I notice that many editors have shared your opinion. Often an editor will come along and say that 'Wahhabism' doesn't exist. Unfortunately most of these editors either disappear soon after or never supply much in the way of WP:RS, WP:N sources to support their claims (I'm not saying you are one of these editors, by the way).

So, I think the issue of the existence of 'Wahhabism' is something that needs to be covered better in the article. The fact is that Western commentators use the word 'Wahhabism' frequently, as evidenced by the sources already in the article. I think the issue of 'Wahhabism' being either a bogeyman or a simplification by Westerners needs to be covered. However, we need reliable sources who have claimed this. Ashmoo (talk) 10:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

We easily sources where Wahhabi and Salafi are made synonymous, for example, the book The Wahhabi Myth by a Salafi author. As for for the boogeyman thing, I feel that could be covered with this article being merged with the Salafi one, with a section about portrayal in the West. But, is it plausible we could get them merged? There are also somewhat fringe sources separating the two. --Enzuru 18:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a slightly-related question: I notice that editors come here and add info on Wahhabis believing that God has 'body parts' and sits on a literal throne. Do Salafis also believe this, as I have never seen it added to that article. Ashmoo (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

From my knowledge, the mainstream ones do. But something tells me this may be partially mudslinging. --Enzuru 10:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A blog entry which touches upon the subject, from a Salafi perspective --Enzuru 10:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, lets leave blogs out of this! --James Wanten (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"should be merged with Salafism"

Enzuru do you consider the sources used here "fringe"?

(From salafi article:) The terms "Wahhabism" and "Salafism" are often used interchangeably. Wahhabism has been called a "belittling" term for Salafi, while another source defines it as "a particular orientation within Salafism," an orientation some consider ultra-conservative.

Scholar Trevor Stanley states that while the origins of Wahhabism and Salafism "were quite distinct" - "Wahhabism was a pared-down Islam that rejected modern influences, while Salafism sought to reconcile Islam with modernism" - they both shared a rejection of "traditional teachings on Islam in favor of direct, ‘fundamentalist’ reinterpretation." But despite their beginnings "as two distinct movements", the migration of Muslim Brotherhood members from Egypt to Saudi Arabia and Saudi King Faisal's "embrace of Salafi pan-Islamism resulted in cross-pollination between ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s teachings on tawhid, shirk and bid‘ah and Salafi interpretations of ahadith (the sayings of Muhammad)."

These sources seem fine (check the reflist on the bottom guys), but I wonder if we're cherry picking sources that describe Wahhabism as separate from Salafism, rather than solely and only a derogatory term. But, since several sources are starting to say they're different, I suppose we may have to as well, even though several sources disagree with that. It seems this article may turn into just describing several unrelated definitions of the term. --Enzuru 22:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

IMHO the big difference is the history. Wahhabism starts with Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab; Salafism with Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and especially the Egyptians Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905), and Rashid Rida (1865-1935 --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. I mean, I've never heard anyone link Salafism with Neo-Mutazilism before. --Enzuru 02:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Neo-Mutazilism? Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida are Neo-Mutazilist? --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

As per Muhammad Abduh, A recent book titled "Islam and Liberty" regarded Muhammad Abduh as the founder of the so-called Neo-Mutazilism. --Enzuru 00:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

From the Abduh article:

Abduh promoted the idea of salafiyya (pious forefathers). He asserted that the Islam of the forefathers was rational and practical. He also believed in ijtihad and that Islam is inherently adaptable, but was hampered by the rigid structures imposed by later generations.

From Salafi article:

From a perspective widely shared by scholars of Islam, the history of Salafism started in Egypt in the mid 19th century among intellectuals at al-Azhar University, the preeminent center of Islamic learning, located in Cairo. Prominent among them were Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905), Jamal al-Din al-Afghani (1839-1897) and Rashid Rida (1865-1935).(sources: Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World, Macmillan Reference, 2004, v.2, p.609</ref>; The New Encyclopedia of Islam by Cyril Glasse, Rowman and Littlefield, 2001, p.19</ref>; The Oxford Dictionary of Islam by John L. Esposito, OUP, 2003, p.275</ref>; Historical Dictionary of Islam by Ludwig W. Wadamed, Scarecrow Press, 2001, p.233</ref>;

see discussion section</ref>

From the link above: "This is what I found chcking all the dictionaries or encyclopedias on Islam in the reference section of my local library:

"Abduh's ideas appealed to those who wished to imitate the West without abandoning their heritage. The movement which embodied this reform was called the Salafiyyah, and Muhammad `Abduh was its most influential figure." (from The New Encyclopedia of Islam by Cyril Glasse, Rowman and Littlefield, 2001, p.19) --Leroy65X 22:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Salafi - Name ... given to a reform movment led by Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh at the turn of the 20th century. Emphasized restoration of Islamic doctrines to pure form, adherance to the Quran and Sunna, rejection of the authority of later interpretations ....." (from The Oxford Dictionary of Islam by John L. Esposito, OUP, 2003, p.275

"Salafiyyah. A reform movement in Islam that tried to respond to stagnation and weakness in the Islamic world and advocated a return to the basics of Islam .... Most importantly, they influenced an Egyptian reform and revival movement at the turn of the century inspired by Jamal al Dina Afghani and Muhammad Abduh ..." (from Historical Dictionary of Islam by Ludwig W. Wadamed, Scarecrow Press, 2001, p.233) --Leroy65X 22:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Women

There is nothing about the role and status of women under Wahhabi - ism. There needs to be. Cooke (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm concerned that this is an intentional and perhaps not NPOV ommission. 71.168.68.5 (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is no such thing as "treatment of women" under "wahabism". Muhammed Ibn Abdelwahab wrote about Tawheed not Fiqh(Jurisprudence). So no one can say "According to Muhammed Ibn Abdelwahab", because he didn't say anything about Fiqh, which includes women, treatment of non-Muslims, Jihad, and everything.--BelalSaid (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Alternative label for Wahhabi

Sorry if this has already been asked somewhere, but I wanted to ask directly: If speaking about Wahhabism in English, and you don't want to use the term Wahhabi, what word should you use? Unitarian doesn't seem to be accurate, and neither does Salafi.

