Talk:Wahhabism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Wahhabi)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Islam (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Saudi Arabia (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Re secondary ISBNs[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

section on practices[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Islam" I think. DeCausa (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

'Islam', or 'ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah' to distinguish themselves from other sects of Islam and Shias in particular. Whomeyeahyou000 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Problem with cite[edit]

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

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

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

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

Number of Wahhabi[edit]

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

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

Hi, Not entirely surprising. World Christian Encyclopedia, published 2001, gives a figure of 7 million worldwide, though I would say that is slightly on the low side.--Peaceworld 11:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
That would be 1/4 of the population of Saudi and leave no room for any Wahhabis elsewhere! --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The source is dubious (only a picture?), as are the specifics of how that information was obtained in the first place (the specifics are non-existent altogether, in fact). Would be interested to see those figures backed with more evidence, as I don't see how they can count the number of 'Wahhabis' given that a) almost all so-called Wahhabis reject that name, and b) you can't conduct a study like this on Arab communities in those countries in general, and Saudi Arabian communities in particular, and expect to yield substantially significant results. Whomeyeahyou000 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Dispute over lede[edit]

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

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

replacing it with this:

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

Problem is

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

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

Requested move[edit]

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

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


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

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

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


Requested move 2[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

dispute over religious demographics[edit]

(Same thing happened back in September.)

Edit by 80.184.81.48 replaced this paragraph in the lede:

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

with this

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

Which duplicates the Population section later in the article

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Removal of T. E. Lawrence[edit]

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

Suggest page is deleted[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to request for deletion[edit]

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

  • The term isn't in the least likely to fall into disuse. It's the prevalent term for specifically the brand of Islam sponsored by the Saudi government. Defining it as "merely" what Muhammad and the companions taught is simply Wahhabi POV. We don't adopt the POV of the sect which is the subject of the article. We follow what WP:RS say about the subject of the article. For that reason there is not the slightest likelihood that this article would be deleted. DeCausa (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

"There is no god but God" is a literal translation. "There is no god but Allah" is a sense-for-sense translation that conveys better the meaning into English. Sense-for-sense translation is normally preferred. I support your change. Have you considered raising this matter in the article on the Shahada?-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Per MOS:ISLAM#Grammatical standardization Allah is translated as God across Wikipedia. It's been discussed many times at Shahada and the consensus there is that the English word should be used, as it is everywhere in Wikipedia. In fact, "God", as opposed to "god", is exactly the right word, and it is incorrect to say it is "different from a Muslim point of view". It isn't. If you look at the article on Saudi Arabia you will see that the translation of Allah as God (the Shahada being considered the motto of the state) is sourced to the Saudi government. DeCausa (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
In that case, the place to raise this issue is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The last discussion on it was a year and a half ago: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Allah. DeCausa (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)