Talk:Wahhabism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

There is no such thing as Wahhabi

First, people should know that Islam is divided into two parts: 1-Tawheed 2-Fiqh Tawheed is the oneness of God, Fiqh is the Jurisprudence. Muhammed Ibn AbdulWahab DID NOT write about Fiqh. Muhammed Ibn AbdulWahab returned the Sunni way to Saudi Arabia after it was full of Sufism and tomb visitation. Wahhabism is basically Salafism which is also Ahl Al Hadeeth and Athari ways. And also He did not kill anyone, He was a scholar not a ruler, and he did have any power in any form. He may have destroyed Islamic heritage sites, but that is unrelated to Islam. Suicide attacks are Fiqh related not Tawheed related. Wahhabism (if it exists) does not in any form contain Fiqh related issues, so it can't be a "threat" as people claim. --BelalSaid (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

so according to you saudi arabia wasnt sunni until abdulwahab came along? wahabism isnt merely about abdulwahab it also includes ibn taymiyah because abdulwahab was influenced by him..how is it unrelated to islam when you just called it "islamic heritage sites"? wahabism is real hence this article..just because someone wrote a book saying its a myth doesnt mean anything. Baboon43 (talk) 06:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia wasn't anything, because Saudi Arabia wasn't even a country before Abdel Wahhab. Wahhabism is Salafism, because they have the exact same thought about Tawheed. Ibn Taymiyah was a Salafi. And you said it yourself. Saudi Arabia doesn't consider itself Wahhabi, but it consider itself Salafi. You can't name people if they don't name themselves. Shi'ites consider and name themselves Shi'ites. Sufist consider and name themselves Sufists. "Wahhabists" consider themselves Salafists. So you can't prove their existence until they name themselves so.--BelalSaid (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes the state didnt exist but they still were administrating their own region in autonomy outside of ottoman lines and briefly took over arabia before they were defeated (see Emirate of Diriyah..Saudi came into existence 1932 & abdulwahab died 1792 so there is a 140 year difference even after abdulwahab..wahabi is an acceptable term according to the "salafi" group..the article also explains that salafi and wahabi can be used interchangeably..during the time of abdulwahab they used wahabi but more recently they switched to using salafi..A 'Wahhabi' is a person who follows the teachings of a Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi. Just as people who follow the Madhab of Imam Abu Hanifa (Radi Allahu anhu) - 'Hanafi. I believe the term wahabi ceased use after the alliance with the salafi movement by Rashid Rida but the majority still refer to them as wahabi Baboon43 (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"the majority still refer to them as wahabi" sources please? through out my 17 years live in Saudi Arabia, I have never heard anyone referring to himself as "Wahhabi", but that doesn't qualify as a source. I want an Islamic scholar in Saudi Arabia referring to himself as "Wahhabi".--BelalSaid (talk) 06:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

that scholar was bin baz take a look http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt5mwXbdWb0 Baboon43 (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The man in this video is Shi'ite, so he basically hates Salafis, and they and Sufis originated the term "Wahhabi", so it doesn't qualify. I want an Islamic scholar in Saudi Arabia referring to himself as "Wahhabi", not some video by his haters saying that "Oh, I once heard him say that". Even in the video itself the guy says that they do not prefer to call themselves "Wahhabi", how can you separate them?--BelalSaid (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

if there is no such thing as wahabi then why did the wahabis give this woman a title such as this in the 18th century? see Ghaliyya al-Wahhabiyya Baboon43 (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Bin Baz, nor anybody else, ever referred to themselves as Wahhabis. Regardless, the sheer volume of scholarly sources cited on this article render a discussion like this fruitless. It's like arguing that Rafida or Nasibi don't exist. Even if nobody admits to being one, the amount of references renders a discussion of these groups' existences silly. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Wahabi sect

i think it should be added as wahabi is regarded by some as a sect but for lede it should be what the wahabis self identify themselves. Baboon43 (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wahhabism has traditionally been referred to as a movement within Sunni Islam rather than an independent sect. Nobody self-identifies as a Wahhabi, nor does anyone in the Muslim world accept to be called one; it's like asking what Murji'ah or Qadariyya refer to themselves as. Meaning: it's a flawed question as nobody admits to being a part of those groups anyway. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

doesnt matter there's nothing wrong with including that some refer to them as a sect in the article. Baboon43 (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You make an excellent point, as some do refer to them in that way. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Classifying them a sect because Sunni scholars do. Lightsmiles (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Militant and political islam section