I know this isn't directly related to the article, but I don't know where else to ask it. --RisingSunWiki 23:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You should in theory use the term Wahhabi to refer to them, but you should know very few people actually identify as Wahhabi, which is more of an insult or a myth. People insultingly called Wahhabi are generally Salafi. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 00:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling someboday something that they do not wish to be called is not exactly ethical if they consider it derogatory. Many racists in england for example refer to people from pakistan as "paki's". It is an observation as they are from PAKIstan. But it is deroagtory and said with malice and so we do not use this term in teh same way wahhabi is deroagtory and so we dont use it either. I find it strange that wikipedia allows people to be labelled wahhabi at all. Woudl anyone complain if I start calling people paki's? What about the N word for africans? Of course not so why allow wahabi? they call themselves salaafi so why not make clear that wahhabi is a derogatory word and then offer them a redirection to salaafi Islam. This article is basically invovling too much of peoples hatred of salaafi's and it seriously needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David.Baratheon (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC) 13:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The people most usually called salaafi's refer to themselves as salaafi so whether or not you feel it is accurate is irrelevant. Its like saying should we not called the labor paty the labor party because they are not in child birth nor do they partake in manual labour (sorry bad example but dont have a lot of time but you get the idea) so we call ourselves salaafi and we are derogatarily reffered to as Wahhabi. Wahhabi is not even that bad a name becuase al wahhab is a name of Allah but we do not call ourselves wahhabi so its not appropriate for wikipedia to refer to us as that. If I type the word "nig*er" into wikipedia I anticiapte finding that it is a derogatory and unnacceptable word used to refer to people of african decent, I certainly would be outraged to find a description of a black person there (because that would in fact be promoting teh term as acceptable).

David.Baratheon (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC) 21:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the title of this article I would like to note that I own the complete Encyclopaedia Britannica 2008 with a subscription for the updates and they do not have an article titled "Salafism" or "Salafi" but they do have an article on "Wahhabi" and additional references to Wahhabi in several other articles, i.e. Saudi Arabia.Carmaskid (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps an edit required for "the famous British spy named Hempher"

I suggest that this attribution needs some caveats. It is by no means clear that any such person ever existed. "Memoirs of Mr. Hempher" seems to be about as reliable and genuine a source as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Second, even if it is a genuine document, "famous' is hardly a word that suits such an obscure person. Nowhere in the history of British espionage is this person mentioned. Nowhere in the history of British diplomacy is this person mentioned. These are both reasons (IMO) to question whether such a person ever existed, but they are definitely reasons to remove the description "famous".

I would advocate liberal use of caveats like 'alleged' and 'supposed' in this passage. Perhaps even 'according to legend'. :-)Winterbadger (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

How did that crap get in there? Deleted. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 04:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I should have looked here first before adding the dubious tag, but that seems to be completely illegitimate, not to mention that it is not like this is on a reputable sources website. It is perhaps the case that a Hempher did make such as claim in the 18th Century, but based upon the source is extremely unhelpful. Furthermore, the geopolitical reality of the time meant that Britain was not a major player on the world stage, especially compared to the Ottoman empire, and it seems hardly likely that the British, who were in the midst of playing peripheral roles in the wars of Louis the XIV would have been dispatching spies to the hinterlands of the Ottoman Empire, which at the time held nothing of value to anyone. 205.208.12.94 (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Proper explanation of myth and reality

Amongst those familiar with recent Muslim history and current events, it is fairly well known that the term "Wahhabi" is one of some measure of dispute. This article, however, doesn't seem to feature much information about that. Rather, the article seems to assert that Wahhabism is the official sect of Saudi Arabia - which is patently false, as this is merely a designation by critics and is not used by that government itself - and then goes on to criticize Saudi history and politics, using the words "Saudi" and "Wahhabi" interchangeably.
There is prominent and verifiable criticism of Saudi Arabia. However, other articles such as Politics of Saudi Arabia and Human rights in Saudi Arabia are more appropriate places for these controversies to be discussed. They do not, however, relate to an article about this term. The article speaks of the "Wahabbis" and their modern day efforts to spread their beliefs, but this group is never adequately identified. "Wahhabi" is not synonymous with "Saudi missionaries" as there are perhaps have a dozen major divisions of Sunni Islam vying for power in Saudi Arabia's establishment. So who are they? When the article speaks of "Wahhabi theology," whose theology does it refer to? The man, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, held on to the same beliefs as Ibn Taymiyyah, Imam Ahmad, and other past thinkers within the Athari school of thought.
Thus it seems to be an article based on a borderline Weasel word in its current state and a thinly hidden criticism of Saudi Arabia, which again is legitimate but belongs elsewhere. This article will need some serious revision in order to pull it back on topic, and much of the currently cited content would be better off removed from here and merged into more appropriate articles. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I still am inclined towards #REDIRECT Salafism, which is backed (and contradicted) by many sources. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from. Many people refer to the Salafist movement when they use the term "Wahhabi." The problem I see - and this is just my opinion, more input is needed - is that while "Salafist" is used for a small number of specific groups, "Wahhabi" is more of a catch-all term used for Islamic extremism in general. One is broad, one is specific. I think this article could stand on its own if the term "Wahhabism" and its usage in the media is defined (rather than the article's current state of a mixture of criticism of Saudi tribal history and modern day polemics). MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This issue is a big mess in the media sources, which contradicts more than agrees with itself. Some media sources combine them, others separate them, some separatists call them allies others enemies. My only solution, and a solution that may very well not work, is to adopt more scholarly sources for the article and use less media sources. The situation caused by media frenzy requires a stricter application of WP:RS than usual. In the end though, if these sources do note that Wahhabism is a boogeyman and is often used as an insulting term for Salafism, we still will need to go out of our way (perhaps not with a separate article) to explain this, separately from the explanation of Salafism itself. Furthermore, we end up in a situation where we need to address this pop culture view of Salafism.

Basically and bluntly put, if we keep the articles separate we have this artificial divide between terms that perhaps more often than not, intersect as synonyms. If we merge the articles, we will be spending half the article describing the differences between the two terms, and various views surrounding each. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 09:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

But will the contemporary view of "Wahhabism" be represented in the body? Also, when you say going out of the way to explain, I wonder if it violates NPOV or OR. Just wondering. Otherwise the article looks good :) It will be interesting/educative to see how you address this. Nshuks7 (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Merging with Salafism is a proposal that has come up more than once before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wahhabi#.22should_be_merged_with_Salafism.22 I think it is possible to have a succinct description of how different sources give different definitions of Salafi and Wahhabi without a big mess or without excluding "media sources." Yes we should mention Saudi Arabia does not use the term Wahhabi, but we have to mention that most of the Muslim world does use it. This is why wikipedia has an article on it.--BoogaLouie (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

How are the paragraphs in the lead that deals with this issue inadequate?

The term "Wahhabi" (Wahhābīya) was first used by opponents of ibn Abdul Wahhab. It is considered derogatory by the people it is used to describe, who prefer to be called "unitarians" (Muwahiddun).

The terms "Wahhabi" and "Salafi" are often used interchangeably, but Wahhabi has also been called "a particular orientation within Salafism", an orientation some consider ultra-conservative. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see the root of this problem. I was reading this [2] and a Maher Hathout (a senior adviser to the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the spokesperson for the Islamic Center of Southern California) says that "Saudis, by the way, never say, "We are Wahhabis." They say, "We are just Muslims." But they follow the teachings, and the major booklets taught in all schools are the books of Muhammed bin Abd al-Wahhab. Anyone who's subscribing to someone else is not very much welcomed." In this sense, treating Wahhabism in an article becomes a tough job, like for a secret society where all its members will deny outright that they are the members of the society, or that the society even exists! Tough, tough, tough. All the best. Nshuks7 (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wahhabi is a derogatory term for salafi and so it shoyuld be explained as a derogatory term fopr salafi. Woudl you direct the word "nig*er" to the word african american???? Or person of african descent?

