Talk:Wahhabism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Reminder

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, tone, bias, and factual accuracy of the article itself and not to debate the truth of Islam or Wahhabism. See WP:NOT

Please see:

http://www.thewahhabimyth.com

A thorough website dealing with the term Wahhabism, its wrong application, and the correct concept that they hold. Including Usaama bin Laden

This book is not research work but a propoganda book sponsored by the Saudi Royal Family. The Saudi Family is caught in contradictions. On one hand they try to dismiss the term Wahhabism as just a slur (whereas they used it in the past), on the other hand they are saying terrorist are not Wahhabies but Qutubist (after Syed Qutub who was killed by Communist Nasser inspite of Saudi Governments effort to save him). There are hundreds of such books written by Saudi financing and thousand of fatwas from clerics on Saudi payroll. They mean nothing.

Adding Criticism

I've noticed that there is like maybe one or two sentences on criticism of Wahhabism. And that's rather odd, because there have been several books written on it. The article on Zionism has extensive criticism in the article. Furthermore, it's also relevant, because it's not just modern scholars, but even scholars that knew Wahhab personally, when he was alive, had criticized him. I can also get a public domain copy of one of these historical Islamic texts. Like someone else below, I am not a Jew, Christian, or Muslim, and I think America sucks too, so I have no pro-Wahhabi or anti-Wahhabi POV to sell. But anyway, I'll work on adding a new section within the article on criticism of Wahhabism. 69.138.24.96 18:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC) -Yes, absolutely. There are far less controversial topics with 'controversy' sections a mile long. This absolutely needs a criticism/controversy section. -Toptomcat 17:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"Anthropomorphist" critism

Will someone describe the reasoning behind the following criticism? From the article: "Wahhabism is often maligned and attacked by adherents of the Ash'ari and Maturidis as being anthropomorphist." What does Wahhabism supposedly anthropomorphize?

See the above reminder. Even if you disagree with their criticism, if they claim that, it is a fact. Only if it is a rare, unscholarly claim should it be removed. 69.138.24.96 17:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Ibn Taymiyyah got into trouble because some accused him of having a rather too-literal interpretation of phrases such as God's hand in Qur'an verse 48:10... AnonMoos 23:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Does Wahhabism even exist?

I have been just reading this article which attributes Wahhabism to the people of Saudia Arabia. In reality, Wahhabism doesn't even exist. No body calls themselves Wahhabi. The 'ulema of Saudi Arabia are simply muslims and due to fact they propagate pure Islam, many people give them names such as this one. It is simply the propaganda by Westerners and their sufi friends to damage Islam. I ask this article to be removed because the whole article is based upon "name calling" given to anyone who is serious about his religion and not necessarily the scholars of Saudi. Even people in other parts of the world whohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism are serious about their religion such as Pakistan or Jordan have been given this name. It was first used by the british and then revived again by the sufis. The religious schools in Saudia Arabia are simply called Islamic schools, NOT WAHHABI schools as someone who used this name.

Wahhab existed and Wahhab wrote on Islam. Some people claiming to be Muslims believed what he wrote on Islam while other people claiming to be Muslims did not believe what he wrote. Therefore, Wahhabi exists. 69.138.24.96 17:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Wahhabism has changed many names in its history. Initially it was known as the "Nejdi Movement" as it started from the area of Nejd which is now known as "Central Province" of Saudi Arabia. However anti-Wahhabies came up with many hadiths showing Nejd as a cursed land and prophesies of trials and tribulations arising from Nejd. Especially the one that say that "Satan will raise its horn from Nejd". Then the followers of Ibn Abdul Wahhab started calling themselves Wahhabies. When the Nejdies raided Hejaz and took over the holy cities of Mecca and Median, the Ottomon empire came to the rescue of the Hejazies and drove Nejdies out almost killing all of them. The Wahhabi became a slur and a taboo party for the plunder they did to the Islamic sites (and hence the reaction of muslims all over the world against them) and partly due to the wrath of Ottomons upon them. During their resurrection with the help of British, they were popularly known as Ikhwans. After the dispute between Ikhwans and the House of Saud, the House of Saud and the clerics from House of Ibn Abdul Wahhab loyal to them, started calling themselves Salafies. As per an interview at CNN by former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki, the dispute between Bin Laden and House of Saud started aftet Desert Storm and then briefly the Salafies started calling themselves Atharies. There have been non Wahhabies influenced by Wahhabism e.g. Syed Ahmed Barelvi and his side kick Maulvi Ismail used to raid the shrines of Sufi SaintHassanfarooqi

Anjouli's concern about bias

This page is/was extremely biased against Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism in general, and a lot of it plain nonsense. (Minarets forbidden in Saudi Arabia?)

Althought there are a significant number of Saudi extremists, the vast majority are very moderate and not at all puritanical about their religion. I've cleaned this page up a bit, but it needs more work to achieve a NPOV.

Anjouli 16:15, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree completely, such as the Saudi Imams recently declaring several fatwas against terrorism. But make sure you're using sources and not original research. 69.138.24.96 17:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Saudi donations to Wahhabi schools

Shalom, RK.

I agree "Saudi laypeople, government officials and clerics have donated many tens of millions of dollars to create Wahhabi religious schools, newspapers and outreach organizations." is fine.

Not too sure about "As late as the 1980s people were put to death for converting to a non-Islamic religion". Last reference I can find is 1973. Do you have a reference?Anjouli 11:19, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Breathtaking! That is a most characteristic quibble. Anjouli's program of intellectual dishonesty is a disgrace to us all. If people were legally liable to a death penalty for adopting a religion other than Islam, and were executed as late as 1973, and that fact cannot be mentioned, this article will remain tripe. Wetman
Let's be polite here please. I am not a Christian, Muslim or Jew and have no cause to promote. I removed the 1980's allegation because it is completely unsupported. The reference I have is not for Saudi Arabia, it is for Pakistan, it is not specifically Wahhabi and it is only a single unsupported reference in a publication issued by a body that just might not have a NPOV due to its declared religious orientation. It might belong somewhere else in Wiki, but certainly not here. I do however agree that this article is still in bad shape and could do with a complete rewrite - preferably by a disinterested third-party. Anjouli 05:48, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
What article? What publication? What publishing body that just might not be as neutral. Wetman 01:16, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Be calm, Wetman. The burden of proof isn't on Anjouli, it's on whoever put that statement in there in the first place. Howl at that person for a reference, if howl you must. Beanluc 22:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I have disputed the NPOV of this page because it seems to represent Saudi Arabia as a hot-bed of raving Wahabbism, which patently is not true for the majority of Saudis. It's like portraying all Irish as IRA supporters. Some are, but most are not.

A lot of criticisms can be levelled at the Saudis, but this is not one of them. The House of Saud now sees the few raving Wahhabis as a danger to their own rule and is promoting a much more liberal interpretation of Islam.

Hi Anjouli... I agree this page is heavily biased against Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism. However, in order to avoid an edit war I think it would be most appropriate if you can find references for the things you state (not because I disbelieve them, but because this is the simplest way to avoid arguments). For example, it's probably relatively easy for you to show that there are many Shia living in Saudi. Graft 17:19, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
RK has helpfully documented that. He has not supported the claim that the Saudis execute people for changing to a different branch of Islam, so I have removed tht. I'm happy for it to go back if it is documented. Certainly to say that the Saudis ban minarets and smoking is nonsense, as anybody who has ever seen any footage of Saudi on the evening news will confirm. Almost all mosques have minarets and many Saudis smoke publically. (What about the famous Shisha pipes of Saudi Arabia?). More on Wahabbism in Saudi when I get a moment. Anjouli 05:23, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say that the House of Saud is seeing Wahhabism as a threat. As a matter of fact, House of Saud and House of Sheikh (house of Ibn Abdulwahhab) are sticking to the accord between Ibn Saud and Ibn Abdulwahhab. As per the agreement, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia is still the descendant of Ibn Abdulwahhab and the King of Saudi Arabia is still the descendant of Ibn Saud. The House of Saud pays hefty salaries to the mufties coming from (or appointed by) the House of Abdulwahhab. The house of Abdulwahhab, in turn, issues fatwas supporting the rule of House of Saud. In the first gulf war, the house of Abdulwahhab and their appointed mufties Ibn Baz, Ibn Uthaimain, Albani, Hamood Bin Uqla etc all issued fatwa justifying payment to American led troops against Iraq. Hamood later revoked his fatwa and was found "mysteriously" dead immediately.

Also incorrect is to say the majority of muslims are Salafies (wahhabies). Actually the majority of Saudi Arab is not Wahhabi in the first place. The Eastern province is majority Shia and the Western province (Hejaz) is orthodox Sunni. Only the Central province (Nejd) is mostly Wahhabi. However the Royal family brutally crushes every uprising against the morachy and the Royal clerics covers it up with their fatwas. In North America, everyday a Mosque is taken over by the Wahhabies although the Majority of muslims in North America are orthodox Sunnies.

Also incorrect is to say the terrorist are not Wahhabies. Usama bin Ladin is clearly heard on the video shown as CNN saying, "Alhamdulillah, none of them (9/11 hijacker) were Muqallids (Wahhabi term for orthodox Sunnies)". They are a splinter group of Wahhabies like there are splinter groups in IRA. While IRA has reached a peace accord with the British Government, these splinter groups are still carrying out terrorism.Hassanfarooqi 18:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wahhabai Islam is the main religion in Saudi Arabia

Anjouli is writing things that are incorrect. Wahhabi Islam is the main form of Islam in Saudi Arabia. Non-Wahhabi Muslims in Saudi Arabia report non-stop discrimination. Non-Wahhabi Muslims outside Saudi Arabia are afraid of it, and reject it. I just don't see why it is consdiered biased to note how strong and popular this form is in Saudia Arabia. As for a claim that this article is biased against Wahhabism in general, please specifically state how. Granted, to most non-Muslims, and even to liberal Muslims, Wahhabi Islam looks bad, seems violent, is definately puritanical and neo-medieval, and very fundamentalist... but so what? Some religions really are this way. I know of a version of Judaism that seems to me to be much like this (Ultra-Orthodox Judaism), and there are versions of Christianiy like this as well. Yet the the Wikipedia articles on these subjects present them pretty well. An NPOV discussion of a religion doesn't require that it make all religions sound equally progressive and tolerant. They aren't. RK 23:26, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

The U.S. Department of State offers the International Religious Freedom Report, released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Their report on Saudi Arabia is very clear: RK 23:32, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

International Religious Freedom Report - Saudi Arabia
The country’s total land area is 756,981 square miles and its population is approximately 17 million, with an estimated foreign population of 7 million. ...The majority of Saudi citizens are Sunni Muslims predominantly adhering to the strict interpretation of Islam taught by the Salafi or Wahhabi school that is the official state religion. Approximately 1 million citizens are Shi’a Muslims, who live mostly in the eastern province, where they constitute approximately one-third of the population.
Saudi Arabia is an Islamic monarchy without legal protection for freedom of religion, and such protection does not exist in practice. Islam is the official religion, and the law requires that all citizens be Muslims. The Government prohibits the public practice of non-Muslim religions. The Government recognizes the right of non-Muslims to worship in private; however, it does not always respect this right in practice. ...The Government continued to detain Shi'a religious leaders and members of the Ismaili Shi'a community in Najran province... Members of the Shi’a minority continued to face institutionalized political and economic discrimination, including restrictions on the practice of their faith....An overwhelming majority of citizens support an Islamic state and oppose public non-Muslim worship. There is societal discrimination against adherents of the Shi’a minority.
Freedom of religion does not exist. Islam is the official religion, and all citizens must be Muslims. The Government prohibits the public practice of other religions. The Government recognizes the right of private worship by non-Muslims; however, it does not always respect this right in practice. Saudi Arabia is an Islamic monarchy and the Government has declared the Holy Koran and the Sunna (tradition) of the Prophet Muhammad to be the country’s Constitution. The Government bases its legitimacy on governance according to the precepts of the rigorously conservative and strict interpretation of the Salafi or Wahhabi school of the Sunni branch of Islam and discriminates against other branches of Islam. Neither the Government nor society in general accepts the concepts of separation of religion and state, and such separation does not exist.

