Talk:Wahhabism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Wahhabi)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

Untitled[edit]

http://www.meforum.org/2514/a-saudi-view-of-orientalism Mazin S. Motabbagani (or, in accurate transcription, al-Mutabaqani) is assistant professor of Orientalism at King Saud University in Riyadh, and head of the Occidental Studies Unit in the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, also in Riyadh. Born a Jordanian by origin in 1950, he submitted his doctoral thesis in 1993 to the faculty of Islamic propagation at Riyadh's Muhammad bin Saud Islamic University where he also taught. Motabbagani's thesis, like most of his later academic work, focuses on Orientalism (al-istishraq), the study of Islam and the Muslim world by Western scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.255.183.58 (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


Re secondary ISBNs[edit]

Article looks pretty good — except for several red-splotches involving ISBNs in the references. A couple of these look to be just bad ISBNs (someone should check). But several involve inclusion of a secondary ISBN in the |isbn= parameter, which doesn't work. I have made an edit showing how to do this, and will explain here.

(First, to head off an objection: yes, the guidelines say you should cite the source you consulted, which implies only a single ISBN. But where an otherwise identical source comes out in different formats, and thus different ISBNs, it seems silly to have otherwise identical references differing only in the ISBN. But let's not debate that here; this about the "how".)

The trick of adding a second ISBN is simple: append it to the citation. "ISBN xxxxxxx" will do the trick. Or, if you don't want "ISBN" repeated, use {{ISBNT}}. There is a problem with {{cite book}} automatically adding a period. This can be suppressed, but better to use {{citation}}, and explicitly add a comma. Another problem is the intrusion of the "date accessed" field. However, that really is appropriate only for web pages, and anything with an ISBN shouldn't need that. Indeed, it is inappropriate for books (etc.), so just leave it out.

Ping me if anyone has questions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"No point in citing both a hardback and a paperback"[edit]

Surely, there should be only one isbn. If they are different formats/editions, then potentially other parameters will be different too: publication date, publisher, even page number. Makes no sense to me to have two. DeCausa (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Potentially, yes, but not surely. In some cases books are issued in (typically) hard-back and paper-back that are otherwise identical. If an editor is confident that is the case, I think it makes much more sense to have two ISBNs than two full-references that differ only in the ISBN. But (did you read my second paragraph?) I propose you all work that out elsewhere; here I am only showing how that can be implemented, without the errors currently obtained. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know but I'm adding a proposal to this thread: all second isbns to be deleted. I see no point in having two for any one citation. There is no point in citing both a hardback and paperback edition. Only one has any utility. DeCausa (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
You are going into a sub-topic, so you should have split off a sub-section (as I have just done). As to "see[ing] no point in having two", I just showed you: to avoid nearly identical references. Also, a reader, wanting to check the source, might not know there is an identical edition in paperback, so there is utility in putting that information up front. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
"you should have split off a sub-section". No...You've invented your own personal TPO there, but, meh, whatever. "I've just showed you: to avoid nearly identical references". There is no need to have two references for the same work in the first place. "A reader, wanting to check the source, might not know there is an identical edition" Huh? Citations aren't for providing a library catalogue - what a pointless waste of Wikimedia kb's. It makes no sense and fortunately, what you have suggested is not normal practice. No need to do anything other than the norm here. DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  You seem unable to grasp the distinction between how to do something, and whether to do something. A failing which rather makes any discussion of the point futile — you just don't get it.
  But try considering this: if some source comes in two forms that differ only in their cover (hardback or paper), and thus have different ISBNs, and one editor consults and cites one, and another editor the other, are separate full citations required, that differ only in the ISBN?
  Speaking of wasted kilobytes — yeah, we're up to two of them here. Ironically, the changes I suggest pretty much make no net difference in size; your "pointless waste" comment is itself totally pointless. Please try to focus on more pertinent comments. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
You've opened a thread about how to do it. I don't care about that. I think it shouldn't be done. I've hijacked your precious thread. You're pissed with that. I dont care about that either. I'm going to delete the unnecesary isbns unless anyone else wants to keep them. Yep, I think I've pretty much "grasped" it. DeCausa (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Demonstrating that you have nothing pertinent to say. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If people cite a book, it is best that they cite the one that they actually used. In many cases, it does not make any difference which edition is being cited. However, some books are revised between editions - i.e. some content is in one edition, but not another. Different editions do not necessarily have the same page numbers for statements (if the author has revised the contents, this is can change the pagination).--Toddy1 (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

"Edition" usually refers to versions that differ significantly in text or pagination, and thus it does make a difference which edition is cited; these should always be cited separately. But (AS I POINTED OUT AT THE TOP) sometimes books with identical content and pagination are given different ISBNs solely because of different covers. Must such a source be given two separate, nearly identical, and unnecessary full citations simply because one editor consulted the hardback version and another editor consulted the paperback version? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Toddy1, agreed. That's why each citation should have only one edition and isbn. DeCausa (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

section on practices[edit]

have added a section on religious practices, attempting to provide lots of sources and keep the language scrupulously polite and NPOV.