We should have a small art5icle on wahhabi explaining that the salafi the,selves do not call themselves wahhabi and that it is used by people who are opposed to their beliefs. We should then have a link to salafi so tha th reader can see who "wahhabi's" actually are

David.Baratheon (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC) 18:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad sources

Given how everybody knows how hugely ignorant the media is regarding Islam, why on earth are News websites being used as sources of information on this subject?

I truely am shocked at how biased wikipedia is. I used to use wikipedia for information but Im suddenly realising how hideously untrustworthy this site is. My mission inshallah is to sort out the information regarding Islam to get it to a balanced position but I have a feeling this will be an uphill struggle as people seem to feel teh need to use their own oppinions to shape teh article rather than presenting the facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by David.Baratheon (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC) 13:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi David.Baratheon (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC). It would help if you could provide details of specific objections and discuss proposed changes here rather than deleting large chunks of articles as you did in the case of Wahhabi. If you disagree with something that is not reliably sourced, you can use the {{fact}} tag which will show in the article as "citation needed". Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 09:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Entire Series of Islamic Articles Needs to be Locked from Editing and Reviewed

Misleading rhetoric, unsourced (and unsourcable) statements, incongruent transliterations, shody writing... Let's face it, the entire series has to be reviewed and kept clear from fanatical henchmen who don't understand what an encyclopedia is. The Wahhabi article is archtypical of this. Let us get some things straight:

-- No one before 1700 said the things the Wahhabis said, and no one killed Muslims for the things they condemned. -- Wahhabis are not Salafis. Salafis are Salafis. Salafis might also be Wahhabis but that's their own business. Anyone who thinks those two articles should be merged is making a strong arguement against himself for a slap on the head. -- Wahhabis rebelled against the Caliphate and killed Muslims, in fact it seems they only exclusively kill Muslims. -- Wahhabis are not ultra-conservative, they're sectarian. We're talking about Muslims, not Jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafchile (talk • contribs) 01:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rafchile. It would help if you could provide details of specific objections and discuss proposed changes here rather than deleting large chunks of articles as you did in the case of Wahhabi. If you disagree with something that is not reliably sourced, you can use the {{fact}} tag which will show in the article as "citation needed". Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 09:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I am going to attempt to discuss this completely rubbish article here and if I get a sensible discussion then Ill stop changing it and we can start discussing but at the moment this site appears to be run by sufi's.

I am a salaafi and very often get called a wahhabi by the local sufi's in my area simply because I refuse to take part in the group "zicker" they often invite me to. I also refuse to pray to their sheik. Because I am theologically opposed to them they call me a wahhabi rather than view the evidence from teh Qur'an and Sunnah.

Wahhabi is a derogatory term, none calls themselves a wahhabi. Otherwise if we are going to use whhabi here then letrs change the sufi section and call it Ahl al Bid'ah because thats wahat we refer to them as (and in some cases mushrikeen).

 Note: Please don't take it out on Sufis simply because you are ideologically opposed to their ways, David. Having studied the Sufis since 1986, I could take offense ... but I won't. That is not what I am here for. Esowteric+Talk 20:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This site is heavily biased and inshallah I intend to change this and get the truth out. Assalamu alaykum —Preceding unsigned comment added by David.Baratheon (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC) 10:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi David. You placed a {{fact}} tag at the very top of the page. It's not designed for that. You place it after specific words or after sentences that have not been shown to be reliably sourced to show that citations are needed. For example "Everybody likes drinking milk."

Please read Template:Citation_needed/doc and also the welcome message I placed at the top of your talk page, which will give you a better idea of wikipedia policies and guidelines and how to edit articles. Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 10:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Though it's better if you could provide reliably sourced statements to ADD to the article, another option is to insert the following template {{Unbalanced}} at the top of the article page. This will produce a banner at the top of the page which reads:

"This article may be inaccurate in or unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page."

Then detail your objections on the talk page to say why you think the article is unbalanced.

Hope that helps, Esowteric+Talk 11:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Another option is to add dispute article templates. See Wikipedia:Dispute templates. Esowteric+Talk 11:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Beliefs" section unsourced

I've added an unreferenced section tag for the section on "Beliefs". Esowteric+Talk 14:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, Rafchile has added an "unbalanced" template and a number of "fact" tags to show that citations are needed. Can we keep what can be sourced or rewrite in keeping with what reliable sources actually say?

I'm not an expert on Islam, let alone Wahhabism, but I did come across one possible source that might be used (no doubt there are more: try a google book search on Wahhabi and look for books offering a "limited preview"):

Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad. Natana J. DeLong-Bas. Oxford University Press, USA; First edition (July 15, 2004). ISBN 0195169913.

See google book search.

Chapter 2, The Theology and Worldview of Muhammed Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, p41 onwards may help with the Beliefs section, eg regarding the authoritative status of the Qur'an and Hadith and the use of other theological sources for support?

Here's the text that you'd need to use as a reference (note that the page range would need changing):

<ref name=WahhabiIslam>{{cite book | last = DeLong-Bas | first = Natana J. | authorlink = | title = Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad | publisher = [[Oxford University Press]], USA | year = 2004 | location = | pages = 41 [please change] | isbn = 0195169913}} First edition.</ref>

To reuse the reference elsewhere, rather than insert the whole thing, you'd then only need to use:

<ref name=WahhabiIslam/>

Any help to you? Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 09:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added one or two references to the "Beliefs" section and taken out text marked "citation needed". Material can be added as and when references are found to back it up. At least this is a start, but the section probably needs more work.

Thanks, Esowteric+Talk

Minor change in lead

First off, thank you Esowteric for your diligence! Nothing is easier on wikipedia than for controversial aticle like these to turn into a big mess after partisan edits if no conscientious editor is watching them. I'm going to put the sentenece on sunni higher in the lead if no one objects. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Why this article is ridiculously biased

Assalamu Alaykum (Peace be unto you)

I am a salaafi muslim and when someone uses the term "wahhabi" they are usually refferring to people like myself (its a derogatory term, I call myself salaafi, and have never reffered to myself as "wahhabi").

I wish to start a large discussion on this article. What we need is an editor who locks the page and then joins a discussion with us and looks at opur sources so we can aggree some content that is balanced and fair.

So let us first change the notion that the media is a source of reference because the whole point is the term is incorrectly used by the media. I reject any sourcing from media websites and to be honest, anyone who educates themselves from a newspaper regarding Islam is going to think all muslims are terrorists etc so how anyone deems this to be "good" information is beyond me (apart from if the information is actually backed up with proof).