Are we deciding that the U.S. State Department's report too biased to be quoted? Or can the quotes concerning Wahhabism be put into the article Wahhabism. Any issues with this? Wetman 01:16, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wetman, Wahhabism is the official version of Islam in Saudi Arabia. However it is not the version followed by the majority. Remember there is no democracy is Saudi Arabia and therefore the government with the minority version is being able to impose their version. The Eastern portion is mainly Shia and Western is mainly Sunni.

More claims of bias

The term velabi in the last sentence needs to be explained.

The mosque at the Kaaba in Mecca certainly has minarets (images-google mosque+mecca and see), so that sentence seems to br wrong.

Otherwise I don't find much to object to in this article. Adam 05:13, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Factually, it's getting there. Did you see the hate-filled earlier versions?. But it still has a 'spin'. It's not just a matter of being factually correct - it's a matter of balance. A similar-sized article on the Catholic Church that was 75% Spanish Inquisition and Pedophile Preists could be factually correct and fully-referenced, but it would not be balanced. If it was the main Wiki reference for Catholicism, it would give readers a completely wrong impression. Please understand I am not defending the Saudis. They have a lot to answer for. I am defending a NPOV. Anjouli 05:30, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It will be very difficult to find someone who can give a positive assessment of Wahhabism - almost by definition this encyclopaedia is being written by western-educated intellectuals, and we regard absolutist religions with horror. And if we did find someone they would probably delete the whole article and give as a Wahhabist tract. (see the problems at Mother Teresa for example.) Adam 06:39, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, it isn't easy. I study this region for a living and have lived many years in both Israel and Saudi Arabia. There are idiots and extremists on both sides, but the vast majority are moderate and sensible people. 'Western' just about sums up the problem the rest of the English-speaking world has with Wikipedia. (See the talk on Mecca for instance.) For sure, there are many raving fundamentalist Wahhabis - Osama Bin Laden for one - but to accuse the Saudi government of supporting them is plain wrong. The Saudi government and majority of the population (particularly following the last Riyadh bombing of an Arab housing community) are scared to death of the fundamentalist Wahhabis and never miss a chance to arrest or discredit them. Not that I'm defending this, but the article gives the opposite impression. Saudi Arabia is no more completely fundamentalist Wahhabi than America is completely fundamentalist Christian. My main issue is this article is more about Saudi-bashing than about historical and current Wahhabism. It needs balance.Anjouli 07:29, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A comment on Anjouli's opinion on Wikipedia. Historically the encyclopaedia is a characteristic project of the Enlightenment intellectual (Diderot, Voltaire etc). It rests on the assumption that there is an objective truth about all subjects, which can be known to humans and discerned through scientific inquiry, and written about dispassionately by the enlightened intellectual. WP reflects this ideology as much as any other encyclopaedia, and so it should. This ideology cannot help but be hostile to the absolutist religious view of the world, which holds that knowledge belongs to God and can only be known to humans through revelation or scripture. That absolutist view is today most typically represented by Islam, although it exists also in Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism. The very fact that we are writing about Islam in a rationalist and secularist manner makes us hostile to Islam whatever our subjective intention, so we might as well acknowledge that. We can try as hard as we like to be NPOV about Islam, but we will never succeed in doing so in a manner satisfactory to serious Muslims. So we shouldn't try to defer to them. (I take the same view in relation to Catholics at Mother Teresa, by the way: as an atheist I have no specific hostility to Islam, just to the theocratic worldview in general). Adam 06:13, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Adam, I was with you all the way (although skeptics might disagree with you and with Diderot about objective truth) until you said ""So we shouldn't try to defer to them.". I agree a NPOV is difficult for anyone, but that does not mean we shoudn't even try. And do we "defer" by having a NPOV? Certainly not. I'm also not too happy about your use of the word them. Who does it refer to? Wiki editors who happen to be Muslims? If that's not a POV, what is? Whilst we are declaring our beliefs, I should state that although -- or perhaps because -- I get paid (partly) to studying religions, I am a Brianist by faith, and all Brianists are Atheists by definition, so we have some common ground.
I find Fundamentalist Islam as abhorrent as I find National Socialism. That does not mean I accept a Wiki article that says Hitler banned socks, or killed half the population of India. I would edit such an article because it was factually incorrect. The same here. Saudi Arabia does not ban either minarats or smoking. To say so is nonsense. Does that make me guilty of "intellectual dishonesty"? I hope not. Anjouli 14:21, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Accuracy versus NPOV

Hello Adam. Let's talk NPOV here. Read the article and then ask yourself 'does it have a POV'? If so, does that POV more closely represent the attitude of a a militant Wahhabi, an Ashkenazi Jew, or someone disinterested as both you and Anjouli claim to be. Now look up user RK and see if you guessed right. I'm not expressing an opinion you notice. Just make up your own mind. Abdurahman 10:33, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Please Abdurahman, let's judge editors just by their editing skill and NPOV. I don't think RK is neutral, but I would not say somebody was incapable of neutrality on Wahhabism because he was a Jew. Anjouli 14:29, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Of course it has a POV. Its POV is that absolutist theocratic religions are bad. And it is impossible for an encyclopaedia article not to have that POV. That's the point I was making above. It has nothing to do with RK being Jewish, it has to do with him (and me) being a western intellectual with western intellectual values. Adam 10:44, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I must disagree. An encyclopedia should state fact not opinion. Even if the majority opinion (which I happen to share) is that absolutist theocratic religions are bad, an encyclopedia should not state this as a fact. If an encyclopedia states opinion, it should say whose opinion it is stating and , if there is a major opposing view, state that conflicting opinion also. To be respected Wiki MUST NOT become a soap-box for opinion - otherwise it becomes little better than a chat room.Anjouli 14:34, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I agree with Anjouli on this. When Adam Carr states that any encyclopedic account of Wahhabism will cary a certain POV which may be offensive to some he means an encyclopedic account of Wahhabism in practice involving specific individuals, places and times. To the best of my knowledge Wahhabism nowhere mandates absolutist government or totalitarian tendencies. These are as a result of specific individuals' influence on the application of the philosophy. I don't see how facts about absolutist Wahhabist practices belong in an article about Wahhabism philosophy.
— Elijah Gregory

Any NPOV descriptions of Wahhabism makes it sound bad to most contributors

(1) I think that any acurate description of Wahhabi Islam will make it sound bad, unpleasant, or perhaps even horrible to most Westerners. It even appears this way to many liberal Muslims, many of whom are victims of Wahhabi oppression. But we can still keep NPOV by merely describing such Wabbahi beliefs and practices, and letting the reader draw their own conclusions. RK 20:47, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

(2) Many human rights groups (who have no problem with Islam in general) do take issue with Wahhabi Islam and governments that promote it; it would be fair to note which organizations speak put against it, and we can summarize these views. RK 20:47, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

Adam Carr states that "That absolutist view is today most typically represented by Islam, although it exists also in Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism. The very fact that we are writing about Islam in a rationalist and secularist manner makes us hostile to Islam whatever our subjective intention, so we might as well acknowledge that. We can try as hard as we like to be NPOV about Islam, but we will never succeed in doing so in a manner satisfactory to serious Muslims."

I agree, however, NPOV policy does not mean that an article will be acceptable to all readers. We have alrady established that many of our articles are totally unacceptable to Orthodox Jews, many traditional Chrisitans, many Hindu nationalists, etc. But that has never been our policy or aim. NPOV only means that we try to state facts as impartially as possible, and attribute specific views to specific groups. Forget about Wahbbai Islam...most forms of religious Islam would totally disagree with most of our entries on Islam, Christianity, Judaism and God. They would want to see such articles written from their point of view, and would view our articles as incorrect, heretical, or even as "attacks on Islam". The same attitude unfortunately manifests itself in the views of many fundamentalist religious believers of many religions. But this, so far, has not been too big a problem to handle. We just need to follow the same NPOV policy here for Islam that we already do for our articles on other religions. Thus, I think that the ideas Adam Carr, Anjouli, and myself all want to express can be expressed in these articles, and still maintain NPOV. I don't see any big problem. RK 20:47, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I broadly agree with most of the above points. But it is theoretically possible to make a statement of fact about a group's beliefs that is acceptable to them. If you say that Group A believes this, and Group A says "no we don't", then you are factually incorrect and should remedy the matter. Who better to say what they believe than Group A themselves? Of course it is not that simple. Group A may be divided into sub-sections who have different beliefs, some of whom ignore the more ridiculous 'rules' of their scriptures. The proper answer is to write new articles for the sub-sections, or at least mention their differing beliefs in the article.
My main problem with the original article was that it seemed to be more about Saudi Arabia than it was about historical Wahhabism. That is not to say there is no place for this in Wiki, but I do not think this article is it.
For example it would be quite correct to write a section on Catholicism stating that the Catholic Bible says Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live and that Catholics did in fact execute witches (and Jews) in the past. On the other hand, it would be quite wrong to point the finger at the modern Italians, just because they are a Catholic nation - although you could probably find a few fundamentalist Christians who would like to execute witches. Same with Saudi Arabia. Although theoretically a Wahhabi state, most Saudis (and certainly the government) are NOT raving Wahhabis. Greedy, corrupt, nepotistic, undemocratic, wasteful, oppressive - yes, maybe. But certainly NOT Wahabi fundamentalists. To say so is factually incorrect. Most of the Wahhabi fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia are in jail! The government and people are terified of them.
The title of this article is Wahhabism, and I think it should be a factual account of the history of Wahhabism, carefully documented and supported by references, since it is controversial. The other matters (which I am not trying to suppress) should go in their proper places: Saudi Arabia, Dawa, Saudi Arabian foreign relations, or whatever, with an appropriate link. Anjouli 06:11, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I removed a 'related' link to totalitarian religious groups. The link disambiguates to the cult article which makes the link entirely inappropriate as Wahhabism is not related to activities typically related to cults (small localized movement, mass suicide, etc.). Moreover relating Wahhabism to totalitarian religious groups is inappropriate because any totalitarian aspect of Wahhabism in practice derives solely from human influences. Any reference to totalitarianism in connection with Wahhabism should also reference the specific individuals involved and the times they operated in which brought the alleged totalitarianism into Wahhabism. This is a technique I have noticed often on Wikipedia pages to render controversial subjects NPOV.
— Elijah Gregory
Firstly, I know nothing about Wahhabism, and that's simply the reason to have looked up this article. Much has been said in the year and a half since these comments I'm now commenting upon, but as the article stands now, it does not become very clear whether or not Wahhabism as it is explained in the article is strictly adhered to in Saudi Arabia.