It looks like the so called "dispute" source is coming from a school that received heavy saudi arabian funding..i think there should be another source put in place of that to make it seem more neutral. Baboon43 (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. What school are you talking about? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

in the militant section of this article ---> Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding Baboon43 (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a well-known and respected center promoting interfaith dialog and is located at Georgetown University, which is internationally respected. How exactly is this not neutral? That's about as reliable and verifiable as you could get. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

of all the interfaith dialog centres in the world, the one that accepts millions from wahabis and even renames its center after a wahabi prince, should be used as a counter argument?..so no i dont think its reliable it looks bias..& right underneath Noah Feldman goes out of his way to defend wahabism, coincidently he's from harvard another recipient of saudi pocket change..perhaps karen armstrong is the only neutral source but then again i haven't looked into her affiliation. Baboon43 (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

There are times when a discussion can be had and there are times when conspiracy theories and wild accusations are so out there that they really shouldn't be considered. Baboon, this intense dislike of Saudi Arabia you seem to be promoting here and on other articles almost borders on racism. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to tell the world about how much you don't like Saudi Arabia or any other country. The interfaith dialoge center in question is internationally respected for its efforts in promoting good relations among people of different religions. A quick perusal of Georgetown University's page should be enough to dispel any conspiratorial notion that they would ever promote or accept alliance with something promoting Wahhabism.

Furthermore, your comment that Al-Waleed bin Talal a "Wahhabi prince" simply because he is Saudi is why I said borderline racism. Are you really saying any prominent Saudi is a Wahhabi? How is that not any different from saying that all Muslims are extremists or all Protestants hate Catholics? It's patent nonsense, and even if this rather prejudiced notion that bin Talal is somehow a Wahhabi is to be taken seriously, how on Earth will you prove that? And how on Earth will you prove that the entire center along with Georgetown and Harvard universities aren't reliable? To even address this is a waste of time. The source is valid and, unless someone can engage in a serious discussion, will not be removed from the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

your either a wahabi or just lack knowledge of the subject but its most likely both on my observation of your previous comments..the interfaith is not RS if its funded by wahabism thats the bottom line regardless of your opinions..now you seem to be unaware or acting like you are..on the issue that wahabism and saudi arabia is not one and the same..yes the prince is wahabi and so are all the ruling classes..the nation of saudi arabia was built on wahabism see Ottoman-Saudi War & Emirate of Diriyah..if its so easy to find arguments for wahabism not being apart of militant islam then why is it hard to find a neutral source other then this one..Baboon43 (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"Al-Faruqi was influenced by the strain of Wahhabi Islamic thought that sought to purify Islam of what were considered to be impermissible innovations. Among his students was John Esposito, who is currently University professor at Georgetown University and founding director of the prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding"-Encycyclopedia of Muslim-American History"-p.190 Baboon43 (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm tired of the personal attacks on myself. I'm not longer dealing with you directly; let's take this to arbitration. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

look who's complaining about personal attacks. by the way it seems you like to confront editors by following them around..seeing i never seen you on this talk page until you started snooping around my contributions..the reason i suggested the above is so that other editors can decide..i dont need your permission to edit so dont come on here giving orders like "source wont be removed"..nobody asked you to deal with me, you did that on your own..when did saudi became a race that now your calling me "borderline racist"..wikipedia is about being civil Baboon43 (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I opened a discussion at WP:ANI. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of poorly sourced material