The media incorrectly uses teh term wahhabi to refer to terrorist muslims on many occasions out of ignorance and thus wahhabi has come to be a derogatory label for two groups of muslims:

1: Muslims who strictly follow the qur'an and sunnah and accuse anyone who has Innovated into teh religion of committing bid'ah. As a response, the person committing the innovation calls the salaafi a "Wahhabi".

2: The media has taken this concept of strict "wahhabi" muslims and applied this same label to violent jihadi muslims (from a completely different sect within Islam) and thus, people ignorantly confuse the two and assume that being a strict muslim makes you a terrorist while being a "moderate sufi" menas you are against terrorism. this view is refuted by the fact that the taliban (who are very often reffered to by the media as wahhabi's" are in actual fact deobandi's (a form of sufism), Osama bin laden also declared a "fatiha for the souls of the deceased", a practice reffered to as Bid'ah by the salaafi's.

Salaafi's are also opposed to shirk such as praying to graves and saints and this contradicts their fundaqmental principles although this practice is rampant throughout sufism.

So this is the true basis of the term wahhabi and I woudl like to show you some sources and we can discuss and debate inshallah and come to a final decision on the final document.

With regards to Muhammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab (RA) I suggest this should be used in the origin ot the term because there is no doubt the term "wahhabi" derives from his surname but the fundamental principles of our beliefs do not come from his works and neither do we consider him to be the founder of our "sect". This shoudl just be pit in the origin of the term and be restricted to their. While discussing the origin of thwe word, we should include controversy regarding teh word. Because there is no doubt the word Wahhabi is used in a derogatory way. But al-wahhab is one of the 99 names of Allah and so, the people who use this term are using one of the 99 names of Allah in hateful and derogatory way. This is of course contraversial as it could be seen as a form of heresy.

We also need to ascertain whether or not it is in fact derogatory. If the people do not refer to themselves as something, and another gorup of people use the term in a hateful way, then does this not constitute as derogatory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David.Baratheon (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC) 20:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Have left a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/Islam and Controversy task force (as I don't know where to try, really). If that's not the right place, then maybe they'll tell me where we can obtain help in sorting out the article. Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 21:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Salam. Esowteric mentioned to me that there is a dispute here. If it is an ongoing dispute always involving the same editors you could try WP:MEDCAB or, for longstanding problems involving many editors, WP:MEDCOM. Certainly, if you wanted the article to be locked and groundrules to be agreed between editors, mediation is the way to go. But first try to discuss and agree specific sections of text here on the talk page to see if agreement can be reached, and bring sources to the table.

The reliability of US media is often poor when it comes to Islam; I recall a specific UN finding to that effect. It may be best to look for academic sources in google books: [3]. Regards, --JN466 22:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wahhabi Myth book as a source

Hi David,

Wahhabi myth wikipedia article: As I mentioned on your talk page, the article that you attempted to create on the Wahhabi Myth was deleted as it read like an advert for the book of the same name and for the web site; also the wahhabimyth web site is not a reliable source. I did a google search and a google book search and couldn't find any reliable mentions of the book, so I was unable to get that article off the ground for you. There were quite a lot of passing mentions of the book in bibliographies and there was a review in an Asian journal, but to see that article in full required a paid subscription.

Wahhabi Myth book as a source: In the article about the Wahhabi, if you can find useful statements in the book The "Wahhabi" Myth, then you can use that book as a reference.

This is the code you'd need for the first time you use the reference:

<ref name="WahhabiMyth">{{cite book |last= Oliver |first= Haneef James |authorlink= |coauthors= |editor= |others= |title= The "Wahhabi" Myth: Dispelling Prevalent Fallacies and the Fictitious Link with Bin Laden |year= 2002 |publisher= Trafford Publishing |location= |pages= [LIST PAGE/S HERE] |isbn= 1553953975 }}</ref>

and after that, all you need to use is:

<ref name="WahhabiMyth"/>

Try to put the material in your own words whilst remaining faithful to the meaning of the text in the book; if you quote text, you need to put it in "quotes".

Hope this helps, Esowteric+Talk 09:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The book "The Wahhabi Myth" quotes many different sources within the text of the book. If the book itself or the website that contains passages from the book are not considered reliable sources it would be quite easy to cite the same references that the book itself cites. That would probably stop any debate about this book.Sharsalafee (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Al-Fitnah Al-Wahhabiyyah as a source

I have noticed, as of late, that some users were attempted to use the book Al-Fitnah Al-Wahhabiyyah as a source in this article. While criticism of what is perceived as Wahhabism from a Sufi perspective is valid, we need to use legitimate sources.
Al-Fitnah Al-Wahhabiyyah is neither an academic nor an objective overview of criticism of this movement. The book is over a hundred years old and written by a rather extreme Sufi who himself does not even represent mainstream Sufi thought. In addition, the book is well-known to be unreliable and contain a number of factually and historically inaccurate claims.
Using a book like that to source criticism on this article would be like using Ibn Abdul Wahhab's own books to source criticism on the Sufism article. It really isn't a balanced approach at all. There is plenty of criticism from an academic perspective and from secondary resources. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

idiot wahabi!You don't know who wrote book al fitna...,Imams of Makkah and Madeenah wrote this.

64.255.164.31 (talk) 08:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There are clear false events based on weak, if not with no, references!!

In the introduction it says: "Because they gave themselves the ultimate right to declare people Kuffar[citation needed] (plural of Kafir or infidels), Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab's followers led an army which occupied Ta’if and Mecca (Makkah). This was followed by massacres of unarmed Muslims (including men, women, and children) and the destruction of many graves and holy sites. Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab also considered destroying the house where the Prophet Muhammad was born and tried to destroy the holy grave of the Prophet Muhammad, out of fear that it might be worshipped.[4]."

Clear discrimination and dangerous accusations about alleged massacres done by the mentioned Wahabi movement which, in my opinion, needed to be proven with more than "citation needed" and other web page talking about a petition to be signed to the embassy of Saudi Arabia in USA!!

I think the hole article should be reviewed by an expert on the subject, or at least review the references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MyLifeUnCut87 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

SO biased

This is one of the most biased articles i ever read (my opinion)!! just reading the introduction tells you hate those guys!!! The references are from people against Wahhabis, example reference (4). Articles like that are not credible references. Islamaah (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I just came across this page and I cannot agree more with you. This article is almost rubbish. Check out the "Saudi sponsorship" part that contains this quote: "One of their most famous and controversial attacks was on Karbala in 1802 (1217 AH). There, according to Wahhabi chronicler `Uthman b. `Abdullah b. Bishr:........precious copies of the Qur'an."[15]". It referred to citation [15] from this link http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/216433. Then I tried to verify the quote, only to give the circular reference to this wiki page from a post by a user: "One of their most famous and controversial attacks was on Karbala in 1802 (1217 AH). There, according to a Wahhabi chronicler `Uthman b. `Abdullah b. Bishr:.......precious copies of the Qur'an. citation needed "

This is an act of vandalism.