Now, I know that many nations in which, for instance, Catholicism is the major or even national faith, most inhabitants do not adhere to any and all tenements of said faith, so it would be nonsense to assume that all inhabitants of Saudi Arabia are fanatical Wahhabists. Something should be said about this in the article itself, I believe, even it was only in order to assure that less people start wondering how a nation whose national faith disapproves of pictures has television broadcastings. Maybe a subsection should be made in the section on these issues of strict adherence to the faith and the actual number of people who adhere strictly or freely, perhaps, as in the page about Protestantism, categorized as 'Wahhabism today' or something alike? On another note, in a way I agree with Adam Carrs comments, stated above (and below, in a few cases). Modern terminology often seems to be value-inherent, but words, words expressing value excluded, are themselves open to any moral interpretation, meaning that we should not be affraid to use words that are correct, even if they might be explained as not being neutral: interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. Factual accuracy sometimes indeed means to use terminology that might be value-negative to most westerners, but let's leave it to them to interpret as they wish. --Santetjan 20:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Please cite references

References should be provided to back up the claim that minarets are forbidden by Wahhabism, and that ciggerettes are unlawful. During my trips to Saudi Arabia I have seen both minarets and people smoking out on the streets. Also, I think it is questionable to claim that Wahhabism is the predominant form of Islam in America without factual evidence. The testimony of Kabbani alone is not enough to merit the placement of this claim, he is considered in some circles to be a politically motivated character, and being a member of a Sufi order makes his neutrality questionable in this regard. Anjouli's suggestions should be followed and are the best bet for having a neutral article.

ThaGrind 10:19, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

About American mosques

The statement on American mosques should be removed. Using the claims of one man to make such a statement is dangerous, especially in the current environment where Wahhabi and Islamist have essentially become slurs and are synonomous with terrorist. If you ask me, I would give a much lower percentage of Wahhabi dominated mosques, and that would be based off my own experiences, I wonder if my own opinion of such an issue would warrant inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Another problem I see with this article is the labelling of the Muslim Brotherhood as Wahhabi. I find this problematic as Wahhabis seem to be a neo-medieval movement. A more accurate label for the Muslim Brotherhood would be Sulaffiya, which is a movement that is often confused with Wahhabi. They are both similar in their strict interpertation of Islam and desire to stick to the Quran and Sunnah alone, but the Sulafi movement is progressive at some level.

The Wahhabi label also needs to be explored more. It was used by the British during the occupation of India to label what they considered radical Muslim groups, such as those found at Deoband, but these groups would not fit into the Wahhabi mold set by Abd al-Wahhab. As many previous posters have said, this article should be based on factual evidence and stick more to the history, as such, I feel it is justified in deleting the opinions of Kabbani. As for the reference to ciggarettes, it does seem strange to me, but I do know that many scholars of the Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence consider it forbidden to smoke, and I know that Abd al-Wahhab was a proponent of this school, so it may make sense, but the reference to minarets is strange as I have never heard of any Muslim group claiming that they are not allowed. DigiBullet 21:49, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have found a webpage by a Salafi group that aims to discern the differences between the Salafi and Wahhabi movements: http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/ . I think it would be useful to some level, although it obvously has it's own bias. But the view that the Wahhabis or Salafis have of their own movements should be included in any such articles to give it more balance DigiBullet 21:59, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)


I´m simply missing some historical facts (like founders, political impact in differnt countries..such a like). Wiki has done that quite good on other religion/denominations...Why not here? (from Germany)

Write, stop talking

It seems more words are being wasted on political correctness than the length of a useful redraft. Someone, put one in.

Amen! (erm, so to say...) C'mon Anjouli, where's your history and philosophy of Wahhabism? Wetman 01:16, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Need discussion of variety within Wahhabi Islam

I have not looked at this for a while, but it seems to be in fairly good shape now. I think the link to totalitarian religious groups is a bit POV, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to remove it. Tempted to try posting the same link on another religion's article and then listen for the howls of protest :)

Main thing missing now is the concept that there are Wahhabi moderates and Wahhabi fundamentalists (like Osama). Article gives the impression they are all fundamentalists. Some Saudi (Wahhabi) clerics have questioned if Osama Bin Laden is even a Muslim, let alone a Wahhabi. Much of what he has done is clearly forbidden in the Qu'ran. Anjouli 09:58, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Certainly it is a missing concept! Anjouli will please post into the article an External link to a published document expressing the POV of Wahhabi moderates, so that we may see what moderate signifies in this context. Surely there must be something Can the official U.S. State Dept. International Religious Freedom Report be quoted in the article, or are they too biased? Wetman 10:15, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Some factual additions My additions are meant to be very carefully limited to characterizing the actual tenets derived from the basic Wahhabi literature. Please copy here and discuss, rather than merely suppress, any information that seems incorrect. Thank you. Wetman 11:03, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Some Saudi (Wahhabi) clerics have questioned if Osama Bin Laden is even a Muslim, let alone a Wahhabi. Much of what he has done is clearly forbidden in the Qu'ran." By the same token, Osama Bin Laden has questioned the Islam of Saudi clerics such as Bin Baz as Muslim because in the opinion of OBL they have clearly breached quran by issuing fatwas siding with Jews and Christians (American British etc) against Muslims (Iraqies). For this reason the Saudi clerks call him Takfiri (one who declares a Muslim as Kafir). The fact is, the Wahhabies came into power after centuries of bloodshed against Muslims, and both OBL and Saudi Royals are Wahhabies and bloody murderers.

Dissociating from Osama bin Laden

Currently, Wahhabis claim that many Muslim Brotherhood scholars are corrupted by innovations. The Muslim Brothers Sayyed Qutb, and Yusuf al-Qaradawi are all condemned by the Wahhabi movement. Wahhabis claim that Osama bin Laden is not a Wahabi, but a Qutbee (follower of Sayyed Qutb)

Which Wahhabis claim this? What innovations? Where is it claimed? Can we have a quote? What would identify a Qutbi from a Wahhabi? Lots of names are being read out of the Wahhabi movement here by somebody, but absolutely no information is tranmitted in this text. It's a smart maneuver, to dissociate Wahhabism from Osama bin Laden, but a quibbler has to do better than this. I vote we delete this unless it can be improved. Wetman 01:16, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Can this be given some weight, or shall we throw it out? Wetman 01:16, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hey Wetman, ok if you want to know i'll show it to you:

First of all, this really is a huge thing that most people do not understand, Wahhabbis dont like Bin Laden, and hate the Muslim Brotherhood, but most people who read their writings know this.

If you need sources here you go:

First if you goto www.salafipublications.com which is a Wahhabi/Salafi site you see the link "Deviated Groups/Sects" under groups if you goto "Muslim Brotherhood" here is what you see

http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/

Second is a reference by Bin Laden himself:

In an interview which appeared in the takfiri/jihadi magazine Nida'ul Islam, Bin Laden performs unrestricted takfir (declares them to have left the fold of Islam) upon the present day Muslim governments:

"At the same time that some of the leaders are engaging in the major acts of disbelief, which takes them out of the fold of Islam in broad daylight and in front of all the people, you would find a fatwa (verdict) from their religious organisation. In particular, the role of the religious organisation (i.e. the Salafi scholars) in the country of the two sacred mosques (i.e. Saudi Arabia) is of the most ominous of roles, this is overlooking whether it fulfilled this role intentionally or unintentionally, the harm which eventuated from their efforts is no different from the role of the most ardent enemies of the nation."

Continuing in his reference to the presence of the organization of Salafi scholars in Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden terms the Standing Committee for Issuing Religious Verdicts "an idol to be worshipped aside from God."

When considering this, one wonders how it can possibly be understood that Bin Laden and his followers are "Wahhabis" as is being repeatedly mentioned in the media!

- abridged from the book: The 'Wahhabi' Myth

Third of all, http://www.fatwa-online.com/ a Wahhabi Saudi Fatwa sites states that Video Tapes are prohibited, and suicide bombings are prohibited, bin Laden engages in both.

http://muttaqun.com/ another prominent Wahhabi website says video tapes are prohibited, any type of video, any pictures, and bin Laden does these.

You must understand, Islamist Terrorism is not under Wahhabism. Wahhabism wants to ban pictures, music, red clothing (no joke), pants below the ankles, and says you must "vomit" if you eat while standing up. Thats what Wahhabism is, its this extreme movement within Islam. Most Wahhabi scholars, like Sheikh al-Albani, say you must have a CALIPH before you engage in Jihad. Also the Wahhabi head scholar of Saudi Arabia said that suicide bombings were illegal. Wahhabis may cut people's hands off, beat you for not praying, and other things like that, but they aren't the bin Laden Islam. That is the largest myth everywhere.

You may be able to quote thousands of Western sources that back up that "Osama is a Wahhabi" but im quoting you source INSIDE wahhabism itself.

Also... the Taliban used the HANAFI school of law in their country, and Wahhabis use the HANABALI.

Osama bin Laden is not a wahhabi, he's just as bad, and Wahhabism is just as bad, but he's not a wahhabi.

If your so sure bin Laden is a wahhabi, can you give me anything that Osama bin Laden has in common with Wahhabism? Other than basic things (i.e. they are both Muslims, etc.)

thanks

allaahuakbar.net/ another Wahhabi/Salafi Islam website lists "Ikhwan" (brothers) under "Deviated Sects".

This is just another proof that Wahhabis themselves hate Musilm Brotherhood. Under "deivated people" 3 huge Muslim Brothers are listed, Hassan al-Banna, Yusuf Qaradawi, and Sayyed Qutb.

Also under the aalaahuakbar.net site it is stated:

"...Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden have often called for jihad against countries they consider "infidel" such as the United States, urging his followers to target Western interests in Saudi Arabia and abroad.

Other militants have also used Islam as a rallying cry, justifying attacks by saying they are doing God's will.

"Young Muslims must try and better themselves and their country but not through violence, because Islam is not a violent religion, it is a merciful religion,"..."