Believe it is very important for this article. Few Muslim disagree with Wahhabis on Beliefs (e.g. monotheism), it's some of the practices (women driving haram) that they do. Saudi--BoogaLouie (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not a great article generally so anything that helps to bring out Wahhabism's key features more than currently stated is to be welcomed. However, I'm not sure about what you have added. I want to look at it more closely but on a first read it looks like you've equated Saudi practices with Wahhabi practices, but there is a difference between what is dictated by the Nejdi/Hejazi cultural inheritance of Islam and what is dicated by Wahhabi doctrine. They're not the same. DeCausa (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Having looked at it again, what you've added are practices in Saudi Arabia rather than what is specifically attributable to Wahhabi doctrine with the possible exception of the paragraph that begins "Thaqafah Islamiyyah". I think to include it here you have to establish that it is derived from Wahhabi doctrines specifically - otherwise it's more appropriate for Islam in Saudi Arabia. Many practices you mention are not distinctively Wahhabi: for instance, the paragraph on gender includes the phrase "like many conservative Muslims". I don't think there is anything inherently Wahhabi about the Muttawa either: other Islamic cultures have similar arrangements, see Islamic religious police. My suggestion is that the paragraph that begins "Thaqafah Islamiyyah" could usefully be added to the beliefs section, but unless you have sources that specifically attribute the other aspects to Wahhabism, then they are more appriate to Islam in Saudi Arabia. That's just my view. DeCausa (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The Kingdom of SA was founded on an alliance with Ibn Abd al-Wahhab. If Ibn Abd al-Wahhab issued a fatwa urging Muslims pledge loyalty to Al-Saud, was that a "practice in Saudi Arabia" and not "distinctively Wahhabi"? How about the al-Ikhwan? Were they "distinctively Wahhabi" and their killers following a practice of Saudi Arabia? and Ibn Baz? was he not really "distinctively Wahhabi"? THis could get pretty absurd.
What I would agree with is adding something about there being two tendencies in Wahhabism -- namely those obedient to the Council of Senior Scholars and royal family and those opposed to them. I can find sources on that. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The edits make it seem like the conservative muslims are wahabites. The distinction of the group is provided in the following piece. http://books.google.ca/books?id=pBc9349sw4QC&pg=PA415&dq=canada+in+crisis+their+role+as+restoring&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LaQgU7KWIsXX2AW-_YCADw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=canada%20in%20crisis%20their%20role%20as%20restoring&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portlandc (talkcontribs) 18:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. The edits make a pretty clear distinction. Your link above leads to a blank page in the book. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
No it doesn't: I can read the link. It makes a similar point to the one I was making. You've conflated conservative Islam as it is in KSA with the specifics of Wahhabism. You think it's the same thing, but it isn't. I gave examples of the mistake you made above, but if you don't see it, good luck...I've got too many other things on at the moment to get into this. DeCausa (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Found the text. Will attempt to add it BoogaLouie (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I also want to back off a point. Yes, I was wrong, some/many of the practices of wahhabism I mentioned are shared by other conservative Muslims. But does that mean they should not be mentioned? especially in light of the fact that conservative Islam in the Muslim world would not have near the strength it has -- would not exist in some places -- without the tens of billions of dollars spend by the foundations and government of the KSA since the 1970s to promote Wahhabi Islam? --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Decausa, do you have a source on how "there is a difference between what is dictated by the Nejdi/Hejazi cultural inheritance of Islam and what is dicated by Wahhabi doctrine"? This sound a bit like distinguishing between American democracy and the political system of United States. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Not to hand, and without spending time searching. But I really don't understand the point of the section you've created. The "Beliefs" section covers the main distinctive areas of Wahhabism, but not necessarily very well. It would be better to put effort into that section and improve it by finding further sources on expanding those areas. Just because it's something that's done in KSA doesn't automatically make it Wahhabism. It has to be traced back to the teachings of ibn Abd al-Wahhab in some way. For example, I've never seen a serious source attribute the driving issue to to Wahhabism. That has always been attributed to Saudi societal factors. The fact that it has been supported by ulema who happen to also be Wahhabi from time to time doesn't make it "Wahhabi". What makes an issue Wahhabi is a derivation from one of the principles ennunciated by ibn Abd al-Wahhab which is set out in the Beliefs section. Any else is better suited to Islam in Saudi Arabia. I've said more than I intended to on this. DeCausa (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
You "don't understand the point" of the practices section?
I don't know where to begin in replying.
  • Are not the practices of a religion an important part of a religion?
  • Would you disqualify Sunday services and cerebrating Christmas from an article on Christianity because Jesus didn't practice them?
  • What are users of wikipedia more likely to be looking for in an article on Wahhabis? the finer points of whether Ibn Abd al-Wahhab totally or partially condemned taqlid, (".... or blind adherence, only at scholarly level in the face of a clear evidence or proof from a hadeeth or Qur'anic text")? Or what is considered haram by wahhabis?
  • Is not Wahhabism profoundly intertwined with religious practices in the Najd, (and which had many syncretic practices before ibn Abd al-Wahhab, so I've read)?
  • What sources say that Wahhabism is limited to practices directly linked to ibn Abd al-Wahhab? Are not practices of people widely identified as "Wahhabis" part of Wahhabism?
  • Here is an excerpt from New Encyclopedia of Islam by Cyril Glasse (a convert), typed out by myself:
"Wahhabism is noted for its policy of compelling its own followers and other Muslims strictly to observe the religious duties of Islam, such as the five prayers, under pain of flogging at one time, and for the enforcement of public morals to a degree not found elsewhere" (p.470)
Is that serious enough for you?
Are you going to tell us that Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Saudi Arabia) is not part of wahhabism because the original Wahhabis were volunteers and the mutaween are paid? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Do what you will with this article. I don't have time to interfere. I've already pointed out to you that the Saudi Muttaween are not unique and have existed as an institution outside of Wahhabism. The Glasse quote? So what? I don't see your point. Anyway good luck with this. You'll turn it into an article that should be renamed Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia. DeCausa (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I plan to integrate some of the information into the Islam in Saudi Arabia article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Also hope to add more nuance to the section distinguishing between ulema. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

What word/label do Saudi Arabians use to describe their religion?[edit]

What Arabic word do Saudi Arabians today use to describe their religion? If I were to ask someone in Riyadh what his religion was, would he respond by saying "Salafi", "Wahabi", "Sunni", or what? --RisingSunWiki 22:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"Islam" I think. DeCausa (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
'Islam', or 'ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah' to distinguish themselves from other sects of Islam and Shias in particular. Whomeyeahyou000 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
This article is a false and has no honesty. It is written with bad intent to Wahhabism. Be carfull it may has a legal consequences.
You convert Wikipedia as a fight Zone for mutilate your enemies. not a place for knoweledge.
Big text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.246.181.41 (talk)

Quote: "The terms Wahhabi and Salafi and ahl al-hadith (people of hadith) are often used interchangeably."[edit]

Who uses these terms interchangeably? I can imagine that many Muslims themselves affiliated to some degree with Wahhabism may use them this way, but otherwise who does? Admittedly, Salafi and Wahhabi are both modern terms and do have some interference, but ahl al-hadith is a very old word meaning those scholars who collected and sighted the hadith, and used it as a major source of law (from the 9th century on). I can't imagine that anyone outside Wahhabism would use this term interchangeably with Wahhabi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.150.20 (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Check this out: Ahl al-Hadith
In the contemporary sense, it refers to a reformist movement.[1] The term Ahl al-Hadith is often used interchangeably with the term Salafi[2] or as a branch of the latter movement.[3][4] The Ahl al-Hadith are often called Wahhabis by their adversaries,[1] though the movement itself claims to be distinct from Wahhabism.[5] The movement has the most adherents in the Indian subcontinent, where it possesses some notable distinctions from the Salafi movement,[6][7][8] most of whose adherents are found in the Arab world and Indonesia. The combined number of adherents in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan are estimated to range between 59-64 million.[9][10] In the modern era, the movement draws both inspiration and financial support from Saudi Arabia.[11]
  1. ^ a b Olivier Roy, The Failure of Political Islam, by Olivier Roy, translated by Carol Volk, Harvard University Press, 1994, p.118-9
  2. ^ Rabasa, Angel M. The Muslim World After 9/11 By Angel M. Rabasa, p. 275
  3. ^ Alex Strick Van Linschoten and Felix Kuehn, An Enemy We Created: The Myth of the Taliban-Al Qaeda Merger in Afghanistan, pg. 427. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. ISBN 9780199927319
  4. ^ Anatol Lieven, Pakistan: A Hard Country, pg. 128. New York: PublicAffairs, 2011. ISBN 9781610390231
  5. ^ Guide to Islamist Movements, vol. 1, pg. 349. Ed. Barry A. Rubin. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe, 2010. ISBN 978076564138
  6. ^ Dilip Hiro, Apocalyptic Realm: Jihadists in South Asia, pg. 15. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012. ISBN 9780300173789
  7. ^ Muneer Goolam Fareed, Legal reform in the Muslim world, pg. 172. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994.
  8. ^ Daniel W. Brown, Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought: Vol. 5 of Cambridge Middle East Studies, pg. 32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. ISBN 9780521653947
  9. ^ Markazi Jamiat Ahle Hadees
  10. ^ PROBE NEWS
  11. ^ Barry Rubin, Guide to Islamist Movements, Volume 1, pg. 349. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe, 2010.
BoogaLouie (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Problem with cite[edit]

This sentence gives a capsule description of Wahhabi belief in the lede, but its source -- Esposito's Dictionary of Islam -- has no entry for Wahhabism has about a 25 line entry for Wahhabism, and says zip about "the Athari school of thought".