118.96.36.66 (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. Unfortunately, like most WP articles about Islam, it is a magnet for editors with an axe to grind. Also, many people, like you, come along, complain that the article is biased and then leave. If you'd like to stick around and help fix it, that would be great. Ashmoo (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree. I myself was one of those editors who came complained and left because a moderator was supposed to come and moderate a rewrite but it never materialised and meanwhile any unsuspecting individual who wants to know what wahhabi means is going to be exposed to this joke of a propaganda article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.52.5.10 (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Beyond biased; blatant propaganda

If I read this article on my first visit to Wikipedia, I would not return to read another. Excessively biased articles on important subjects such as Wahhabi Islam destroy Wikipedia's reputation and are a disservice to readers. I'm glad to see what appears to be consensus on this matter. The article only discusses carefully selected topics and repeatedly uses editorials as references including [4], [5], [6]. Editorials are not reasonable references; nor is Daniel Pipes (for this section, at least). I propose a complete rewrite, with new sections, new sources, and new words. I've created a working document at Talk:Wahhabi/Rewrite; the rewrite goes there.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 05:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I was editing this page about a year about and it was always a bit of a struggle to keep the quality up. But coming back and looking at it now, I can honestly say it is one of the worst articles on wikipedia. The language is poor, with non-standard spellings, irrelevant facts, repetition of trivial facts and lots and lots of value judgements. I had a look at your rewrite and it looks pretty much like what I imagined a good version of this page would look like. I would support you transferring it over as soon as you are finished with the 1st draft. Although unfortunately I think it will be a constant battle to keep the article reasonable, as it seems the word 'wahhabi' is like a red flag to some people. Ashmoo (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry to see you appear to have given up on your rewrite as it looked a lot more fair and factual. I still dont think the point has driven home that they are not called wahhabis because they dont call themselves wahhabis though, the introduction really needs to emphasise this and make clear there is no group called wahhabi and that this is simply a derogatory ter used by people towards other muslims when they dont like something (such as if you advise them not to listen to music or to not innovate into the religion or to not do shirk they call you wahhabi) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.52.5.10 (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

My favorite example of this bias is in note 25. Someone needs to clean this up. At the very least there should be a tone marker at the top. 166.107.99.119 (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Doc

Bosnian Muslim point of view of Wahhabi "Vehabije"

The main problem is to select to classify wahabbism as a Sect or a Branch of Islam because it's too different from the mainstream muslim faith. majority of bosnian muslim consider wahabbi as sectarian because they usually isolate themselves from the community and are funded by Saudi Arabian Foundations and not the State. so from a legal point of view, i would consider wahabbis as a sectarian branch of islam.

This article is to be set TOP PRIORITY beacause more and more people want to know more about Wahabism

Furthermore, i would like to submit a video article of Bosnian television station news anouncing arrestation of Wahabbist near BRCKO begining 2010, they were arrested and charged for "Endeangering of Teritorial Unity of Bosnia & Hercegovina". The federal police officers and the authorities responsible for the arrestation were all Muslim Faith.

I think this document can be used to underline once more the wast gap that exists between mainstream muslims and Wahhabists. offcourse : it's in serbo-croatian language so i could be a problem unless someone would like to subtitle it.

see YouTube

Naming conventions

If this is true: "The term "Wahhabi" (Wahhābīya) was first used by opponents of ibn Abdul Wahhab. It is considered derogatory by the people it is used to describe, who prefer to be called "unitarians" (Muwahiddun)." then it violates Wikipedia's naming conventions to name the article "Wahhabi" The article should be name, and the people referred to by, the name they self-identify with. Noloop (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing. They consider themselves reformers, true Muslims, etc. There is no "proper" label because they reject labels and believe there is only Islam. The term Wahhabi is pretty universal for lack of a better term; on the other hand, I would recommend avoiding Wahhabism. Hope that helps. Recognizance (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

We consider ourselves to be salafis. Wahhabi is a derogatory term that is used by our opponents. If you have two articles, one called african americans and one called "nigger", the african american page would explain teh origins of african americans while "nigger" would link to a page explaining that this is a highly offensive term used by opponents of african americans and then it would link to african american page to explain who an african american is. Also the same with Jews and antisemetic words, with pakistanis or "pakis", etc etc. There is a difference between a derogatory word used by opopnents of a group of people and the term they self describe themselves as. I do not see it befitting for wikipedia to insult us or be used as a propaganda web page for anti salafis. If anyone is interested, New York Times has recently done a piece on salafis explaining salafis are non violent and its a distinct sect that practices violence that is seperate from salafis (referred to as wahhabis)

Freedom House study

The study by Freedom House is said to have "found Wahhabi publications in a number of mosques in the United States preaching that Muslims should not only "always oppose" infidels "in every way", but "hate them for their religion ... for Allah's sake", that democracy "is responsible for all the horrible wars of the 20th century", and that Shia and certain other non-Wahhabi Muslims were infidels." etc.

The criticism by the "anti-rightist group rightweb" complained that the study "cited documents from only a few mosques, arguing most mosques in the US are not under Wahhabi influence."

Does the criticism by rightweb make any sense? If the Freedom House study found that Wahhabi publications preached what it stated, to say that the Wahhabists do not influence most American mosques is irrelevant. In fact it sounds as though rightweb are actually conceding that the conclusion reached by Freedom House is correct!124.197.15.138 (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Copy-edits

My changes respond to the request for assistance by a copy-editor. FWIW, my views have no business in a WP article and I have attempted to keep them entirely out of the result. Lfstevens (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have read the following sentence in the section, Condemnation of "Priests" and other religious leaders, 6 times and it doesn't make sense, "Ibn Al-Wahhab brought a new interpretation of many verses, which he used to support his idea that the majority of Muslims, and the scholars of the Ottoman Empire, and what was at the time consensus opinion amongst scholars.[17]" It seems to be missing a predicate. I do not know enough about the topic to venture a correction, but it needs one.Carmaskid (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Gentleman's name is ibn Abd al-Wahab, or Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahab

Folks, Al-Wahab literally means God, The Bestower in Arabic/Islam (see Names_of_God_in_Islam). So folks who may not understand naming in the Arabic/Arab Culture, pls don't make the mistake of calling the man "al-Wahab",, he's ibn Abd-al-Wahab, literally "The son of Abd al-Wahab". And Abd-Al-Wahab was his dad, so he's "Ibn", or Muhammad bin Abd-al-Wahab. Sigh, at least get the fundamentals right :) -MinorFixes (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of how naming works in Arabic, this is the English language wikipedia, so we use the standard English name for people. Ashmoo (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And on the English language Wikipedia, it should be preceded by "ibn". I have done a somewhat arbitrary homogenisation and made it "Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab" or "Ibn Abd-al-Wahhab" (note the caps on ibn if it's not preceded by his first name, which is normal) based on the location of the article at Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab. If someone has further issues, feel free to leave a note here. Recognizance (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I've actually put in a requested move to have it moved to Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab if anyone wants to weigh in. Recognizance (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Change

I deleted the fourth word in the article because extremist is an emotionally loaded word that sets a very negative tone for the information that follows. Carmaskid (talk) 06:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Serious consideration needed in merging "Wahhabism" section with "Salafi" section

It's worthy to note that Wahhabism is the derogatory term used for the Salafist revivalist movement which started in the Arabic peninsula, I see others have brought this point forth but their concerns have been unheard. I feel that certain political groups or affiliations are using Wikipedia's pages to make a point, opponents of Sheikh Muhammad ibn abdul wahhab, like Shia, or Sufis, have it in their interest to have a "Wahhabism" article when in reality there is no substantial difference between "Wahhabism", and "Salafi" -- any person who ascribes to Salafism, regards Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab as a scholar of Islam, and as do most sunnis besides the Asharis, and other sects.