The main main, main, thing about Wahhabis is that they are opposed to any innovation or "bid'a". Thats the number one feature in a wahhabi, they want to eliminate anything that was created after the time of the first 3 generations after the Prophet Muhammed's death. I dont see Osama bin Laden saying "lets stop the innovations!" so what does Wahhabism and Osama bin Laden have to do with each other?

thanks you

All the websites you mentioned are the ones maintained by Saudi Arabia and its official clerics. Just like the Wahhabies claim that they are the only correct Muslims, the Saudi Government claims they are the only correct Wahhabies. Then they go ahead and say they are not Wahhabies but Salafies.Hassanfarooqi 18:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont think there is any central wahabi registry, but it is a fact that the Wahabi's have triedl to infiltrate the US mosques with their extremist cultist views. Osama and Mullah Omar are clearly part of this sect or cult to disassociate them from this is not right

75.15.204.215 23:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Website references

I found a great site with resources on Wahhabism if anyone wants to Wikify: http://www.islamonline.net/fatwaapplication/english/display.asp?hFatwaID=39389

Thanks

The media and Wahhabism

The current coverage of Western media of Wahhabism in the media is sensationalized and unbalanced to say the least. They seem to tie Wahhabism to Bin Laden and Terrorism as a direct cause and effect 1:1 relationship. It is true that Wahhabism deserves some critique, by Muslims nonetheless (as I will elaborate later, and alluded to in my revision), but that it incites killing of non-Muslims indiscriminately is simply not true.

Note that the article is not making this claim about Wahhabi Islam in general. RK

No religion has as its basic tenets killing, lying, stealing, ...etc. ANY RELIGION! It is true though that certain charismatic leaders within a religion or a sect can usurp the teachings and funnel the faith of the few towards murder or stealing or other crimes. This is then a cult and not a religion or a sect anymore.

That is your opinion, and a valid opinion. But when millions of people follow a religious teaching, such a large group is generally referred to as a religion. RK 14:03, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

As for bid'a, their view is a valid view. bid'a applies only to religious matters, for example a new form of worship (prayers, ...etc.). In this sense, Islam does not allow the introduction of a new type of worship. In worldly matters, this does not apply, and innovation is indeed encouraged.

As for Osama bin Laden, he is a product of politics and social factors more than any religious ones.

As for Wahhabi criticisms, I think they are as follows:

  • They developed within a desert and tribal environment, not in a metropolis. Therefore they were confined to tribal customs and practices in many areas, for example, the minority view of women covering their face became the ONLY valid view.
  • Having not been exposed to non-Muslims, their views are not favorable at all, depending on hearsay (compare with Christians who never saw Muslims, and only read biased books against them, or confine themselves to media reports)
  • They are literalist and legalistic to the extreme
  • They lack flexibility

Catgeory on totalitarian religions

Why is there even a category "totalitarian religions"? Most are totaliarian in the benign sense of being a total view of life and meaning or a comprehensive behavioral code. (I say that from a religion-friendly viewpoint.) It is totalitarian POLITICS/GOVERNMENT that is an issue.

On the postive side, this entry is alot better than an earlier version which seemed like a Daniel Pipes LSD trip. Minarets in Saudi Arabia banned? Comic book stuff.

-- mch

Religious apologetics

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what's with all the "(may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace)". Is there a point in repeating this phrase in an encyclopedia? -- tc 8/12/2004 9:33 PM

I agree, and in much the same line of thinking, I removed the traditional honorific "peace be upon him" following the first reference to the Prophet Mohammed. I did this not out of disrepect, or because I don't wish peace upon him or anyone else, but because this is an encylopedia and not a religious tract. I'm sure this will piss off trillions of people, but that's not my intention. --Brent 09:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Problems with this article

I would like to see evidence given for the following claims:

"However, many other Wahhbai Muslims in Saudi Arabia hold that Osama bin Ladin is a true Wahhabi."
"It is however the fastest growing Islamic movement, gaining more non-Muslims converts in the west than any sect of Islam."

And the absence of any serious history section, or any detailed examination of the sect's development, is a disgrace to the article as it stands, though of course a difficult one to remedy. - Mustafaa 05:25, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've heard Saudi Arabian officials on television interviews stating this directly. Up until last year Saudi public relations people denied that this was true, but since the wave of terrorism within Saudia Arabia itself, the Saudi Arabian government has given up the fiction; they now admit that Bin Ladin has supporters within Saudia Arabia, although they claim it is only a tiny percent. I have seen interviews (on American TV) with a number of Saudi Arabian citizens (not government officials) saying that a large percent of their countrymen have a sense of pride over Al-Qaeda's attacks on the US, and view Bin Ladin as a hero. However, I will try to find some references. RK 14:07, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I don't question that he has support in Saudi Arabia! But there are plenty of non-Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, and claiming that he is seen as Wahhabi would require specific evidence. - Mustafaa 05:44, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In reference to the guy askign about a hsitory of the movement. I have placed an external link to the history of muhammad ibn abdulwhahab and his movement, but it was systematicly deleted by someone, and consided link spam [sence it was only the second link on the page]i am going to add it again, as i see it is fit to be there, unless of course we want to start a history page for the whahabies, i think a history page would be better. - cronodevir

I removed the following from the page as it appears to contradict its reason for placement:
  • They are more open to non-Muslim religions than other branches
This was in the "Criticisms" section which contains material on Wahhabists being intolerant of other religions. So which is it? They are criticized for being too open to non-Muslims or for not being open enough?
— Elijah Gregory
That was just a random anon edit. I was about to delete it myself. - Mustafaa 05:44, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Salafi/Wahhabi

Can we have some sort of consensus on the whole Salafi/Wahhabi question? Should they be considered as identical? I know the Wahhabis would like to think so, but is it really fair to say that they are one and the same? Maybe by now they are... I'm not quite knowledgeable enough to answer this question, but it seems like the fact that Salafi schools have existed well before al-Wahhab came up with his particular insights gives the lie to equating these two. Graft 00:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's the same. You can say that Wahhabi's are Salafis from Saudi-Arabia. Eitherway, it's the same and we should delete (or copy) any article with the title "Wahhbism" and redirect it to Salafi. I'm waiting for your opinions A. 08:45, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

N.B.: There is a difference between Salafists and Wahhabists. Wahhabists follow the Hanbali school while Salafists reject all four schools.

The term Salafi can aslo refer to the Salaf, whos teahcings became extinct 300 years after the Prophet Muhammad [saws], i have always thought it was better to call them whahabies. the aqqedah of the whahabies has been aroudnd for nearly 600 years, way before muhammad ibn abdulwahab, but it was just he [ibn abdulwhahab] who revived ibn tmaiyyahs teachings, thus they are called whahabies, muhammad ibn abdulwhahab is mearly a middle man between ibn tmaiuyyahs teachings and the fact that the whahabies today follow those teachings - cronodevir

Salafi or are the same Wahhabi

What made you think that you are the only right on earth and there is no right on earth but you, While

1. you have never presented any good,help or came with any humanitarian aid or humanitarian thoughts. actually, you have been killing people in the name of Allah

2.Your leader has just born on 1115 and has never lived at the time of (Mohammad peace be upon him and his family) he studied for few years and that does not give him the knowledge to forbid evil which is in your sense killing innocents and demolishing houses and buildings.(at the time of the profit he use to tell his warriors that don't harm the children,woman and old people) if Islam said that human should forbid evil, then that should be done by educating people and help them not by killing them.

3.Nobody of the innocent citizens has harmed you or harmed your believes. and remember the saying

if someone enter the land by sword, someone is going to come and force you(as you forced him,he will force you)to leave by the sword. if you enter a land by words to touch the heart of the human with love,then you will never leave his heart for ever.

thanks

Mohammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab is not the "Leader" of the Salafi Manhaj, or Wahhabi school of thought (which DOES NOT Exist). Salafi means, to follow the Salaf (the righteous predecessors) and the Prophet Muhammad. So the leader of it is the prophet himself. It is not a group, hizb, or anything like that. It is adhereance to the curriculum of the Prophet and his companions. --Abu Mahdhoorah 03:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Just typpical Wahhabi word play. By your definition every Muslim would be a Salafi whether he is a Shia or a Sunni because they all claim with their own proof that they follow the Salaf. Then every Sunni loving the House of Muhammed would be a Shia. Every Shia followiing Sunnah of Prophet would be a Sunni. Both Shias and Sunnies would be Ahl-Hadith as they follow Hadith. Shia, Sunni, and Ahl-Hadith will all be Ahl Quran because they all follow Quran. What an absurd logic. The fact is, Salafi/Wahhabi/Nejdi sect is a sect in Islam which is controlled by House of Saud and his paid clerics with splinter groups like Al-Qaeda.Hassanfarooqi 19:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Salafis and Wahhabis are not Sunnis

Due to their belief that God is LITERALLY above us and exists within space, they have left Sunni Islam.

Do Wahhabis actually believe this? I thought that this was just a slander against ibn Abd al-Wahhab, and he didn't ACTUALLY say that. At any rate, "Salafis" in general cannot possibly be said to believe that, even if in the present they are largely identified with Wahhabism. Graft 21:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Muhammad Ibn Abdulwahab didn't say that Allah is literally above Al-Arsh, it was Ibn Tamiyyah who stated this. Muhammad ibn Abdulwahab followed the aqqedah of Ibn Tamiyyah, Muhammad ibn abdulwahab revied ibn tamiyyahs old teachings, thus many refer to ibn abdulwhahab as 'the reviver of the religioun'.Also, ibn tamiyyah stated the universe was biginingless and that Allah's attributes in the Quran which mention parts are taken litterally, such as when it is stated Allah has 'yadd', this taken literally is incorrect becasue it contradiction other ayyat, i'm not a shcolar or a wali or anyhtign of that nautre, but i do know the basics. So this is not the only beleif that removes whahabies from islam. - cronodevir

Cronodevir, I must say I am impressed with your humbleness in saying that you are not a scholar, etc. Many people here just try to make themselves be like scholars and claim to have knowledge, which they do not. I am also not a scholar etc. In order to display the correct knowledge, I have to say though that if someone says literally that Allah has 'yadd' (hand) this does not take them out of the gold of Islam. On the contrary, this is the correct belief according to the Qur'aan and the Sunnah. However, we do not say, Allah's hand is like mine, or like whatever. There is no comparison of the Creator to the Creation. We cannot deny anything that Allah says about himself or what his messenger says about him in the sunnah... otherwise we would be doing a great crime. There are plenty of verses in the Qur'aan and plenty of ahadeeth that describe Allah. Again I reiterate, that we cannot say Allah's hand is like ours, or anything else. Rather, we believe in it since it is mentioned in the Qur'aan and the sunnah. We do not say Allah's hand is like a human hand. We affirm what Allah affirms for himself and his messenger affirms for him and stop there, knowing that whatever Allah affirms suits his majesty. I will bring some proof for all this insha'allah soon. As for the person who said "Due to their belief that God is LITERALLY above us and exists within space, they have left Sunni Islam" please provide proof for this because this is contrary to the truth and contrary to the teaching of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. I will also provide proof against this accusation. --Abu Mahdhoorah 14:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

1. And here is the evidence for the highness of Allah: 

  a. From the Qur'aan:

"Glorify the Name of your Lord, the Most High" (87:1) The name of the surah is "Al'aa" - The most high, the one above all his creation, mighty and majestic.