I reverted this[1] because it's too poorly sourced to stay, and it deleted some sourced material. At a glance it looks well sourced, but even a quick bit of digging into them shows that they don't meet Wikipedia's sourcing standards. In order, the sources are:

1. a topix.com message forum
2. the unreferenced statement "Saudi Arabia is a fundamentalist state. The type of Islam that it preaches and practices is not Sunni Islam" formatted to look like a citation
3. another Wikipedia entry
4. an Amazon.com link - linking to Amazon is not an acceptable/reliable way of citing a book
5. Wikipedia again
6. a press release from a non-profit - this source might have some merit, but on its own it doesn't support all of the changes made in the edit I reverted
7. Wikipedia again
8. Wikipedia. Again.

Please consider seeking consensus here. It would likely be more productive to address these points and these sources one by one rather than continuing to add them all back at once. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the user whose edit you reverted refuses to discuss the content. If you look at the section right above, you will notice that I filed a complain at WP:ANI. He's already been warned about personal attacks, but now has resigned himself to just pushing these contentious and poorly sourced edits without any discussion at all. We might need further page protection here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Taif Massacre

The article should include Wahabis massacring the civilians of Taif.. "Saud's first achievement was the capture of Taif. This small town lies twelve hours from Mecca. The fall of Taif caused consternation in Mecca; and the consternation grew at the news of the massacre of fifteen hundred men. both Jewish and Muslim, by the Wahabis".-The History of the Wahabis: From Their Origin Until the End of 1809-p.24 [2]

"To the Wahhabis' discredit, al-Jabarti reported the 1803 massacre at Ta'if, where Wahhabi forces slaughtered the men and enslaved the women and children".-The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia-p.31 [3] Baboon43 (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure it belongs here and not the First Saudi State? The history section in this article seems more like a brief overview with links to other articles, with the bulk of this one being about the movement's beliefs and development internationally. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This source explicitly refers to wahabis even though their rise was during the first saudi state..the massacre was a religious one seeing that they killed muslims in taif because they perceived them as unbelievers..the readers should be aware that this movement will declare to be the only islamic movement when it launches wars & therefore according to them its legal to kill another muslim and enslave them..it would probably fit under "the alliance with ibn saud" section of this article Baboon43 (talk)

Slow down there, as you've touched on two subjects. The sources you've given speaks of massacres. As for the accusation that the wahhabis declare all other Muslims to be unbelievers and that wahhabis see killing and enslaving them fine, then you won't find that being said about any movement in a reliable source. It's a rather hefty accusation of beliefs which, of course, any group would deny having. Let's keep this on the sources themselves. There is a main article for the first Saudi State, but what we could use these two sources for is a snippet, for example something like "the movement was involved in armed conflict as early as 1803, when the combined Saudi and Wahhabi forces sacked Taif." The explicit details with the sources could then be entered into the main articles like history of Saudi and first saudi state. There are many instances of this happening during the movement's rise so the question comes up: which instances are better examples? The attack in Taif or the attack in Basra, for example? Do you get what I'm saying? MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It was not legal in Islam for a Muslim to fight another Muslim. Therefore, in order to rile the Arabs against their Turkish brethren, it was necessary to first create a new interpretation of Islam that would sanction such murder, but under the guise of Jihad..thats historical references its how wahabis waged war on the ottomans..the labelling of other muslims apostates opened way for their so called "conquest of arabia" they had no other way of waging a war and convincing the army to slaughter their brothers in religion….ottomans in return labeled them apostates but it was merely a war about land although wahabis made it religious..taif massacre is what comes to mind when wahabism is mentioned so it should be included in the article. Baboon43 (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

why would saud tell muslims of medina "Greetings from Saud to the people of Medina, great and humble. My will is that you should be true Muslims, believe in God and be saved. Failing that I shall wage war on you until death"-The History of the Wahabis From Their Origin Until the End of 1809"-p.30 [4].. you said above that people would deny that they would enslave people..thats highly unlikely because during war slavery is allowed in Islam so unless they are ignorant they would not deny that. Baboon43 (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

obviously saudi wahabis today are not like this because they have control of arabia & its a different age but they still have these beliefs "The Wahabis were fired by the belief that they alone were true Muslims and that it was their sacred duty to return to Allah all those who had strayed, even if it meant putting every male to the sword"-A Bridge Across the Jordan-p.141 [5] Baboon43 (talk) 08:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