Wahhabism is a derogatory term and an overall insulting term to Islam, as Al-Wahhab is the name of Allah, to say someone is a Wahhabi is like to call them an "Allahi", I don't see why it's been allowed to turn wikipedia into an unobjective source of information, I myself have donated my own personal money to Wikipedia to further its development and progression so I think it's on us to keep political debate out of such articles and take "Wahhabism" for what it really is (the Salafi movement).

Otherwise as of now, the article is just showing the history of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, and his beliefs (identical to salafi beliefs) and what his opponents and haters say about him; how is this a fair article? Critisism of Wahhabism should be under the Salafi section, and history of Muhammad ibn abdul wahhab should be under his own article. This section should be merged in this manner. Wahhabi/Wahhabism should be redirected to the Salafi page.

Muwwahid (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this, this article seems to be mainly concerned with criticism and not much substance at all. Sakimonk (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Who is Zain Imran?

There's a mention of the name Zain Imran who was introduced to Mohammad Hayya Al-Sindhi. Who is he? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.86.238 (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"Scientifically false"??

Lead para 4 claims:

According to Riadh Sidaoui, habitual use of the term Wahhabism is scientifically false, and the concept of Saudi Wahhabism should be substituted.

What's this? I think Riadh Sidaoui is an academic, but "scientifically false" is not a valid academic phrase, the original phrase should probably rather be "scientifically misleading", "scientifically inaccurate" or some such. Secondly, the "concept of Saudi Wahhabism should be substituted", immediately leads to the question "for what?" "Substitute X for Y" means to do away with X and replace it with Y, as far as my knowledge of English stretches. Maybe some native English-speaker could fix this formulation, but we should preferrably know what Riadh Sidaoui says? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that Riadh Sidaoui might mean that equating "wahhabism" with "salafism" is invalid, but that it is possible to claim that "wahhabism" is a "Saudi salafism", although with important differences. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding edits by the User: Organometalic1

Their main beliefs include stating that God has human attributes, for example, proclaiming that God has hands and a face.

This is a flawed assertion that is discussed in the Theology section on the page.

They also believe that the creator created and then resided in the sky, at the same, sitting on the throne, which he also created.

Again your problem is with Ibn Taymiyyah and your misunderstanding of his writings, I advise reading the Theology section on this page Wahhabi

Kitabul Wasitiyyah refutes the stance of the Mushabbihah (those who liken the creation with God: anthropomorphism) and those who deny, negate, and resort to allegorical/metaphorical interpretations of the Divine Names and Attributes. He contends that the methodology of the salaf is to take the middle path between the extremes of anthropomorphism and negation/distortion. He further states that salaf affirmed all the Names and Attributes of God without tashbih (establishing likeness), takyeef (speculating as to "how" they are manifested in the divine), ta'teel (negating/denying their apparent meaning) and without ta'weel (giving it secondary/symbolic meaning which is different from the apparent meaning).

This is highly refuted by Sunni muslims as they believe it contradicts both the Quran, Hadith and the sayings of the great scholars.

This theology is regarded as one of the three schools of thought in Islamic philosophy, it is known as the Athari School, as opposed to the Ash'ari or Maturidi Schools. All of the websites you are referencing are very extreme sectarian websites (primarily the Barelvi sect) that possess no academic objectivity and do not cite historical records or sound Islamic scholarly texts - and hence the edits are in violation of WP:NPOV that aims to keep a high degree of neutrality on wikipedia.

The sect itself was influenced by a late British spy, called Hempher, who influenced Ibn Abd-al-Wahhab to form the new religious movement

This is derived from a work of fiction known as the Memoirs Of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy To The Middle East and contains many various inaccurate historically and geographically flawed stories and is widely known to be fabricated, in the West it is considered a forgery and has been described as "an Anglophobic variation on `The Protocols of the Elders of Zion`”

NPOV Dispute Over "Wahhabi" Term - July 2012

Fellow Wikipedia contributors,

I've added the NPOV-Title tag to the Wiki because the terms "Wahhabi" and "Wahhabism" are considered pejorative and derogatory by those whom the term is meant to describe. You will never find any sizeable group of Muslims claiming to believe in "Wahhabiyyah," but, there are indeed significant numbers of Muslims claiming to believe in "Salafiyyah" (known as "Salafism" in English). The term "Wahhabiyyah" is derived from the name of an 18th century Muslim scholar named Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. However, the aim of Salafis (pejoratively termed "Wahhabis") is not specifically to follow in the footsteps of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (who was merely a Muslim scholar), but, rather to specifically follow in the footsteps of those regarded as pious from the first three generations of Muslims (often termed the "pious predecessors" or "Salaf"). This aim of theirs is logically termed in Arabic as "Salafiyyah." Therefore, "Salafi" and "Salafism" would be the correct terms to use in this Wiki, and are in fact the English terms used by Muslims that claim to follow the movement of "Salafiyyah," when seeking to distinguish themselves from other Muslim movements.

Secondly, Al-Wahhab is one of the 99 names of Allah, which Muslims hold in great reverence and respect. No right-minded Muslim is going to call himself or herself a "Wahhabi." This is an indisputable fact! It would be an offensive way of applying one of the 99 names of Allah. Not only would it be offensive to the Muslims who are called "Wahhabi" by outsiders, but, it may also be offensive to other Muslims who don't believe that the name Al-Wahhab (one of the 99 names of Allah) should be used in this way.

Thirdly, I have been able to discern no difference between those who are pejoratively called "Wahhabi" and those who are rightfully termed "Salafi." We're talking about the same kind of Muslims when using this term. There are indeed multiple strains of Salafis (at least philosophically), but, none of these strains refers to itself as separate from "Salafis" and "Salafiyyah" to my knowledge. If one strain of Salafis must be distinguished from another, unoffensive and neutral terminology should be utilized in doing so. "Wahhabi" and "Wahhabism" reflects loaded and non-neutral terminology, on the other hand.