The movement claims to adhere to the correct understanding of the general Islamic doctrine of Tawhid, on the "uniqueness" and "unity" of God, shared by the majority of Islamic sects, but with an emphasis on advocating following of the Athari school of thought only.[1][failed verification] Ibn Abd-al-Wahhab was influenced by the writings of Ibn Taymiyya and questioned the prevalent philosophical interpretations of Islam being the Ash'ari and Maturidi schools, claiming to rely on the Qur'an and the Hadith without speculative philosophy so as to not transgress beyond the limits of the early Muslims known as the Salaf.[1][failed verification]

I think a better source is The New Encyclopedia of Islam by Cyril Glasse. Glasse is a Muslim. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Please make the change. The problem is that some contributors cite books or articles that they have never seen.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Number of Wahhabi[edit]

This impressively academic-looking site "Demography of Religion in the Gulf". Mehrdad Izady. 2013.
estimates only 22.9% of all Saudis are Wahhabis. That seems an awfully small number, but I can't find much else on the subject.

Has anyone else found an estimate? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Not entirely surprising. World Christian Encyclopedia, published 2001, gives a figure of 7 million worldwide, though I would say that is slightly on the low side.--Peaceworld 11:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
That would be 1/4 of the population of Saudi and leave no room for any Wahhabis elsewhere! --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
The source is dubious (only a picture?), as are the specifics of how that information was obtained in the first place (the specifics are non-existent altogether, in fact). Would be interested to see those figures backed with more evidence, as I don't see how they can count the number of 'Wahhabis' given that a) almost all so-called Wahhabis reject that name, and b) you can't conduct a study like this on Arab communities in those countries in general, and Saudi Arabian communities in particular, and expect to yield substantially significant results. Whomeyeahyou000 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
This article is a false and has no honesty. It is written with bad intent to Wahhabism. Be carfull it may has a legal consequences. You convert Wikipedia as a fight Zone for mutilate your enemies. not a place for knoweledge.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.246.181.41 (talk)

Inclusion of section for criticism of the appellation 'Wahhabi'[edit]

I find it odd that, in spite of the abundance of outcry over the very appellation 'Wahhabi', there is no section for it on this Wikipedia page. I'm adding one. Please discuss it here if you find anything amiss with it. Whomeyeahyou000 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I have added a Naming controversy: Wahhabis, Muwahhidun, and Salafis sub-section as part of the Definitions and etymology section. I will merge your section with it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Khaled Abou El Fadl lack real knewldge in Wahhabi> he is very bad choice as a refreance in this matter> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkhunani (talkcontribs) 08:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree I haven't met anyone who would refer to themselves as "Wahhabi" in Saudi Arabia. actually it's only heard US news outlets like "madrasahs" which just means SCHOOLS for goodness sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.184.3.98 (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Dispute over lede[edit]

Editor by the name of Khonjibastak reverted an edit (OK< my edit) Deleting this:

Estimates of the number of adherents to Wahhabism vary, with one source (Michael Izady) giving a figure of less than 5 million Wahhabis in the Persian Gulf region, (compared to 28.5 million non-Wahhabi Sunnis and 89 million Shia).[2][3]

replacing it with this:

The majority of the GCC's Wahhabis are from Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia.[2] 46.87% of Qataris[2] and 44.8% of Emiratis are Wahhabis.[2] 5.7% of Bahrainis are Wahhabis and 2.17% of Kuwaitis are Wahhabis.[2] Wahhabis are the "dominant minority" in Saudi Arabia.[4] There are 4 million Saudi Wahhabis since 22.9% of Saudis are Wahhabis (concentrated in Najd).[2]
  1. ^ a b Esposito 2003, p. 333
  2. ^ a b c d e f "Demography of Religion in the Gulf". Mehrdad Izady. 2013.
  3. ^ Other sources give far lower numbers of Shia though they do not estimate the number of Wahhabi
    (15% of KSA is Shia. sources: Saudi Arabia's Shia press for rights| bbc|by Anees al-Qudaihi | 24 March 2009; and Council on Foreign Relations| Author: Lionel Beehner| June 16, 2006; Vali Nasr, Shia Revival, (2006) p. 236)
  4. ^ "The Shiʻis of Saudi Arabia". pp. 56–57.

Problem is

  1. the replacing material is already in the "Population" section
  2. ... and I put it there so as to leave detail and numbers in a section and not the lede.

Do you have any reply Khonjibastak? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below; request open for a month with no objections. Dekimasuよ! 01:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


Wahhabi movementWahhabism – as per WP:UCRN and to match all the related "ism" styled articles. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 20:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC) Gregkaye 11:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: this does not appear to be uncontroversial, so further input is necessary before performing the proposed move. There is a good deal of complaint in the archives about the previous title, and the page was moved here as the result of a move request that can be seen at Talk:Salafi movement/Archive 3#Requested move. Dekimasuよ! 05:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Surprised to find it's not at that title already. Number 57 14:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I'd say it's pretty uncontroversial. Google Ngram Viewer clearly shows the advantage of Wahhabism over Wahhabi movement. --Երևանցի talk 02:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly support move and I would also recommend that the same thing be with Salafi movement. Charles Essie (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


Requested move 2[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 21:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