"They fear their Lord above them, and they do what they are commanded." (16:50)

". . .and He is the Most High, the Most Great." [al-Baqarah 2:255]

"And He is the Irresistible, above His slaves . . ." [al-An’aam 6:18]

"Verily We: it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e., the Qur’aan). . ." [al-Hijr 15:9] ". . . To Him ascend (all) the goodly words, and the righteous deeds exalt it . . ." [Faatir 35:10] "The angels and the Rooh (Jibreel) ascend to Him . . ." [al-Ma’aarij 70:4] --The following verses describe matters ascending and descending to Allah the most high.

"The Most Beneficent (Allâh) Istawâ (rose over) the (Mighty) Throne (in a manner that suits His Majesty)." (20:5) It is clear in this verse that Allah rose over the throne which is above the seven heavens (we will get to that soon).

"He it is Who created for you all that is on earth. Then He Istawâ (rose over) towards the heaven and made them seven heavens and He is the All-Knower of everything." (2:29) It is clear from thi verse that Allah created everything and that he is the one above his creation.

And the throne is above the heavens like from the hadith: Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “In Paradise there are one hundred levels that Allaah has prepared for the mujaahideen who strive for the sake of Allaah. (The distance) between each two levels is like the distance between the heavens and the earth. When you ask of Allaah, ask Him for al-Firdaws for it is in the middle of Paradise and is the highest part of Paradise. Above it is the Throne of the Most Merciful and from it spring forth the rivers of Paradise. Al-Bukhari 2581

"Do you feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven (Allâh), will not cause the earth to sink with you, then behold it shakes (as in an earthquake)? Or do you feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven (Allâh), will not send against you a violent whirlwind? Then you shall know how (terrible) has been My Warning? " (67: 16-17) The word "fee" in Arabic has the meaning of Above which is derived from the hadith in the Sunnah where the prophet peace be up on him said "Have mercy upon those who are above the ground (fee) and the one who is above the sky (fee) will have mercy upon you" (I will verify this hadith shortly).

"O Haamaan! Build me a tower that I may arrive at the ways, - the ways of the heavens, and I may look upon the god of Moosaa . . ." [Ghaafir 40:36-37] Even the Kafir Pharoah (Pharou'n) tries to build something to reach Allah who is above the sky. Even he admits to the highness of Allah... where would he get such a notion unless Moses told him where his Lord is. Also, Allah never disagreed with this notion which further indicates the truth about Allah being above his creation. 

  b. From the Sunnah:

The hadith (one of many) of Mu'aawiyah Bin al-Hakam As-Sulamee in which during the prayer he responded to a person who sneezed. This is a very long hadith that can be found in Bukhari and Muslim so I will summarize it. After the prayer, the prophet peace be upon him explained to him that he cannot talk during the prayer. After which Mu'aawiyah said that he beat his slave girl, and so the prophet ordered that he bring her to talk to her. So he asked her where is Allah and she replied "He is above the heaven." Then he asked her who am I to which she answered "You are the messenger of Allah." After which he said, free her she is a believer. If she was wrong, and her statement was a statement of disbelief (which addresses the accusation above) then he wouldn't have said SHE IS A BELIEVER.

Also, what do we say in prayer when we go down on the ground and make sujoud? Subhana rabiyal 'ala (Praise be to my Lord the MOST HIGH). Not just the High, but the MOST HIGH. That is otehr clear evidence from the Sunnah. Please also refer to these links for more info, if it is even required. http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=992&dgn=4 http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=47048&dgn=4 http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=9564&dgn=4

2. Here is the evidence that is linked to the attributes of Allah: First let me refute any claims that Allah is like any of his creation or that we can draw or imagine him. “There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearer, All-Seer.” [al-Shoora 42:11]. “No vision can grasp Him” [al-An’aam 6:103] Insha'allah if we go to paradise, we will see him, I ask Allah to make us from the people of paradise, ameen. Here is proof that we will see Allah in paradise, so there are no attempts to refute this: "This is indicated by the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “The first group to be admitted to Paradise will be in the image of the moon on the night when it is full.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3327; Muslim, 2834. "

Now, we will describe Allah by that which he and his messenger described him, without removing any attributes and without comparing Allah to any of his creation.

a. From the qur'aan:

" And the Face of your Lord full of Majesty and Honour will abide forever." 55:27

"Floating under Our Eyes, a reward for him who had been rejected!" 54:14

"(Allâh) said: "O Iblîs (Satan)! What prevents you from prostrating yourself to one whom I have created with Both My Hands[]. Are you too proud (to fall prostrate to Adam) or are you one of the high exalted?" 38:75 - Are these not the literal hands of Allah? What other meaning can this verse have?

"They made not a just estimate of Allâh such as is due to Him. And on the Day of Resurrection the whole of the earth will be grasped by His Hand[] and the heavens will be rolled up in His Right Hand. Glorified is He, and High is He above all that they associate as partners with Him!" 39:67

" (Remember) the Day when the Shin[] shall be laid bare (i.e. the Day of Resurrection) and they shall be called to prostrate (to Allâh), but they (hypocrites) shall not be able to do so, Their eyes will be cast down, ignominy will cover them; they used to be called to prostrate (offer prayers), while they were healthy and good (in the life of the world, but they did not). " 68:42-43


b. From the Sunnah:

First let me get the hadith related to the last verse I mentioned. Narrated by Abu Sa'eed AlKhudree that the prophet peave be upon him said "Our Lord will show his leg (on judgment day). So, every believing man and woman will make sujood to him. But not so for those who preteneded to make sujood in the first life for showoff and hear-off - They will try to make sujood, but their backs will turn into one block" Recorded by Al-Bukhari, Muslim, and others.

Narrated by Abdullah ibn 'Amr ibn Al-'Aas reported that the messenger of Allah said, peace be upon him: "Indeed, all of the hearts of human beings are between two of the fingers of Ar-Rahmaan. (To him), they are all like one heart - he turns it about as he wants." Recorded by Muslim

On the authority of Anas, Allah's messenger said: "(In the hereafter) more and more (disbelievers) will be thrown into Hell, and Hell will say, "May I have more?" Finally, the Lord of dignity will place his foot over it. It will then shrink down and say "(I have) enough, (I have) enough - by your honor."" This hadeeth was recorded by Al-Bukharee, Muslim, and others.

Finally, I will reiterate... THESE ATTRIBUTES are nothing like that of the creation. “There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearer, All-Seer.” Allah sees and hears everything, even our thoughts. Allah has these attributes (described) above as well as others. We cannot say that Allah has ears since he and his messenger did not say this, but he hears everything. Allah sees everything with his eyes (which was proved in the verse above) which is not like our eyes, or any of his creation. Hopefully this is clear. I ask Allah to purify our eeman and to give us clear understanding in the religion. Wal Hamdulillahi rab al alameen. Hopefully with this, I have cleared the two great Imams from the false accusations, and at the same time displayed that it is NOT them that described Allah by these attributes, rather it is Allah and his messenger. --Abu Mahdhoorah 02:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Uthaymeen clearly stated in his book, "The Muslim's Belief, page 11) "'His (Allah's) settling on the Throne' means that He is sitting in person on His Throne in a way that is becoming His majesty and greatness. Nobody except He knows exactly how He is sitting." However, this is not in Qur'an or Hadith. Most scholars consider that to say that Allah (swt) is sitting is kufr, regardless of whether you say "it is not like we can imagine". It is known that Allah (swt) is established above al-Arsh as it says in Qur'an, but to explain the HOW of it is bid'a and the Wahhabis have tried to explain the HOW of it by saying Allah (swt) SITS! Astaghfirullah hal adzim

Disputed

Is the content of this article still factually disputed? If so, what are the specific disputes, and what can be done to fix them. Otherwise, the disputed tag should be removed --jacobolus (t) 02:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wahabi-School of thought or 'movement'

In the related links section for Islam on Wikipedia, it states Wahabisim as a movement and not a school of thought, it states Hanbali as one of the main Schools of Thought, but Wahabism is more common than Hanbali, I was always under the impression that the four were: Hanafi, Wahabi, Shafi and Maliki, anyone agree? Or is Wahabisim not considered a school of thought because it came along a lot later than the rest?

If I am not mistaken, the "Schools of Thought" are actually theological schools that were historically followed. They were Hanafi, Shafa'i, Maliki and Hanbali. Wahhabism came much later.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 23:59, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Wahhabism is the fifth school and is "Ghair Muqallad" (non followers) and advocates against following any of the four Sunni shools. They are more influenced by the Hanbali school but claim they refer to Hadith directly bypassing the Fiqah, hence the term Ahl HadithHassanfarooqi 19:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Still disputed?

I only have a vague knowledge of Wahhabiism, but this article in it's current checks out with what I know. Is there still a dispute?

Yes definitely still disputed

Yes my friend, from my personal knowledge some of the information presented should be categorized as MIS-information.

I recommend that you explore the external links. Especially "The Wahhabi Myth" for a balanced argument on the subject and judge for yourself.

At the risk of being redundant, I must warn the Wahhabist killers that they are counting heavily on the fact that the United States, and Pres. Bush (peace be with him), are going to sit by and watch great numbers of innocent Americans perish in a large scale attack. Throughout history the Americans have always been victorious over nations much stronger and militarily prepared as we. The English, French, German, and Japanese empires (all were brought to their knees begging mercy!). As in 1945 we proved in both Hiroshima & Nagasaki that we are not above resorting to the most extreme of measures to be victorious. That was our way of saying: "Enough is enough!" If a Jihaddist tries a foolish attack of mass destruction, thinking it will guarantee Martyrdom I have but one thing to say. On your way up to meet Allah, take a look back over your shoulder, as you will see your parents, grand-parents, brothers, sisters, uncles aunts, nephews, neices, and hundreds of thousnads of innocents following you closely - - their flesh burning and falling from their skeletons.

I see you take a certain pleasure in contemplating the slaughter of innocents. In what way then are you (fearful anonymous editor) any different from the Islamist terrorists? Zora 05:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Dear Zora, I am amazed you even took time to reply to this idiot.

