Talk:Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Lead neutrality and possible disputed factual accuracy[edit]

I just read the lead and I have to say it is not NPOV. It says:

Abd Al-Wahhab was an Najdi Islamic scholar who was considered a heretic by the leading Sunni Muslim scholars of his time, as well as his brother; Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab who issued a Fatwa against him titled: "Fasl al-Khitab min Kitab Allah wa-Hadith al-Rasul wa-Kalam Uli al-Albab fi Madhhab Ibni `Abd al-Wahhab" declaring him as a heretic.

I do not have the knowledge to make it neutral whilst also maintaining the criticisms he had. The lead should give an overview of the article name and not dive straight into criticism. Also the statement that he was labelled a heretic by the leading sunni scholars of the time needs to be referenced. I am sure whoever put the edit in could provide those. From what I can tell reading MezzoMezzo's comment above, the book that is being referred to might be fraudulent. I was not able to check the authenticity of the book. For further information regarding the book please read MezzoMezzo's comment as he seems to know more about the issue. I shall put in a POV-lead template on the article page so that other able editors are able to improve the lead. I have also put in the Disputed template for possible factual inaccuracies due the unclear nature of the books authenticity and also because MezzoMezzo above says that his brother & father redacted their criticism later on is life. Please could someone check this over. Mbcap (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the opening paragraph is not only not NPOV, it's also uninformative. I've re-written it. DeCausa (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your speedy edit on the lead. I shall remove the templates, please feel free to add information regarding view of other scholars both during his time and contemporary ones. Mbcap (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
@Mbcap and DeCausa: sorry I was too late to help out, but good judgment calls and corrective action. The encyclopedia is well served by such efforts; hope I can get more active again from here on out. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Karen Armstrong opinion[edit]

The line "Karen Armstrong insists that the House of Saud has distorted his methodology of education, study and debate as the only legitimate means of da'wah to a violent political struggle.[38]" in the section "Emergence of Saudi state" seems to me to totally out of place. The rest of the article is a historical view of al-Wahhab, this one sentence is both an opinion, not historical fact, and not even about the subject at all. I am removing it for those reasons. Bonewah (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bonewah: Similarly, can you delete the reference to Dare Gold? Since he isn't a scholar of Islam, history or even religion in general, but rather he's a diplomat. 22:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Is the use of the Arabic for "May Peace be Upon Him" appropriate for the article?[edit]

In the section "by Contemporaries" two uses of the word prophet are followed with ﷺ which seems a odd shift into a different language and not necessarily appropriate for a encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonewolfm16 (talkcontribs) 20:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Yes, it is clear the IP's edits were POV (more on that in a second), but the number of reverts here was disruptive. Given the number of editors opposing the changes, this should have gone to 3RR, wait for the block, THEN revert, rather than 26 reverts in roughly 8 hours. Additionally, a brief comment here would have been far more productive than the battling edit summaries:

The dispute[1] here is whether or not we state al-Wahhab is correct (and all Muslims who disagree are wrong) or if we state al-Wahhab's beliefs are al-Wahhab's beliefs.

This is Wikipedia. The questions are not over facts (the boiling point of water, what the capital of France is, how much coffee is consumed in the world, etc.). These are questions of belief (how many gods are there, is there life after death, which animals may we eat, etc.).

"He rejected certain misguided Muslim practices which are regarded as amounting to either religious innovation (bid‘ah) or polytheism." This is POV. We are not here to judge whether anyone is "misguided" or if their practices are in violation of anyone's principles.

"He rejected certain common Muslim practices which he regarded as amounting to either religious innovation (bid‘ah) or polytheism." This is WP:NPOV. The practices are apparently common. (If you disagree that they are common, you may demand an independent reliable source.) There does not seem to be any dispute as to how al-Wahhab felt about the practices in question: he regarded them as religious innovation or polytheism.

We approach similar issues regarding various beliefs of various flavors of various other religions. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)