WahhabismSalafism in Saudi Arabia – I was reading about Wahhabism, there are no people as a matter of fact who call themselves Wahhabis, they call themselves Salafis, I mean the Saudi Muslim who follow Salafi teachings. Naming the Saudis as Wahhabis is a smear campaign and it means nothing but hatred of the Saudi Salafis, something that shouldn't really be published as such on Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia promote hatred between people and entice it ... may be so ... but it shouldn't really. The name Wahhabism means unti-Salafi propaganda. It's about discrediting Saudi Salafism. Wahhabism is another misnomer around. I think the page "Wahhabism" should be changed to "Salafism in Saudi Arabia". The name Wahhabism looks like the outburst of dirty propaganda by the Shias of Iran against the Salafis of Saudi Arabia. It's wrong and unethical to call the Salafis of Saudia as Wahhabis, because Salafis of Saudia don't name themselves Wahhabis and the name Wahhabis for the Salafis means only interreligious hatred. The haters nicknamed Salafism as Wahhabism and the Wikipedia shouldn't follow their suit. Islamic11111 (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This has been discussed many times before. On Wikipedia we don't go by how particular groups decide they should be known as, we go by how reliable sources refer to them. The policy is WP:COMMONNAME. As has been discussed before, English language reliable sources refer to this set of beliefs as Wahhabism. It's also distinguishable from Salafism for which there is a separate article - apart from anything else Wahhabism predates Salafism. In fact, ibn Wahhab's followers referred to themselves as Muwahhidun (Unitarians), not as Salafists. DeCausa (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The modern day Salafis of Saudi Arabia name themselves as Salafis, as I said you are not likely to find any Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, only Salafis whom you would name Wahhabis. The so called Wahhabi establishment in Saudi Arabia names itself as a Salafi religious establishment. When you say Wahhabism it means a distortion of the name those Salafis give themselves. As such there is no any Wahhabism and there are no Wahhabis, there is only Salafism and there are only Salafis. The name Wahhabism means something imaginary and fictional. Islamic11111 (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The Salafis of Saudi Arabia are strict about naming themselves as Salafis and their teachings as Salafism, they never name themselves as Wahhabis and their teachings as Wahhabism. Islamic11111 (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
As I said, that's not relevant for Wikipedia's policies. DeCausa (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
It's certainly unethical for Wikipedia policies to see no difference between erroneous and thruthful information. This name "Wahhabism" looks like some people take advantage of the possibility to publish their lies on Wikipedia. Islamic11111 (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
if you don't like Wikipedia's policies you can always not edit here. However, if you are here to get your personal view of the truth onto the internet you will most likely end up blocked or banned from Wikipedia. DeCausa (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
What I am saying is definitely not a "personal view of the truth" because it is an obvious fact that the Salafis of Saudi Arabia do not call themselves Wahhabis. As such those who invented this name Wahhabism are those who got their personal view onto the internet. Islamic11111 (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
No, it's from reliable sources. What you are trying to implement is the preferred "official" Wahhabi position/interpretation - but we are not here to help advance the Wahhabi (or any other) "cause". This has been attempted several times before, but without success. I have nothing further to add and will leave it to others to comment. DeCausa (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Islamic11111 - in Wikipedia we go with what reliable sources say. Do you have any?-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I posted a message on your talk page about how redacting is done on Wikipedia. Please abide by Wikipedia policies WP:REDACT.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Don't put this info back, I deleted it. Islamic11111 (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
It looks like there is a certain lack of information about saying that the Salafis of Saudi Arabia don't name themselves Wahhabis, the Saudis certainly call themselves Salafis, that's for sure. Islamic11111 (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I am not that interested now talking about Wahhabis and Salafis, or Salafism and Wahhabism, because it is an intersectarian conflict between the Salafis, the Shias, the Sufis, the Qutubis, and others, all are in conflict. As such it all looks as a messy staff. I think I better leave this discussion, I lost interest. Islamic11111 (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose This has been discussed ad naseum. Nothing new has been brought here in terms of logical, policy-based arguments and thus there isn't much reason to argue against the case. The only new thing brought is Islamic1111's strong dislike of and disagreement with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which he has plainly stated on several other talk pages. Suffice to say that if someone disagrees with site policy, they don't need to edit here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Islamic11111 you are aware that there is already an article on Salafi movement. In fact, following the RM above it was you that proposed its move to Salafism. Can you explain how you might think that your proposed move here follows an agenda of building a NPOV encyclopaedia? Gregkaye 18:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
This page name "Wahhabism" to me is the result of some kind of unti-Salafi propaganda, it is the Salafi theme presented distorted and I suggested to rename it as "Salafism in Saudi Arabia". The other page name "Islam in Saudi Arabia" doesn't exactly mean Salafism in Saudi Arabia. As for the page "Salafi movement" then I suggested to rename it as "Salafism" because it's the correct name to mean the Salafi teachings. Islamic11111 (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
It is worth noting - and is even noted here in this article, with reliable sources - that Wahhabis don't like being called Wahhabis. Their dislike of the term doesn't mean it's factually inaccurate, though - the amount of reliable sources establishing the existence of Wahhabism as an independent ideology with its own name is so high that a discussion like this is silly. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
This page name "Wahhabism" has a great amount of inaccuracy in the sence that there is no any litrature published by the Wahhabis under the name Wahhabism, like you would find for some other "ism" stuff. That's because there are no any Wahhabis as there is no any Wahhabism, so to speak. Islamic11111 (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you think it is possible that most Wahhabis write in Arabic, not English? They are known in the English language as "Wahhabis" - what they call themselves when writing in Arabic is worth mentioning in the article (if there are reliable secondary sources that explicitly say this). In English-language Wikipedia we use the English-language words for things; for example, there is an article called "Germany" even though Germans call it "Deutschland" in their own language.
Islamic11111, you have not provided any sources that back up your claim that Wahhabis call themselves Salafis. You did post something, but then redacted it along with my comments on it - see here.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
These names "Wahhabis" and "Wahhabism" are the English nicknames for "Salafis" and "Salafism", that's obvious. As a matter of fact, all the Salafi websites on the internet are the once that the English speakers would name Wahhabi websites. So I would say there are lots of stuff published on the internet by Salafis who name themselves Salafis and their teachings as Salafism and you wouldn't find them calling themselves Wahhabis who follow Wahhabism. Islamic11111 (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that explicitly says this? If you do, where is it?-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The Saudi Salafis certainly know they are nicknamed Wahhabis and their teachings as Wahhabism, but they never call themselves as such. Islamic11111 (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
For example, the top Salafi scholar in Saudi Arabia, likely to be nicknamed by his opponents as a top Wahhabi scholar, Shaikh Saalih Aal ash-Shaikh, Minister of Islamic Affairs of Saudi Arabia, stated, "Muslims are of two groups: Salafis and Khalafis. As for the Salafis, then they are the followers of Salaf us-Saalih (first three generations of Muslims). And as for the Khalafis, then they are the followers of the understanding of the Khalaf and they are also called Innovators - since everyone who is not pleased and satisfied with the path of the Salaf us-Saalih, in knowledge and action, understanding and fiqh, then he is a khalafi, an innovator." (Haadhihi Mafaaheemunaa, Chapter on Ascription Salaf and Salafiyyah). Islamic11111 (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not interested in talking about this stuff any more. I already told it, but I was asked questions. The name Wahhabism for Saudi Salafism is more fictional than realistic, like someone saying Wahhabis and he has to say he means Saudi Salafis or else one is not likely to find any Wahhabis. It's better to name this page "Salafism in Saudi Arabia" to reflect the originality of the theme. Islamic11111 (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Will you please stop this obsessive copy-editing and redacting of text. Your 08:49/08:48, 2 December 2014 reply was important, since it is the nearest you have given to a straight answer about sources for this belief of yours that Wahhabis are Salafis. You have put a huge amount of effort into not answering the question about sources; at least have the goodness to leave the only bit of partially useful information you gave.-- Toddy1 (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Wahhabism is from the Arabic word Wahhabiyya, which anybody can see by visiting the Arabic version of this article. Also, Salafism and Wahhabism aren't exactly the same thing; that's made clear in both articles so there's no need to rehash it here. All I have seen is one guy pushing fringe views with a POV so strong that it affects their competency (see "Bias-based"). MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
"Wahhabism" is a nickname, not an original name that applies to Saudi Muslims who name themselves as "Saalafis". As such the name "Wahhabism" is a misnomer not accepted by these Salafis to name themselves, that's all about it. Islamic11111 (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
If any of this is true, then where is the evidence? You spend huge amounts of time not answering that question. Show us proper sources - sources that we can check ourselves! If you cannot, then spend a few months reading books.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Spend yourself a few months reading books. I know what I am saying, I gave suggestion about renaming this page name, according to my understanding. Islamic11111 (talk) 08:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
In fact there are many articles that tell that the adherents of so called "Wahhabism" do not like to be called Wahhabis and that they are Salafis. That is what I mean that these names Wahhabism and Wahhabis are misnomers. It's like someone had overdone it with Wahhabism in this article, painting it all as Wahhabism, whereas it's all is actually about Salafism in Saudi Arabia. It's the English speaking intellectuals instead of writing something factual about Salafism wrote some distorted stuff about it. They prefered this invented name Wahhabism to Salafism. It may look ok as to differentiate Saudi Salafism from any other Salafism, but the Saudi Salafis do not like this name Wahhabism applied to them or they do not use it for themselves at all. Islamic11111 (talk) 08:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
"Also, Salafism and Wahhabism aren't exactly the same thing." — as I know all the Salafis around the world follow what the Saudi Salafis teach. Litrature on Salafism today is what the Saudi Salafis or the so called Wahhabis publish. Salafism is the official Islamic creed of Saudi Salafis who are nicknamed as Wahhabis in the English language. Islamic11111 (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Look, you've been told this several times: it doesn't matter that you (or they) think it is a "nickname". The fact that it is what they want to be called is irrelevant to Wikipedia. This is what Wikipedia policy says: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Now, you've said several times you've lost interest in this and won't discuss it any more. But you keep on and on with the same point that doesn't address Wikipedia policy. Do you have any evidence that reliable sources in the English language prefer to call this group Salafist rather than Wahhabist. If you do, please cite specifically those sources. if you do not, please stop posting your irelevant messages. DeCausa (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I was refering to the misunderstanding of this Wahhabism stuff by others. "you've said several times you've lost interest in this" - I told it but then I was asked questions. Islamic11111 (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