Recent changes

An anonymous user has recently revamped the whole article. Here is a before and after comparison. The new version is quite POV, but it also contains good, new information that should be included in the article in a NPOV way. Someone ought to merge the old version with the newer, POV version. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:22, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Extraordinarily POV, frankly. I'm strongly inclined to revert to your version, and add any salavageable info in from there, rather than continue with the current version. Alai 01:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Obviously, the use of the term 'wahhabi' is considered derogatory by many of the people it intended to describe. This needs to be noted and an explanation as to why it is derogatory (as opposed to just inaccurate). On the other hand, the article now just repeats the point over and over.
The fact is that wahhabism is an English term to describe a subset of Islam and we need to explain what the term means (assuming there is a consistent defintion). If Wahhabism = Salafism, then I think we should note that it is considered derogatory and offer a link to Salafism, if there is a difference it needs to be noted.
So basically, I'm of the opinion that we should revert but lengthen the section on the derogatory nature of the term. Ashmoo 01:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Officially Wahhabi

If Saudi Arabia is officially Wahhabi, then there should be some official statement documenting that. Can anybody find a citation? --Yodakii 08:36:04, 2005-09-05 (UTC)


take a look at the title of this book [1]--Striver 00:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

That book is evidence that the term was used in the past -- and I've run across it repeatedly in old Arabian travel books -- but I do not think that the term is favored in the present. The Saudi past as Wahhabis is associated with episodes like the raid on Najaf, where the shrines were looted and many Shi'a killed (on the grounds that they were kufr). Now that the Saudis are the Guardians of the Two Holy Places, and have to let Shi'a come on the Hajj, they probably don't want anyone to be reminded of this past. I believe that the catchwords are now Salafiyya, following the pious Salaf, and Qur'an and Sunnah.

However, since there are no hard and fast denominational boundaries within Sunni Islam, you have to pay a lot of attention to the language someone uses, or a book uses, and the attitudes expressed, before you can categorize someone as Wahhabi, Salafi, whatever. Often people will refuse to accept any categorizations, on the grounds they believe in the true, pure, original Islam and therefore everyone else is a sectarian and deviant. <g> Zora 00:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Word Use

As it's been noted several times throughout this talk page that "Wahhabi" is an essentially English term and does have a derogatory connotation, I'm curious as to why the main article makes no mention of the way the word itself has two different primary modern usages in English: one that is essentially benignly descriptive, and one that is considerably more general and emotionally loaded. (In some ways similar to the old use of the same term "Mohammedan" to mean either simply "Muslims" or something specifically emotional and negative tied to the idea of Muslims, depending on the speaker's knowledge and intentions.) Does that even make any sense? What I'm trying to get at is just a brief section dealing with the useages of the word itself in addition to what is already there regarding the origins of the term and the associated movement. --72.25.8.86 22:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's just an English term. Persons's name + i seems to mean "follower of" in Arabic. Hanbalis follow Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Malikis follow Malik ibn Anas, etc. Usually people don't mind being tagged as a follower of someone they respect, but the Wahhabis felt that they followed the Qur'an and Sunnah, not Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab. I believe that the term they liked was Ikhwan, the Brethren. But that's "band of warriors", really, and it doesn't seem to fit an entire society. Plus, "Wahhabi" had acquired some ominious connotations of conquest, plunder, and massacre. I believe the term now favored is Salafi, which muddies the waters nicely, as there were a number of Muslim revivalist movements that claimed to return to the ways of the Salaf, the pious ancestors.
I haven't looked at the article in a while and I dunno if this is explained there. I'm just now exploring the controversy about Natana Delong-Bas, who recently published a book about al-Wahhab, and want to put that material in here too. Zora 02:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ijtihad, mujtahids

I'm not quite sure how long that section on Traditional Sunni Views was there, or how it morphed, but it had turned into an incredibly convoluted treatment of madhabs, ijtihad, and mujtahids. I tried to straighten it out and then realized that whoever had written it had turned it into a treatise on what Salafis believe. Moreover, this editor was strongly of the opinion that ALL Salafis of course deferred to the Salafi mujtahids. I'm not at all sure that this is true. There are any number of Salafists (primarily jihadis) who seem quite comfortable following their own judgments and rejecting any outside legal opinions. I imagine that if the writer of that section had gotten down to brass tacks -- listing the authorities whom Salafists recognize as mujtahids -- that the article would have devolved into extended wrangling as to which scholar was to be followed and which rejected.

Any editors who profess to speak for all Salafis should be distrusted. There are just too many versions of Salafism out there. I'm not sure how I would categorize them myself, as I'm still reading and researching. But I know enough now to be wary of people who claim to be THE authority on TRUE Salafism. Zora 07:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Ijtihad clarification... (and I was not speaking for all salafis... I was stating a default ruling in the religion)

I was not in the edit speaking for all salafis. The default in Sunni Islam (Salafi or not) is that only a mujtahid can practice ijtihad. To simply state the default ruling is NOT speaking for all salafis. In fact, what was there previously said that salafis allow the non-mujtahid to make ijtihad. This erroneous statement is far from the default... so to make THAT statement requires proof. Perhaps there are a few misguided individuals (they exist both within and outside of the Salafi methodology) who will try to employ ijtihad themselves, but this has no bearing on the beliefs of the group. To be more exact... no Salafi scholar has ever allowed the non-mujtahid to make ijtihad. Not one. Not even the "jihadi" scholars. Even "jihadi" scholars make it obligatory upon their followers to follow the ijtihad of a mujtahid (however, they may disagree with who are the scholars... but that is a totally separate issue). I think it is fair game to say that the scholars of a group are in the right to define its practices, and not each and every individual (since you will find variant beliefs and practices on the individual levels in almost all sects and religions).

The main difference lies in that non-Salafi Sunnis claim that ijtihad can no longer be practiced today (to quote Imam al-Ghazzali, "the doors to ijtihad are closed"). Their mujtahids only make ijtihad on issues of technology or other new things that did not exist at the time of the 4 imams and their students. They (non-Salafis) claim that on issues which are not new, such as prayer, certain transactions, etc, everything that was to be found out, has been found out, therefore, they do not allow even their own mujtahids to make ijtihad again, since they deem that the scholarship has already reached a level of "perfection" so to speak.

Salafis on the other hand, while holding great reverence for all Islamic scholarship, do not take anything to be perfect except for the Qur'an and Sunnah. Therefore, they hold that the mujtahids should review previous scholarship, and those who have the ability to, should exercise their own ijtihad to arrive at what they deem to be the most correct opinion. In fact, Salafis forbid the greatest mujtahids (who have the ability to make the highest level of ijtihad) from making taqleed of any person, unless for some reason, he is not able to research a certain issue.

However, suffice it to say, you cannot find a salafi scholar who will permit ijtihad for the non-mujtahid. All Sunni (and even Shia) scholars (Salafi and non-Salafi), say that for the non-mujtahid to make ijtihad is to lead himself astray... this is the default in Islam. The fact that it was mentioned in the edit is because it previous mentioned that Salafis ask the individual to make ijtihad for himself, which is just not true...


Also, just to clarify a final point. There is a level in between ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) and taqleed ("blind" following), which is called ittibaa' (following the most correct opinion based on evidences). However, even ittibaa' is not allowed for the 'aammee (common person). Ittibaa' may be practiced by a person at a very high level of knowledge, such as an Imam of a mosque (not to say all Imams are knowledgable), or one who has graduated with an ijaaza (degree) in shariah. This is just for further clarification.

Anon, you really need to take a username and sign your contributions, with four tildes, like this ~~~~.
Your viewpoint is that of the ulema. You divide Muslims into classes based on scholarship, and say that, OF COURSE, the scholars get to tell others what is OK and what isn't. This seems perfectly natural to you. In fact, your language suggests that you believe that this holds true for all religions. But it doesn't. For example, in my religion, Zen Buddhism, I follow my teachers because of their spiritual attainments, not because of their scholarship. Nor do I necessarily accept their rulings as to what is right or wrong. I'll do what I think is right if I think they've made a mistake (though usually I'll agree with them). There are Muslims who claim this same freedom of conscience! Liberals and Salafis! You can't just say that your viewpoint is of course the default, the Islamic viewpoint, and that those who don't accept it are just heretics and rebels, not really significant. I'm not a Muslim, but I read, widely, and I see a great many Muslims who think the ulema have nothing to say to them. It's like Reform Jews just rejecting the whole vast edifice of Talmudic law erected over the centuries.
You clearly have had much more Islamic training than I have, and I will of course respect your input when it comes to details of Islamic law. But I can't accept that the ulema speaks for all Muslims, when clearly it doesn't. Zora 14:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say the ulamaa speak for all Muslims. Clearly there are Muslims at variance with the Ulamaa. Whether every single person's own personal definition of Islam should be put into an encyclopedia, however, is another issue.

Regarding Salafis, however, in general, they do not make ijtihad on an individual level and save it for their mujtahids. There is not a "group" of Salafis out there who claim that ijtihad is to be made by the individual. No teachings of any salafi group (from the 100% Saudi supporters to the "jihadis") claim this. Nor is there anything written by Salafis saying this. In fact the only "group" of Muslims that claim the right of ijtihad for the individual are what are called "modernists" or "progressive Muslims" or "liberals." Yes, these groups claim this, but no Salafi group does or has.

The most a person could say is that he has met a non-scholar "Salafi" who thinks that he needs to make ijtihad himself. However, this kind of a "Salafi" does not belong to any group, rather, if he were sat down with the Salafi teachers, he would be corrected by them, and most likely change his views. It just so happens that you find these individuals a bit more frequently within the Salafi groups. However, this is again not the official teachings of any Salafi group (or Sunni group for that matter)... only modernist groups feel this way. And again, when the teachings of the Salafi scholars are made clear to these individuals, they either follow that... or they stop calling themselves Salafi.

In conclusion, no Sunni Muslim (Salafi or not) claims that the non-mujtahid can make ijtihad; only modernist/progressive groups claim this. Thus, this claim should not be attributed to Salafis. Mujaahid 23:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You are assuming that modernist/progressives are NOT Sunni Muslims, which I think they would deny. You are also saying that Salafis deny ijtihad to non-scholars because anyone who claims the right to ijtihad without being a scholar is by definition not a Salafi. Don't you see? You're doing what is called "begging the question" -- you are assuming what you want to prove about Salafis in your definition of Salafi.
Faisal Devji's book Landscapes of Jihad, while wordy and sometimes just plain wrong, gets it right, IMHO, when it says that most of the jihadis don't care at all about the ulema, and that the most influential writers didn't have ulema training: Qutb was a journalist, Maududi was a journalist, Zawahiri is a doctor.
I do think that the article is confused and needs to be rewritten. Western commentators often assume that Salafi = Wahhabi, and I think there's a bit of that in the article. The more I look at the subject, the more it seems to me that claiming to be a Salafi is, for many people, claiming to be a TRUE Muslim, following the Salaf, as opposed to all those fake Muslims out there. There seems to be a long history of the use of the word Salafi in Islamic controversies, often by people with very different ideas. Each side claims that they are the true Salafis and their opponents are something else. You're doing that too! The article needs to be a scorecard of all the different teachers and groups claiming to be Salafi, with summaries of their positions. The article must be NPOV. We can't say that one group are the TRUE Salafis and the others are fake. Zora 23:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)



OK... well...