It is important to note that "Salafism" is a movement within Islam. Muslims who believe in Salafism still pray in regular mosques, worship with regular Muslims, fast with regular Muslims, and go to Hajj with regular Muslims. By regular Muslims, I refer to AT LEAST the orthodox (Sunni) Muslim populus. Therefore, Salafis are not a sect, but, rather a group of orthodox Muslims espousing certain desires in terms of how they wish to live their lives Islamically (namely, they wish to practice Islam like the "Salaf" or pious predecessors from the first three generations of Muslims).

Finally, I highly recommend those wanting to better understand Salafism watch this brief 5-minute video from an American professor who is highly knowledgeable on the subject of Salafis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=402wup8xzO0

He makes an easy, clear and lucid explanation of who they are.

Best regards, 69.165.248.173 (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting video, I don't really see your point - you seem to want to clarify 'Salafism' however you fail to mention why Wahhabism is intrinsically not a form of salafism. I believe a lot of people will want to contest your edits. I feel what you really wanted to do is suggest a merge between Wahhabi and Salafi.Sakimonk (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Did you even read what I wrote, Sakimonk? This is not an issue of clarification, but, of unacceptable terminology. The Wiki as it stands fails to show that "Wahhabism" is not a pejorative and derogatory term. In fact, it's a form of hate speech to call someone a "Wahhabi" given that no Muslim wishes to be referred this way. It's like starting a Wiki for the term "Muhammadans" for Muslims. The term "Muhammadan" is just as offensive to all Muslims as the term "Wahhabi" is to the group of Muslims that call themselves "Salafis."

For starters, the terms "Wahhabi" and "Wahhabism" on Wikipedia should redirect to "Salafis" and "Salafism."

Regarding my edits, any edits I've made are justified with reasoning. Those who wish to contest them are free to do so providing they bring evidence with them from a neutral and legitimate source.

69.165.248.173 (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I did read what you wrote and I honestly think that what you are arguing for is to merge Salafi with Wahhabi, as you are stating that

• Wahhabi is a derogatory term used against Salafis
• however Wahhabis are in fact Salafis
• yet Wahhabi is an offensive term and since Wahhabis are intrinsically Salafis, the page Wahhabi should be merged with Salafi, and Wahhabi should redirect to Salafi.

Sakimonk (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding edits by User:Aamirik

It has already been mentioned that the Aqeedah of Ibn Abdul Wahhab is Athari and that this is the select interpretation of the Wahhabi movement, Salafis and the majority of Saudi Arabia & Hanbali scholars historically.

The separation of Tawhid into three categories is purely academic it isn't a literal seperation of the Oness of Allah as this is blasphemy in Islam.

This pre-dates Wahhabism by a long shot and also pre-dates Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah (one whom it is usually erroneously attributed to).

Just some food for thought, here is a list of Theology books that share same the same exact tenets as the creed of Ibn Abdul Wahhab (that which he taught and wrote about) and they all date back to the third century A.H. long before the revivalist movement of Wahhabism - this pretty much espouses the fact that Wahhabism is an ultra orthodox movement that calls to following the origins of Islam i.e. they wouldn't be in favour of something "new" as this would be bid'ah or "reprehensible innovation" and would defeat the point of their call. One of their main goals is following the creed of the Salaf and avoiding all newly invented things in worship or creed.

Oh and here's the list in chronological order :)

• Kitaabul-Eemaan by the Imaam and mujtahid, Abu 'Ubayd al-Qaasim ibn Salaam (d.224H)
• Kitaabul-Eemaan by the Imaam Ib Abee Shaybah (d.235H)
• Usoolus -Sunnah and Ar-Radd 'alal Jahmiyyah waz-Zanaadaqah by the Imaam of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jammah Ahmad bin Hanbal (d.241H)
• Khalq Afaalul-Ibaad, Kitaabul-Eeemaan and Kitabut-Tawheed (the last two being part of al-Jaami us-Saheeh) by Imaam al-Bukharee (d.256H).
• As-Sunnah by the student of Imaam Ahmad, Abu Bakr al-Athram (d.273H)
• Kitaabus-Sunnah (being part of the Sunan) by the faqeeh and Imaam Ibn Abu Dawood as -Sijistaanee (d.275H)
• Al-Ikhtilaaf fee Ladfh war-Radd 'alal-Jahmiyyah by imaam Ibn Qutaybah (d.276H)
• Ar-Radd 'alal Jayhmiyyah by Imaam ad-Daarimee (d.280H)
• As-Sunnah by the qaadee and haafidh, Ibn Abee 'Aasim (d.287H)
• As-Sunnah by the haafidh ,Abdullah ibn Imaam Ahmad (d.290H)
• As-Sunnah by the qaadee and muhaddith AbuBakr al-Maroozee (d.292H)
• As-Sunnah by the student of Imaam Ahmad, al-Marwaazee (d.292H)
• Sareehus-Sunnah by the mujtahid, mufassir and Imaam , Ibn Jareer at-Tabaree (d.310H)
• Kitaabut-Tawheed wa Ithbaat Sifaatur-Rabb by the faqeeh and Imaam, Ibn Khuzaymah (d.311H)
• Aqeedatut-Tahaawiyyah by the Imaam Abu Jafar at-Tahaawee (d.321H)
• Al-Maqaalatul-Islamiyeen, Ar-Risaalah ilaa Ahlth-Thaghr and Al-Ibaanah 'an Usoolid-Diyaanah by Imaam Abdul-Hasan al-Asharee (d.324H)
• Asl us-Sunnah by the haafidh and Imaam, Abu Haatim ar-Raazee (d.327H)
• Sharhus-Sunnah by the Imaam of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jammah in his time, Imaam al-Barbaaharee (d.329H)
• Kitaab us-Sunnah by the qaadee, Abu Ahmad al-Asaal(d.349H)
• Ash-Shareeah by the faqeeh and Imaam, Abu Bakr al-Aajuree(d.360H)
• Itiqaad Aimmatul-Hadeeth by the faqeeh and Imaam, Abu Bakr al-Ismaeelee(d.371H)
• Kitaabus-Sifaat and Kitaabun-Nuzool by the haafidh, the Imaam, ad-Daaraqutnee(d.385H)
• Al-Ibaanah 'an Sharee'atil Firqatin -Naajiyah and Sharhul-Ibaanah 'an Usoolis-Sunnah wad-Diyaanah by the haafidh,the faqeeh, Imaam Battah al-Akbaree (d.387H)
• Kitaabut-Tawheed and ar-Radd'alal-Jahmiyyah both by the haafidh and Imaam, Ibn Mandah (d.395H)

Also see Athari#Introduction and have a look at the four cited references for organising of tawhid.

btw just to clarify the organisation is simply sourced from the Qur'an and defines;

• 1.) God's Lordship - acknowledging that God is the supreme creator or "Rub", that He is the one who sends down the rain and all things originate from Him - i.e. the Pagans of Makkah in Jahaliya used to have this and Allah states this in the Quran to the effect of if you were to ask "who sends down the rain" they would reply "Allah".