dispute over religious demographics[edit]

(Same thing happened back in September.)

Edit by 80.184.81.48 replaced this paragraph in the lede:

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

with this

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

Which duplicates the Population section later in the article

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

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

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

contribution for 645817253 (History section) has Refimprove NPOV Undue-section[edit]

This contribution clearly feels opinionated and is poorly written. The contribution alludes to (but does not cite) the suspicious book “Confessions of a British Spy” . I'm going to remove this contribution unless I'm given a compelling reason not to do so.
JamesThomasMoon1979 04:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


Numerous google search results describe this book as a forgery and utter nonsense. Most likely written by an Anglo-phobic Ottoman Naval Officer. Also, Muslim writer Abul Haarith "points out that no evidence of Hempher can be found in computer database searches of libraries and rare books, and that facts and incidents related in the book do not conform to facts known from contemporary sources." It would seem to me this book is unfounded rumor and conjecture designed to incite anti-British hatred among Islamic communities. I wouldn't look on it as a reliable source. 86.21.124.136 (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Have deleted paragraphs added by 2a01:e35:2efd:5dc0:1438:aa9b:d4b1:daf4 . Article already has a sub-section on Hempher
A widely circulated but discredited apocryphal description of the founding of Wahhabism[1][2] known as Memoirs of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy to the Middle East (other titles have been used),[3] alleges that a British agent named Hempher was responsible for creation of Wahhabism. In the "memoir", Hempher corrupts Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, manipulating him[4] to preach his new interpretation of Islam for the purpose of sowing dissension and disunity among Muslims so that "We, the English people, ... may live in welfare and luxury."[3]
  1. ^ Bernard Haykel (27 May 2008). "Middle East Strategy at Harvard, Anti-Wahhabism: a footnote". John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, Harvard University. Retrieved 13 November 2014.
  2. ^ George Packer (May 17, 2004). "Caught in the Crossfire: Will moderate Iraqis embrace democracy or Islamist radicalism?". The New Yorker.
  3. ^ a b "Confessions of a British Spy and British Enmity Against Islam" (PDF) (pdf) (14) (8 ed.). Waqf Ikhlas Publications. 2001.
  4. ^ Daniel Pipes (January 1996). "The Saga of "Hempher," Purported British Spy". Daniel Pipes. Retrieved 13 November 2014.

--BoogaLouie (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of T. E. Lawrence[edit]

T. E. Lawrenece was symapthetic to the causes of the Arab Revolt of Hijaz by the Sharifs of Mecca, not the Al Saud dysnasty. Messiaindarain (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggest page is deleted[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to request for deletion[edit]

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

  • The term isn't in the least likely to fall into disuse. It's the prevalent term for specifically the brand of Islam sponsored by the Saudi government. Defining it as "merely" what Muhammad and the companions taught is simply Wahhabi POV. We don't adopt the POV of the sect which is the subject of the article. We follow what WP:RS say about the subject of the article. For that reason there is not the slightest likelihood that this article would be deleted. DeCausa (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete this page for the honesty of knowledge Wahhaism is Salafi. But enemies of Saudi Arabia invented it. And you here supporting the claim. most of article is false and not correc> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkhunani (talkcontribs) 11:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Please read the essay on verifiability, not truth and perhaps you will understand.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

More appropriate translation needed for the Muslim Shahada - "There is no god but God, Muhammad is his messenger"[edit]

Under the section 'Beliefs' the Muslim Shahada (Muslim profession of faith) is translated as - "There is no god but God, Muhammad is his messenger" (Line number 16 in the section). The word 'God' should be replaced by the word 'Allah' as it appears in the shahada in its original language (Arabic). 'Allah' is very different than 'God' from a Muslim point of view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaon Al Razi (talkcontribs) 10:39, 26 July 2015