1. Whether or not Modernists are Sunnis or not is besides the point here... that is another debate altogether.

2. Yes, every Sunni Muslim claims to be a Salafi in the sense that he claims to be upon what the early generations followed as a whole (even though Shia Muslims differ with this). However, there are also groups of Muslims who specifically refer to their methodology as the methodology of the Salaf (the early Muslims). Clearly, an article on Salafis is going to be about these Muslims. However, it is probably appropriate to mention as a comment that every Sunni Muslim considers himself a Salafi in the broader sense of the word (while not necessarily calling that their methodology).

3. What I am trying to say about the ijtihad thing is: Of those groups that call themselves Salafi in methodology, they only allow ijtihad for their mujtahid scholars. I care not about one group being "true" salafis or another being "fake"... that is not my point at all. This article is referring to those groups who specifically refer to their methodology as being the methodolgy of the salaf (whether or not that is a true claim is another question, which I am not trying to answer). No follower of these groups claims ijtihad for himself. The only followers of a group who do that are the modernist groups.

I am not saying some people are not "true Salafis"... I am simply saying that those specific individuals who claim independent ijtihad and claim to follow the GROUP that refers to itself as Salafis, are not actually following that GROUP. They simply are uninformed in the teachings of that GROUP... that is what I am trying to say. When they become informed, they either change their group, or stick to the group and change their views.

4. Wahhabi specifically refers to followers of Muhammad ibn AbdilWahhab and his movement. Salafi means those following the pious predecessors (salaf ussalih). The groups who refer to themselves as Salafi in methodology also happen to follow Muhammad ibn AbdilWahhab. So one must understand that the term "salafi" carries 2 connotations with it... a general one, referring to those following the pious predecessors, and a specific one, referring to the group which claims to follow the methodology of the salaf.

Hmmm, I don't think all Salafis are Wahhabis. I've been tracking down references to Salafiyyah and the first ones to use the term as the name of a movement seem to have been Muhammad Abduh and Jamal al-din al-Afghani. They are generally considered modernists and reformers, I believe. They influenced a number of people in Egypt and North Africa -- al-Tha'alibi, Ben Badis, al-Sanusi, al-Alawi, Rashid Rita, and Hasan al-Banna. It seems, so far as I can tell from secondary sources in English, that Hasan al-Banna was the one who combined this modernizing influence with the imitation of some Wahhabi practices -- specifically the idea of a "brotherhood", Ikhwan. Sayyid Qutb, Zawahiri, and Osama bin Laden come out of that strand of thought, I think. There is a very interesting article from the New Yorker, now online, that describes Osama's formative years, and says that he was deeply influenced by a Syrian Salafi who had fled persecution in Syria and found a teaching job in Saudi Arabia. Now as far as I know, Hasan al-Banna and his followers haven't had ulema training, but they are willing to take issue with the ulema. Zora 08:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


5. As to following the methodology of the Salaf... this isn't something that hard to understand.... I can break it down.

a. fact: the salaf (early Muslims) consist of the companions of the Prophet (PBUH), the students of the companions, and the students of the students (the 1st three generations).

b. fact: the companions of the Prophet (SAWS) deferred their understanding of Islam to the understanding of the Prophet (SAWS).

c. fact: after the death of the Prophet (SAWS), the less knowledgable of the companions deferred their understanding to the ones who were more knowledgable of the Prophet's (SAWS) teachings.

d. fact: the 2nd generation would understand each matter as i. explained in the Qur'an, ii. explained by the Prophet SAWS in his sayings and actions, and iii. they understood the Prophet's SAWS sayings and actions as his companions understood them. They used recorded sayings of his (SAWS) companions in order to know what their understanding was.

e. fact: the 3rd generation did likewise, extending this principle to understaning the companions opinions as the 2nd generation understood them.

f. fact: The common madhhabs in Islam were forumlated around the time of the 2nd-4th generations. They were forumalated by the 4 Imams keeping these above principles in mind. However, the Imams always called to the above principles, and actually specifically instructed their own students not to blindly follow them.

g. fact: in all cases of these early generations, the one without knowledge would defer to those with knowledge. But the mujtahids (the highest scholars) of this era never blindly followed their teachers.

h. fact: in all cases above, the science of hadith was used to understand the sayings of the Propeht SAWS, his companions, their companions, and so forth.


So the methodology of the Salaf is not some abstract idea that everyone can say he does. It is specifically defined by the above actions. While everyone would like to follow the early Muslims, it is actually pretty simple to see whether someone is employing this methodology in his understanding of the religion or not. This above methodology is generally that employed by those who call themselves "salafi"... but it is also employed by many other Sunni Muslims. My goal is not to say who does and does not follow this methodology, but simply to define it.

I hope this is clear. Mujaahid 00:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)



To add one more point about "jihadis."

Mawdudi and Qutb did have much Islamic training actually. Furthermore they have much respect for the ulamaa. As does the third you mentioned. None of these three would tell people to make their own ijtihad on matters of religion. They may have their own views on politics, (how to revive the ummah), but that is a different ballpark altogether. Mujaahid 00:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Heavily copyediting anon's comments

Anon, I can't say that I'm all that sympathetic to the Wahhabis either. However, we have to try to keep the article neutral in tone. Let readers draw their own conclusions. Zora 03:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This article defames Islam

This sacreligious article defames all Muslims and the Prophet PBUH and should be expunged ASAP, as per the recent fatwa by Imam Sharibbii, Inshallah.

This movement called Wahhabism defames all Muslims and the Prophet PBUH and should be removed ASAP, as per the opinion of all Muslims still using the brains Allah has bestowed them, Inshallah.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a religious tract (as noted above), and it is certainly not subject to the religious-legal opinions of any religion or sect. If you have specific pieces of information that you believe to be factually incorrect then please try to fix them. If you simply object to the facts as they are then I'm afraid you're out of luck.

Rewrite of last para

Since the Salafi article was recently rewritten, the last para of this article no longer linked to anything in the Salafi article. I therefore rewrote it. It desperately needs references and is probably NOT the best treatment of religious trends in Saudi Arabia. It's just a rough start. I hope other editors can expand, clarify, and add cites. Zora 17:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Seizure of Grand Mosque

If we're going to talk about contemporary Wahhabism, we need to mention the seizure of the Grand Mosque. I'm sure I've read in numerous sources that this was a turning point in Saudi -- the state, which had been loosening up a bit, immediately clamped down on all sorts of behavior to prove its Wahhabi bona fides. Do we even have an article on that event?

Someone mentioned, a while ago, a contemporary academic who is controversial, funded by some Saudis, trying to show the "real" Abd al-Wahhab taught something different from the state Wahhabism of today. I think that has political dimensions too. Subtle rift within the ruling family, between moderates and hardliners? Need to look up, mention. Zora 04:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The two holy mosques and the entire Hejaz fell twice in the hands of the Wahhabies. First time the Ottomons kicked them out and restored the authority of Hejaz. Second time, the Wahhabies revolted against the Ottomon empire in alliance with the British and the Hejazies which was a very stupid act of the Hejazies. Soon after the Ottomon empire ended, the Wahhabies were free to attack and capture Hejaz again. Hejazies found to the end but the surprize factor got them. They were not expecting Wahhabies to backstab them so early. After capturing Hejaz and with the new found wealth, there was no stopping to Wahhabi reinterpretation of Islam in line with Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab. This suited the West because it supplied free volunteer to fight against communism. With cold war over, Wahhabi violence is projected as Islam by the Western Media for their own agenda.

Latest edits

Guys, it is not right to add PBUHs and the like to Islam-related articles. This is a secular dictionary. Nor is it right to erase language that says that there is a difference between Wahhabism per se and Salafism in general. Contemporary Saudis have done much to try to erase or confuse the difference, but much that is characteristic of modern Salafism was not a feature of early Wahhabism. Now if you can quote a scholar of the history of Wahhabism, or of Salafism, who says differently, we can say that there's a controversy and give both views. What is in the article now is based on contemporary writings in English. It should be better cited. The article as it stands is just a sketch and could use a lot more work. Zora 19:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of User:Sayfullah edits

I just reverted a large number of edits to this page by User:Sayfullah. They were POV essays from a Sunni perspective deriding Wahabbism. While they did contain some interesting points their was no mention of how they could be incorporated in the article. I hope what I've done isn't seen as censorship of the talk page. I ask User:Sayfullah to please comment here, in his/her own words, on how the information they have could be used to improve the article. This talk page is only for discussions about improving the Wahhabism article, religious debates should go elsewhere. Ashmoo 22:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Saints

I added Sufi in front of the saints. We use the word several times and we can't use ungainly circumlocutions each time. Perhaps we should have an article on Sufi saint? That might give a better picture of exactly what it is the Wahhabis don't like.

I should add that while I would agree that negotiating with the divine (I do this, I get that) is contrary to what I understand of the "submission" taught by Muhammad, I don't see any reason to keep other people from doing that if they so please. Using the power of the state, as Abd al-Wahhab did, to destroy shrines and physically prevent people from worshipping as they please, is ugly. Just my opinion. I'm trying to stay neutral in the article, however. Zora 22:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There are already articles "Pir", "Murshid" and "Shaykh" - these ought to be expanded, but I'm not as industrious as you... Tanzeel 18:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that although the word saints now has a clarifying adjective, it still comes with some presumption of status. It might be more appropriate to perhaps to the words saints in quotation marks to show it is still a very relative term. For example Sufi "Saints" or something of the like. I know the use of quotation marks may be seen by some negatively but I think it is more clear than the current version.ZaydHammoudeh 05:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a Muslim, not a Sufi, and I wouldn't follow any of these saints, but the term "saint" is used even in academic writings. How about we always use the term Sufi saint, and the first time link it to Pir, so that it's clear that WP is not canonizing these folks.

We had exactly the same argument about using the term "the prophet Muhammad". Many non-Muslims felt that this was WP recognizing Muhammad as a prophet, which they refused to accept. After a great deal of argument, it was agreed that WP would use the term "prophet" sparingly, we would use the term "Islamic prophet", we would not cap the word "prophet," and that everyone agreed that this meant only that Muslims regarded him as a prophet. The same sort of compromise is possible with Sufi saints. The Sufis regard them as saints, other people don't. Zora 05:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora, i think your hot

Various edits by anons

Anons revised the article to claim that Salafism was the only true Islam. Someone also added a claim that Wahabism was a pejorative term invented by the British, against whom the Salafis were rebelling. That latter bit is completely wrong. The House of Saud came to power with British support. The British were supporting local independence movements in order to undermine the Ottomans. Zora 03:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Completely uninformative

Being someone who knows very little about Islam, I came to this Wiki page in order to gain a better understanding of the sect and why it is such a common discussion in American media. Unfortunately, the article is so bland it is essentially useless. My suggestion is to be less concerned about offending anyone and more concerned with presenting a pertinent, real-world description of Wahhabism in the current global environment. Lux 21:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I DONT LIKE HOW THIS PAGE IS SET UP

This page is so gay. I know yall can add more and make it better. And Wahhabiyya and Salafiyya are the same thing. Its just that the lable Wahhabi is offensive and i dont want to hert anyones feelings.