• 2.) Oneness of devotion of worship to God alone - that all acts of worship (ibadah), such as Du'a (the essence of ibadah) and Salah, sacrificing and so on is done for the sake of Allah alone; i.e. from the Quran since the Pagans although acknowleding Allahs lordship did not acknoledge his Uluhiyah since they would say to the effect of "Allah is too powerful and great, we are week and small so we use intecessors to reach Him since we can not dare to call on one as mighty as Allah" so hence they would construct idols of those pious dead (as mentioned in the story of Noah :) ) and they would remember the pious dead, go to their graves and ask them to call on Allah for them, they invented the "daughters" of Allah and so on, sacrificing for other than Allah etc etc, Islam came and revivied pure Monotheism and informed the people not to call on the dead or idols as all worship is for Allah alone, none other than God - this is clearly sourced from Hadith and is NOT specific to Wahhabis as this is the classical creed of Islam;

you can find this in a large number of Hadeeth and Allah knows best;

• It was narrated that Abu’l-Hayaaj al-Asadi said: ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib said to me: “Shall I not send you on the same mission as the Messenger of Allah sent me? Do not leave any statue without erasing it, and do not leave any raised grave without leveling it.” (Narrated by Muslim, 969).

• It was narrated that he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “May Allah curse the Jews and the Christians, for they took the graves of their Prophets as places of worship.” ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said, “He was warning against what they had done.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 1330 and by Muslim, 529).

• And when Umm Salamah and Umm Habeebah told him about a church in which there were images, he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “When a righteous man died among them, they would build a place of worship over his grave and put those images in it. They are the most evil of mankind before Allaah.” (Saheeh, agreed upon. Narrated by al-Bukhari, 427 and by Muslim, 528).

And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Those who came before you took the graves of their Prophets and righteous people as places of worship. Do not take graves as places of worship – I forbid you to do that.” (Narrated in his Saheeh by Muslim, 532, from Jundab ibn ‘Abd-Allaah al-Bajali).

   From Surah Al Jinn (72:18) "The places of worship are for Allah (alone): So do not invoke anyone beside Allah."

There is a clear prohibition of raising the grave in the name of venerating the dead as it may lead to Shirk such as accounted in the story of the people of Noah, from Surah An Nuh 71: 23 it is quoted;

   “And they have said: ‘You shall not leave your gods, nor shall you leave Wadd, nor Suwâ’, nor Yaghûth, nor Ya’ûq, nor Nasr (these are the names of their idols)."

Ibn Abbas commented on this saying, “These are the names of the pious people from among them. Following their deaths, Shaytan inspired their people to erect status in the place where they used to sit, and to call them with their names. They did so, however at this point, they were not worshiped until that generation died and the new generation deviated.”

3.) His names and attributes - affirming all that Allah stated in the Qur'an and what His messenger peace and blessings be upon him stated.

The seperation of Tawhid into three categories is discussed clearly in the Athari page and there is no need to include a discussion / criticism on this article since this is not an article on Islamic theology :)

Sakimonk ^talk 03:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 15 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) SnowFire (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC) SnowFire (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Wahhabism → Muwahhidun (Wahhabi) – using the exonym "Wahhabism" alone is quite misleading in this article since the term may mislead many people in conflating the movement with a wide swathe of religious groups of seperate origins that shares common doctrines. Sometimes, conservative movements with opposing doctrines are also used to denote "Wahhabism".

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

And this is why I suggested the title Muwahhidun (Wahhabi), since:

• There are multiple Muwahhidun movements historically
• There are multiple movements getting referred to as "Wahhabi"
• A seperate article is needed to for the term Wahhabi, which is different from the movement of Muwahhdin-Wahhabi

Hence the title Muwahhidin(Wahhabi) shall be more precise, accurate and less confusing. Moroever, the existing links of "Wahhabism" shall always lead to here; since it automatically redirects here. Meanwhile "Wahhabi" when used as a pejoritave epithet or to denote other movements not descended from Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, someone needs to create a seperate article for the label and its etymology. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Iskandar323 This is a reply of the discussion from thevprevious talk section.

Mutiple English language encyclopeadic sources have used the term "Muwahhidun" in its entry to refer to the movement of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab. This is enough to also add the term as the article title.

Second, various reliable sources have also asserted that "Wahhabism" is used as a pejoritive label to denote different Wahhabi-allied movements or those movements that have nothing to do with Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab.

Based on this, why isnt the proposed title better? Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: While some of the points made here may have merit, in terms of Wikipedia page naming policy, WP:COMMONNAME clearly leads us down the route of Wahhabism. There is absolutely no contest in Ngram, and google scholar gives us 19,300 returns for Wahhabism to just 1,380 hits for Muwahhidun (many of them non-English language texts). Iskandar323 (talk) 09:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Iskandar323, perhaps you have misunderstood my statement. I am not contesting that the term is not popular. I did infact, in the previous talk, acknowledged it as such. And this is why I included it as Muwahhidun (Wahhabi).

But what I am saying here is: "Wahhabism" is often invoked in different contexts. This article is dealing with Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's specific Saudi-based religious movement. Oftentimes "Wahhabism" is invoked to paint similar movements like Ahl-i Hadith, Salafi movement, etc. as well as dissimilar Sufi-based movements like Deobandism. In a wider sense, "Wahhabism" has also been invoked as an Islamophobic sense to censure any expression of conservative Islam be it Sufi, Salafi, and even Shi'ites. It has also been used to target political opponents and dissidents of Muslim background, as attested in many Reliable sources.

So I hope you understand my point. I do not contest the usage of "Wahhabism" , I am proposing a more accurate and less misleading title. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand, but if Wahhabism is the term invoked to reference similar movements, that does not mean this is not the correct page name for 'Abd al-Wahhab's momvement. It just means that these inherent ambiguities need expounding on this page. 'Accurate', in an encyclopedic sense is not necessarily objective reality. This all comes back to WP:NOTTRUTH. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Iskandar323 Since you mentioned that the title is unverifiable, the title itself is verifiable, since the movement has been given the "Muwahhidun" entry in various encyclopedias.

I agree that those issues mentioned in the previous talk page could be the flaws of the proposed title. However, "Wahhabism" title has its own flaws due to the confusion that arise from its conflation with other movements and groups. But as per what you mentioned above, I agree with you that these are better elaborated in the page rather than the title. I do not insist on the proposed title, but still feel that it is better than the current title.

~~Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Very clear common name and primary topic for that name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of quotations from citations

I have removed numerous quotations from citations, as hosting so much non-free content is a violation of our non-free content rule. Also, it makes copyright cleanup extremely difficult.— Diannaa (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Diannaa Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Diannaa: FYI, if you enjoyed your time editing Wahhabism, you're also going to love Rashid Rida. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)