"There is no god but God" is a literal translation. "There is no god but Allah" is a sense-for-sense translation that conveys better the meaning into English. Sense-for-sense translation is normally preferred. I support your change. Have you considered raising this matter in the article on the Shahada?-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Per MOS:ISLAM#Grammatical standardization Allah is translated as God across Wikipedia. It's been discussed many times at Shahada and the consensus there is that the English word should be used, as it is everywhere in Wikipedia. In fact, "God", as opposed to "god", is exactly the right word, and it is incorrect to say it is "different from a Muslim point of view". It isn't. If you look at the article on Saudi Arabia you will see that the translation of Allah as God (the Shahada being considered the motto of the state) is sourced to the Saudi government. DeCausa (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
In that case, the place to raise this issue is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The last discussion on it was a year and a half ago: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Allah. DeCausa (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
What is the authority of the Saudi government to define English? Especially in comparison to every common English translation of the Quran.
Unless "allah" (lowercase) means "god" in Arabic and Zeus is described as an "allah", "Allah" and "God" in English are not equivalent, so the translation should REMAIN "Allah" as in almost all, common translations of Shahada, and as "Allah" is always used in the most cited translations of the Quran. I've never even see any citations of the Quran which use "God" instead of "Allah".
Translating "Allah" as "God" goes against something similar to common word usage, which is what dictionaries are based on, and which an encyclopedia should be based upon as well. Using "God" in Muslim articles sounds false to the ear - uncommon. It's disconcerting. In English, the long established usage is "Allah" when referring to the Muslim god (which is qualitatively different from the English Christian god, just as the English Christian "Jesus-as-God" is qualitatively different than the English Christian "God-the-Father", which would, or should, be identical to the Jewish god, whether they're speaking Yiddish or Hebrew. :-)
"God" is an English word referring explicitly to the triune god of the Old and New Testaments, which can, and usually, means either the Father, the Son or the Holy Ghost, which is definitely not what Mohammad had in mind.
Muslims believe that Allah is the same god as the Christian and Jewish gods (yes, just as Christians claim their god is the same as the Jews'). In my opinion, identifying "Allah" with "God" is a subversive religious statement.
Mcboozerilla (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you. But the place for you to raise this issue is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles, as discussed above.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Multiple reliable sources translate Allah as God, which is a proper noun. That means it is the name of one being. Mcboozerilla's opening sentence illustrates the common misunderstanding of English grammar which leads to the opposite view. One cannot say "an" allah. It inherently means the sole deity. It's just the same in English. One cannot say Zeus is a God. But McBoozerilla also takes an equally incorrect view that God is the god of the old and new testament. It isn't. It is just the recognised gramatically correct name in English for the sole deity. DeCausa (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

My edits[edit]

Hi all, please review my edits - I've cleaned up the Beliefs section and I removed the section called "Disregarding (most) Islamic scholars" because it was poorly written and rehashing the exact same points in the text preceding it. Moreoever, the sources used were not really in line with what was actually written. I find this is actually the case for a lot of what is written. Let me know if there are any concerns with my version. Sakimonk talk 01:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

came about partly because of occupation[edit]

    yes occupation by their fellow sunni muslims from the ottoman empire.occupation of parts of saudi arabia by the sunni muslim ottoman turks is in large part responsible for the rise of wahhabism.the rest of the blame for the causality is by the saudi arabian muslims themselves.human causality goes all the way back to the big bang itself.remember,assess and discern all of it as accurately as possible with as little bias and preference as possible.it's not a contest,we are all of one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.82.169 (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC) 

Update needed on the position of women drivers in Saudi Arabia?[edit]

I believe the law recently changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facherty (talkcontribs) 11:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wahhabism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Where exactly does source say "Many Sunni and Shia Muslims....believe in a conspiracy theory"?[edit]

Solarium42 asked in his/her edit summary Where exactly does source say "Many Sunni and Shia Muslims....believe in a conspiracy theory"?

Try the URL provided in the citation: Valentine, Simon. Force and Fanaticism. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 22 April 2016.[page needed] When you see the page displayed, try the "previous" and "next" buttons.

The source says: "In a conspiracy theory widely accepted by many Muslims it is claimed that Abd'al-Wahhab was a 'duped of the British secret service'[20] and Wahhabism was a creation of the 'British Imperialists as a means of diving and weakening Islam."-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The year 1818[edit]

I have a source this paragraph saying that it was Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt that crushed the Wahhabis in 1818 rather than what is stated in the article => "The Ottoman Empire eventually succeeded in counterattacking. In 1818 they defeated Al Saud" I guess Ibrahim Pasha was Ottoman? Makeandtoss (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: Sorry for annoying you! But I am truly confused, was Ibrahim Pasha an Albanian who ruled over Egypt for the Ottoman Empire (fought against Al Saud in 1818) and then fought against the Ottoman Empire in 1831 ? Makeandtoss (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Occupation of southeastern Syria[edit]

I only found two sources mentioning the establishment of Wahhabi rule over "southeastern Syria". Can someone help me find more information about this event ? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

External links[edit]

External links section had various valuable links to scholarly articles about wahhabism / salafism, to be recently almost uniformly changed to the pro-wahhabi / pro-salafi websites on the subject. Main website that practically replaced them all is called salafimanhaj.com. Besides criticism of ISIS and al-Qaeda (conducted officially by the Saudi government as well, which in practice doesn't stop them from preaching openly the same ideology [1], [2]), the website for example refers to Shia Muslims in derogatory terms, such as rafida. In accordance with the Wikipedia's neutrality policy, it should be clearly stated that these websites that replaced scholarly articles are wahhabi/salafi run. Not all people are experts in the Islamic field to differentiate between the groups and ideologies. --Szalony Mnich (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The external links seem to predate most of the article's contents, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't clean up this section according to the criteria of WP:EXT. Please be bold and remove inappropriate links. Eperoton (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:CITEKILL[edit]

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

Wahhabism (Arabic: الوهابية‎, al-Wahhābiya(h)) or Wahhabi mission[1] (

/wəˈhɑːbi, wɑː-/

;[2] Arabic: الدعوة الوهابية‎, ad-Da'wa al-Wahhābiya(h) ) is a sect,[3][4][5][6] religious movement or branch of Islam.[7] [8][9][10]

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

Wahhabism (

/wəˈhɑː.bɪz.əm, wɑː-/

;[11] Arabic: الوهابية‎, al-Wahhābiya(h)) or Wahhabi mission (الدعوة الوهابية, ad-Da'wa al-Wahhābiya(h)) is the exonym of a strictly conservative, orthodox reform movement of Islam primarily practiced in Saudi Arabia that is based on the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792).[12][13][14]