Please God pray the above editor does not enter anything into the main pages!212.11.191.18 12:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hempher theory is crackpottery

I completely revamped the para that someone added on the Hempher conspiracy theory. Anyone who looks at that text can see that it is a forgery; Englishmen simply do not express themselves that way. It reads like a translation from Arabic. However, there is something to the claim that the British supported the Saudis, and I added an academically respectable reference to make that point. Zora 05:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The book was translated and retranslated many time. In some translations, people added words. This can make it look like forgery as the English is not that of an Englishman. The Wahhabi-English connection carried even after the first world war. David Holden and Johns explain this in their biography "The House of Saud".Hassanfarooqi 18:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wahhabis are Sunnis, like it or not

Someone added a lot of parenthetical comments to the section on Wahhabi beliefs, basically accusing them of hypocrisy. Someone else removed the word Sunni -- perhaps out of a feeling that they aren't REAL Sunnis. I reverted to a version that is more neutral. No, I'm not particularly sympathetic to the Wahabis (as an American, a woman, a Buddhist) but WP is founded on NPOV, which means being fair even to people with whom you disagree. Zora 02:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

why was my section on takfiris removed?

I made two changes. Firstly, I mentioned that Al-Qaeda were Wahabbi, which is factually ture. Secondly, I mentioned that Wahabbis are closely related to takfiris and they readily excommunicate muslim members of other Sunni sects and especially of the Shia sect. I have added both things and would be happy for anyone to prove any of them wrong if they can. 24 September 2006

The fundamental differences between Sunnies and Wahhabies

Wahhabies know that they are not an acceptable form of Islam. So they penetrate among the sunnies by declaring themselves as sunnies and then corrupt their faith to hire them as terrorist. Here are the fundamental differences.

  1. Wahhabies believe that God physicall exists on the seventh heaven i.e. he is bound by time-space. Sunnies believe time-space is a creation of God and God is free from its creation. 7th heaven does not have any creation and therefore it has God's pure view. Ref. They quote Ibn Taymiyyah who walked up the stairs to show how God ascended to his throne.
  1. Wahhabies believe God is a superior being. The book "Aqaid Ahlas Sunna Wal Jamat" printed by Saudi official clerics describe God having two eyes, hands etc. Sunnies being God is the real being his creatures the virtual beings. Therefore Quranic reference to his hands refer to his authroity, his eyes to his knowledge etc.
  1. Wahhabies believes in spreading their version thru sword killing anyone who does not confirm to the doctorine of Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab. The victims have always been Sunnies. Abdul-Aziz bin Saud killed the entire family of Governor of Najd including women and children, when he raided and conquered Riyadh (ref: The House of Saud by David Holden Y Richard Johns). When they raided Hejaz, they killed 70,000 that were children of Holy prophet and his holy companions. All Sunnies!!! Sunnies do not believe in killing non-combatants.
  1. Wahhabies do not follow any of the recognized sunni Imams i.e Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafai, Imam Malik, or Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal. They consider Taqleed against Islam but follow Ibn Abdulwahhab and his children, known as Aal-Sheikh. By Ibn Saud-Ibn Abdulwahhab pact, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia is always from the House of Ibn Abdulwahhab and the King from the house of Saud. That is why they initially called themselves "Ahl-Hadith" or "Ghair Muqallad". Only when they are among Sunnies, they call themselves Sunnies.Hassanfarooqi 16:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey do you understand what is sunni anyway? Sunni are derived by words Sunnah thats mean people who follow the Sunna. and Salafy follow Sunna (they follow Bukhari, Muslim and others hadith book). Sunni are simply means people that are not shia in Imam Hanbali periods. What kind of Sunnies who doesnt follows Hadith, and taqlid to the four Imams. Do you know that the four Imams are also human and they are not perfect, and sometimes they made a mistake. And the true sunnies are only follow Hadith. Iqbal

British conspiracy

I chopped this whole section. Because the weasel tag was added a while ago and no action has been taken to fix it. Additionally, the whole thing seems like OR, mixing the British Wahhabi 'conspiracy' with general British sponsorship of the Saudi regime. None of the quotes refer specifically to the 'conspiracy', but seem like 'proof' one way or the other, making it seem even more like OR.

{{weasel}} Some Muslim opponents of Wahhabism have claimed it is actually a British imperialist conspiracy. They claim that a British spy named Mr. Hempher enlisted the founder of Wahhabism, Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, in a plot to bring down the Ottoman empire. As proof, they present a text purporting to be the memoirs of Mr. Hempher. [2]

Pro Saudi historians do not accept this conspiracy theory. Saudi-born historian Madawi Al-Rasheed's authoritative A History of Saudi Arabia does not mention the supposed Mr. Hempher at all. However, al-Rasheed does say:

"Throughout the 1920s and the 1930s, Britain remained the main external player behind the formation of the Saudi state ... To argue, however, that the Saudi state of 1932 was a British 'invention' misses an important aspect of the internal dynamics that shaped the state and led to its consolidation. While Britain may have been a key force behind state formation, the rise and consolidation of the Sa'udi state resulted from a complex process that cannot be traced to any single external factor." (al-Rasheed 2002, p. 3).

Independant historians like David Holden (who was dubbed pro-Arab and assasinated mysteriously) clearly describes in his book "House of Saud" how the Wahhabies came into power with the help of British army officers like Captain Shakespear, Colonel Philby and Lawrence of Arabia. Some Western media organisations such as the American PBS network also mention the alleged "Oil for Security" deal per which the the United States is to help protect Saudi rule in exchange for continous Saudi oil supply to the USA. [3]

Ashmoo 02:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

I chopped this section for exactly the same reasons. Criticism are needed, but they must conform to WP rules & standards.

{{Original research|date=October 2007}}

Many of today's Islamic scholars have criticised the Wahhabi doctrine for its literal interpretation and description of the attributes of Allah, which consists of anthropomorphism, that is, likening Allah's attributes to his creation. Descriptions of Allah having a literal shape, hands, arms, legs and a shin bone have attracted much criticism.

Uthaymeen of Saudi Arabia, a prominent Wahhabi, claimed that "'His (Allah's) settling on the Throne' means that He is sitting in person on His Throne in a way that is becoming His majesty and greatness. Nobody except He knows exactly how He is sitting." ('The Muslim's Belief' p.11) Some consider this to be giving human attributes to God.

Ashmoo 02:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Too strict

Ashmoo, I think you're being too drastic in removing those sections. They need citations, not removal. The Wahhabis have often been criticized for anthropomorphism, and it shouldn't be too difficult to dig up citations. If we DON't mention this, someone is going to bring it up again. Ditto the British support and the Mr. Hempher theory. If we leave it out, someone is going to add it again. I gave a perfectly good quote re British support, from an academic source. Someone added a bunch of conspiracy theory stuff, but that needs revision, not excision.

My experience with various controversial articles is that a criticism or belief is widespread, you can't keep it out of the article. Editors keep adding it. It's much better to face up to it rather than trying to bury it. Zora 03:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I think criticisms should be included. But the sections in question have been there, unchanged for almost a month now. The original authors don't seem to have any intention of clarifying who the weaselly 'some critics' are. I agree with you that others are going to keep re-adding the material. Hopefully we can get one of the others to provide us with some cites.
I've retained the text I chopped on these talk pages, so people can still work on them. But when a large portion of the article violates WP policy and no-one is working to fix it, I think it is better to make the article conform to policy. Ashmoo 05:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wahhabis are not Sunnis

I am tired of Wahhabis being considered as Sunnis by wikipedia. Sunni scholars have time and again denounced wahhabism. The wahhabis denounced sufism, taqlid, and the practice of following a maddhab- things which are canonized in sunni islam. Just because Wahhabis hate Shias does NOT mean they are Sunnis. In Islam there is a three way fight between the Ahlus Sunna, the Shia, and the Wahhabis. This has been proven by the Sunni websites that were linked to in the main article on wahhabism. Wahhabism is a heresy, pure and simple.71.102.163.7 23:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Photographs and television?

The article states that followers of the teachings of Wahhabi object to watching television and photographing any living being with a soul. However, it certainly seems that here in the West, we see photos and/or videos made by people that are (as far as I know) Wahhabist Muslims. In particular, I'm thinking of videos released by Osama bin Laden and other jihadists from Saudi Arabia. So is it (1) in fact, these aren't Wahhabist Muslims, (2) they are Wahhabist, but feel that broadcasting their message is more important than restrictions on photography, or (3) the article is wrong about restrictions on photography? I would suggest that someone with access to reliable information on this issue (i.e., not me) make this point clear in the article. GeoGreg 20:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the hyppocracies of Wahhabism. I had put a list of their hyppocracies which got deleted. Hopefully it will not be deleted from the discussion board.

  1. They see photograph of living people as polytheism. However the photo of the Wahhabi king would be on all currency notes. Furthermore you can not perform Hajj, one of the five basic principles of Islam, unless you have a Photo ID.
  2. They see building of shrines as polytheism. However the probably most lush palace of the world is build in Yamama (hence the name Yamama Palace) where the supposed ancestor of the House of Saud, a false prophet called Muslaima was killed.
  3. They consider all archeological preservation that prove that historical moments of Islam. They destroyed many sites e.g. the tree under which "Baith Rizwan" was done. Mosques like "Masjid Bilal" and "Masjid Shaq Al Qamar" are also destroyed. However interestingly, they were the sites of the Hejazies and the memorials constcuted by Ottomons. They have themselves spend billions of dollars excavating and preserving the pagan sites of the Nejdies.

Hassanfarooqi 13:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference section

I was looking in ther article and many books/articles appear in the references section. However, none of these are actually in the article. I think if they are not cited or references, it doesn't make sense to have them in the references section. I think they should be removed. Any other thoughts? ZaydHammoudeh 20:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

WHAT!!!! How would removing links to books on the subject improve the article! 212.11.191.18 12:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Good point 212.11.191.18; I think I will add "Green Eggs and Ham" by Dr Seuss to the refrences. After all, more is always better, even when it isn't. 18:13, 16 December 2007

Growth in Bonsia

I dont feel that paragraph about the reports of `dangers` of Wahhabism in Bosnia in the intro is in the appropriate place.

It should form part of a detailed section on the spread/influence of modern Wahhabism if it is to appear at all. That kind of detail is beyond me so other help would be needed. At the moment its very much out of place.

Secondly I cant see the point in reffering to a brief report on a radio show whos contents cant be verified and Im quite concerned that the only link provided here was to a non-BBC article via Freerepublic (a radical right-wing forum).

So I have replaced the forum link with a direct link to the article (which Im not convinced should stay) but will hold off deleting or moving the paragraph itself until others give their views.

--Mazzarin 11:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

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 movement → Wahhabism – 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

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)

Wahhabism → Salafism 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.

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

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. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  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

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)

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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

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

    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?

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

External links modified

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.

checkY 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"?

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

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

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

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 [4], [5]), 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wahhabism/Archive_1&oldid=1137305764"