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

References

References

  1. ^ Commins, David (2009). The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia. I.B.Tauris. p. ix. A derogatory term for adherents. A neutral observer could define the Wahhabi mission as the religious reform movement associated with the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792). He and his followers believe that they had a religious obligation to spread the call (in Arabic, da'wa) for a restoration of pure monotheistic worship.
  2. ^ "Wahhabi". Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary.
  3. ^ Valentine, Simon Ross (2015-01-09). Force and Fanaticism: Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and Beyond. Oxford University Press. p. 223. ISBN 9781849046152. Ever since the founding of the Wahhabi sect and the first claims of hegemony by the Al-Saud Sheikhdom in the Najd region
  4. ^ Salmi, Ralph H.; Majul, Cesar Adib; Tanham, George Kilpatrick (1998-01-01). Islam and Conflict Resolution: Theories and Practices. University Press of America. p. 10. ISBN 9780761810964. He founded the ultra conservative Wahhabi sect which remains influential in present day Saudi Arabia
  5. ^ "Street protests in Pakistan after shooting of transgender activist". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2016-12-04. Kamran Arif, vice-president of the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, blamed Pakistan’s growing intolerance on a proliferation of madrassas or religious schools that adhere to the strict Wahhabi sect of Islam.
  6. ^ Ruthven, Malise. "'Saudi Arabia', by Paul Aarts and Carolien Roelants and 'Muted Modernists', by Madawi al-Rasheed". www.ft.com. Retrieved 2016-12-04. scholars and journalists have been predicting the end of a regime that tries to modernise its society while riding two tigers: a fundamentalist belief-system rooted in the teachings of the Wahhabi sect, and the demands of a powerful family network that traces its origins to the central highlands of Najd.
  7. ^ "Analysis Wahhabism". PBS Frontline. Retrieved 13 May 2014. For more than two centuries, Wahhabism has been Saudi Arabia's dominant creed. It is an austere form of Sunni Islam that insists on a literal interpretation of the Quran. Wahhabis believe that all those who don't practice their form of Islam are heathens and enemies. Critics say that Wahhabism's rigidity has led it to misinterpret and distort Islam, pointing to extremists such as Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. Wahhabism's explosive growth began in the 1970s when Saudi charities started funding Wahhabi schools (madrassas) and mosques from Islamabad to Culver City, California.
  8. ^ "Sunni Islam". globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 18 August 2014.
  9. ^ "Wahhabi". GlobalSecurity.org. 2005-04-27. Archived from the original on 2005-05-07. Retrieved 2008-05-10.
  10. ^ although some Sunnis dispute whether Wahhabism is Sunni (source: http://www.sunnah.org, Wahhabism: Understanding the Roots and Role Models of Islamic Extremism, by Zubair Qamar, condensed and edited by ASFA staff)
  11. ^ "wahhabism", Dictionary.com Unabridged, Random House, Inc., retrieved 26 February 2017
  12. ^ "wahhabi", Dictionary.com Unabridged, Random House, Inc., retrieved 26 February 2017
  13. ^ Commins, David (2006). The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia. Issue 50 of Library of Modern Middle East Studies. I.B.Tauris. p. vi. ISBN 978-1-84511-080-2.
  14. ^ J. DeLong-Bas, Natana (October 18, 2011). "Wahhabis". In Mark Juergensmeyer and Wade Clark Roof (ed.). Encyclopedia of Global Religion. SAGE Publications. pp. 1369–1370. ISBN 978-1-4522-6656-5.

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

I see a few different issues here. Multiple citations can be helpful for establishing due weight on points of potential dispute, but they're generally not helpful to the reader. My own preference if there are more than 2 or 3, and it makes sense to keep them all, is to put them inside a single ref with bullet points.
Regarding the term "exonym", I think it would be a good choice if we were trying to construct a definition ourselves, but it doesn't reflect the RSs I've just checked, on which more below.
The issue of sect/branch/movement has recently come up in a related context in Talk:Salafi_movement#Lead. To recap my concern expressed there, the term "sect" falls under the broad category discussed in the last paragraph of WP:RNPOV, though the distinction here is not precisely between technical and popular use. It is sometimes used as a neutral synonym for "branch" and "denomination", particularly in older books, although this usage appears to be falling out of favor. It also has a derogatory connotation, both vague and technical, in a number of contexts and can be considered a WP:LABEL. The term "movement" appears to convey a different sense.
For Salafism, as I recall for the sources I've checked, there is broad support for both branch/etc and movement. I've just checked a number of encyclopedias to see what they say about Wahhabism, including all the ones I usually consult, and a couple of others. To summarize the quotes given below, "movement" appears to be by far the predominant usage, although EI2, which avoids the use of any of these terms highlights that the term also refers to a doctrine. Here are the opening passages, roughly in decreasing order of weight I would give to these sources:

Openings from encyclopedias[edit]

Quotes
 WAHHABIYYA, a term used to denote (a) the doctrine and (b) the followers of Muhammad b. cAbd al-Wahhab. Brill Enc of Islam, 2nd ed
 Wahhābīyah An eighteenth-century religious revival (tajdīd) and reform (islāh) movement founded in Nejd in Saudi Arabia by the scholar and jurist Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb (1702/3–1791/2). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World
 WAHHA¯B¯IYAH. An Islamic renewal group established by Muhammad ibn EAbd al-Wahha¯b (d. AH 1206/1792 CE), the Wahha¯b¯ıyah continues to the present in the Arabian Peninsula. The term Wahha¯b¯ı was originally used by opponents of the movement, who charged that it was a new form of Islam, but the name eventually gained wide acceptance. Encyclopedia of Religion 2nd ed (MacMillan)
 Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, Muhammad (1703–92)  Founder of a revivalist and reformist religious movement centered in Najd in  central Arabia and commonly referred to as the Wahhabiyya or Wahhabis, The Princeton Encyclopeidia of Islamic Political Thought (NB: no article of Wahhabism)
 Wahhabis (The Oxford Dictionary of Islam) Eighteenth-century reformist/revivalist movement for sociomoral reconstruction of society. 
 MUWAHHIDUN The movement was started by a religious scholar from Najd (Saudi Arabia), Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792), schooled by ulama (Islamic clergy) in what is now Iraq, Iran, and the Hijaz (western Arabia). The Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa (2nd Edition) (MacMillan)
 The Wahhabiyya is a conservative reform movement launched in eighteenth-century Arabia by Muhammad b.Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792) Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim world (MacMillan)
 Wahhabism (Arabic: Wahhabiyya) Named after its founder, mUhammad ibn abd al-Wahhab (d. 1792), Wahhabism is the most important form of militant Islamic reformism to arise in the Arabian Peninsula. [...] It refers to a set of doctrines and practices and to a sectarian movement comprised of those who embrace them. Encyclopedia of Islam, InfoBase
 Wahhabism. (Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World) Wahhabism refers to a conservative interpretation of Islam founded as a revival and reform movement in eighteenth-century Arabia
 Wahabism (A Dictionary of Contemporary World History (3 ed.), Oxford) An Islamic movement which developed during the eighteenth century in central Arabia, providing a rigorous, puritanical interpretation of Sunni teaching. 
 Wahhābī ISLAMIC MOVEMENT Wahhābī, also spelled Wahābī , any member of the Muslim reform movement founded by Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb in the 18th century in Najd, central Arabia, and adopted in 1744 by the Saʿūdī family. (Britannica) (NB: unsigned recent entry, so low weight)
 Wahhābīya (The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, Oxford) An ultra-conservative, puritanical Muslim movement adhering to the Ḥanbalite law, although it regards itself as ghair muqallidīn, non-adherent to parties, but defending truth. 

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

Rewrite[edit]

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

Constant vandalism, false bias[edit]

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

Firstly, Sufi's are a subset of Sunnis. Secondly, the groups mentioned all self identify as Sunni (see for example Al-Azhar university). Thirdly, academic sources such as Force and Fanaticism by Simon Valentine, Oxford University Press. pp. 16–17 states that
The majority of mainstream Sunni and Shia Muslims worldwide would strongly disagree with the interpretation of Wahhabism outlined aove. Rather than see Wahhabism as a reform movement, many Muslims would reject it in the strongest terms as firqa, a new faction, a vile sect.
If you feel that "nobody on the mainstream Sunnism condemns wahhabism" then you need to provide evidence per WP:IRS and WP:PROVEIT. Otherwise, it is nothing but your personal point of view. MontyKind (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
You clearly have a bias, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, therefore it presents facts, not opinions. Simon Vakentine presented his opinion, not a fact. Save for Sufis and Shias, no Sunni muslim will say that Salafism/"Wahhabism" isn't Sunni Islam. It's an official faith in Saudi Arabia, so how can it be non-Sunni? The Saudis don't know that their movement has nothing to do with islam. ALL the "Sunni" criticism in the section comes from the Sufi organizations. It is therefore bias and chosen based upon the Sufi sources to suit your narrative that supposedly Sunnis oppose orthodox Sunni Islam. You still didnt answer why you've moved sourced fragment from the Shia section to the Sunni one by adding fragment "In general, mainstream Sunni Muslims", which clearly violates Wikipedia's rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.72.109 (talk) 07:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
>>Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, therefore it presents facts, not opinions. Simon Vakentine presented his opinion, not a fact.<<
"Facts" are determined from reliable sources per WP:IRS, and yes the book Force and Fanaticism by Simon Valentine is a reliable source since it has been peer reviewed and published by Oxford University Press. That is about as reliable as you can get. If you think that the source is unreliable then explain your reasons here.
>>It's an official faith in Saudi Arabia, so how can it be non-Sunni?<<
Where did I or any other editor claim that Wahabis are non-Sunni. Which part of the article claims this?
>>ALL the "Sunni" criticism in the section comes from the Sufi organizations.<<
I have already stated above that the groups mentioned self identify as Sunni (see for example Al-Azhar university). If you think they are "Sufi" then you need to provide evidence. Also, as mentioned above, Sufism is a movement within Sunni Islam so it is not a contradiction. Did you read my last response or is it a simple case of I didn't hear that.
>>The Saudis don't know that their movement has nothing to do with islam.<<
What does this even mean?
>>It is therefore bias and chosen based upon the Sufi sources to suit your narrative that supposedly Sunnis oppose orthodox Sunni Islam.<<
The sources all seem reliable from peer reviewed academic works. Which sources do you believe are "Sufi"? Also, the section is not about Sunni's opposing "orthodox Sunni Islam". It is about certain Sunni groups opposing Wahhabism. MontyKind (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no such a thing as Wahhabism, it is orthodox Sunni Islam. You clearly have underlining bias and you guard it. Ask "Wahhabi" clerics if they are Wahhabis, all will say that there's no such a thing and they just adhere to orthodox sunnah. ALL mentioned in the alleged Sunni criticism section are Sufis, including al-Azhar University (according to a 2011 report issued by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Al Azhar is strongly Sufi in character [3]), whose leading head imam, Ahmed el-Tayeb, is a Sufi. Sufis hate orthodox Islam because there's no place in it for dancing, praying to saints and tombs and such. You still avoid the answer why you've moved sourced fragment from the Shia section to the Sunni one by adding fragment "In general, mainstream Sunni Muslims". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.72.109 (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Your polemic statement that "Sufis hate orthodox Islam because there's no place in it for dancing, praying to saints and tombs and such" is nothing more than sectarian garbage. An anti-Wahhabi could equally state that "Wahhabis hate orthodox Islam because there's no place in it for anthropomorphism, man-worship, hatred for the Prophet (s) and such". Wikipedia however isn't based on personal beliefs either way, it's based on reliable sources.
Now, you seem not to understand the basic point that being a Sufi doesn't mean that one is not a Sunni. On the contrary, Sufism is a movement within Sunni Islam and some of the greatest historical Sunni figures such as Nawawi, Ghazali etc.. were both Sunnis and Sufis. Even the beloved of the Wahhabi sect Ibn Taymiyyah was a follower of the Qadiri sufi order. So the claim that "Al Azhar is strongly Sufi in character " doesn't mean that it is non Sunni. The two are not mutually exclusive. Further, reliable sources explicit state that Al-Azhar is Sunni. e.g. Oxford Bibliographies Online Research Guide by Oxford University Press, page 3 clearly states that:
The university-mosque of al-Azhar, situated in Cairo, Egypt, is the foremost center of Sunni religious learning in the Muslim world and plays a significant religious, intellectual, and political role in Egypt and beyond.
Not only is Al-Azhar Sunni, it is the "foremost center of Sunni religious learning". That is about as explicit as it gets. There are literally dozens of other sources which prove this also.
Lastly, the statement "In general, mainstream Sunni Muslims" is backed up by the academic source entitled Force and Fanaticism by Simon Valentine, Oxford University Press. pp. 16–17 which states that
The majority of mainstream Sunni and Shia Muslims worldwide would strongly disagree with the interpretation of Wahhabism outlined above. Rather than see Wahhabism as a reform movement, many Muslims would reject it in the strongest terms as firqa, a new faction, a vile sect. MontyKind (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Wahhabism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Wahhabism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


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

Lead banners[edit]

@Emir of Wikipedia: Could you explain these banners? The lead seems to be about the normal length for a well-developed article of this size. It's true that it has one more paragraph than is recommended by WP:LEADLENGTH, but they are short paragraphs. Eperoton (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

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

───────────────────────── I have removed the banner about length, but I would like to keep the other banner there until we have at least made a start on improving it. What would you say is the best way about going to improve it? Should I highlight the parts I think are too detailed for the lead? Or should we start a new lead from scratch? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm really not sure why the lead needs to be rewritten as it seems to be a perfectly good summary of the article per WP:LEAD. As such, I would be inclined to remove the other tag also. If you feel that particular improvements can be made then you are more than welcome to make suggestions here. MontyKind (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Should the "leadbanner" now be removed?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Seeing that the rewrite proposal hasn't gotten any support so far, I would say yes. Eperoton (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I've removed it based on this discussion. MontyKind (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Wahhabism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


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

Kiterunners's edits[edit]

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

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

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wahhabism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


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

Suggest additions to History section (in Algeria, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq)[edit]

Greetings,

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2018[edit]

...religious salafi movement...

Cross link salafi to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement Werenomads (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Danski454 (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Peace, Alliance and Diplomacy between sects of Islam[edit]

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

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