History of Wahabis is full of bloodbath.The massacre of Taif must be included.I support it.Msoamu (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

What is allowed in Islam and what a movement will profess are two different things. This isn't about whether or not the Wahhabi movement's views are accurate in Islam, but simply about not putting words in their mouth. What you (Baboon43) have suggested is good ina roundabout way, but the spelling needs to be cleaned up and the phrasing needs to be polished. At that point, it should be fine to include in the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Wahabism and terrorism

I have added this heading with neutral and verifiable sources which is most missing point from this Article.

Wahabi relationship with Terrorism Wahabism, Saudi Arabia’s dominant faith is an austere form of Sunni Islam and Its explosive growth began in the 1970s when Saudi charities started funding Wahabi schools and mosques.Professor Bernard Lewis, a leading scholar of Islam, has noted that the Wahhabis are to Islam what the Ku Klux Klan is to Christianity. They can be accused of hijacking Islam. The Wahabi movement is directly involved in terrorist activities all over the World.The Al Qaeda and a lot of recent Islamic terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, and Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, have been inspired by Wahabism. The regular Bombing of shrines in Pakistan and Killing of Sunnis and Shias is done by Sipah-e-Sahaba and TTP (Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan).Wahabism is associated with the removal of head stones from the graves of the members of the family of the Prophet Muhammed, and the desecration of Islamic shrines in Hejaz and Karbala in Iraq, and the struggle for power in what was yet to become Saudi Arabia. Once its followers took power, they did whatever they could to destroy Ethiopia. For example, the secessionist war in Eritrea (1958-1991), which was designed to make Ethiopia land-locked, was largely financed by Saudi Arabia. Likewise, Saudi finance made it possible for Somalia to invade Ethiopia in 1977- 1978. The Saudi authorities may deny this, but it is widely documented. In Pakistan

The JamatudDawah ,Lashkar-e-Jhangvi,Lashkar-e-Taiba and Sipah Sahaba are main terrorist organization of Wahabi movements .These terrorist organizations have been banned by Pakistani government but are working by their new names. Arab states especially Saudi Arabia and GCC states have been funding extremist Deobandi and Wahabis in Pakistan, since the Afghan Jihad.Pakistan has became a battleground between Saudi Arabia funded Deobandi and Wahabis and Iran funded Shia causing deaths of thousands of innocent Muslims. In India

Wahhabism, an austere, puritanical interpretation of Islam promoted by Saudi Arabia, is making deep inroads into Kashmir due to the efforts of the Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith, which calls itself a religious and welfare organisation.Kashmir's non-Muslim minority, too, views the Wahhabi ingress as a "conspiracy to Talibanise Kashmir". "The Taliban had also sprung from Pakistani madrassas funded by the Wahhabis," says former Kashmir University professor Kashi Nath Pandita.

If any Wahabi supporter or any objective supporter has any doubt regarding this content he may discuss here.Msoamu (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

First, what you've put here is only partially relevant to Wahhabism; the organizations you've mentioned in the lower half of your edits have no relevance to Saudi Arabia, but rather to South Asia. The upper half contains strong language and you should post the actual sources here on the talk page so we all can look at them first. Comparisons to the Ku Klux Klan, which is a racist group, seem a bit odd on a page for a non-Christian religious movement.

Also, you need to resolve the issue here before inserting it into the article. Your edits have been reverted by multiple editors - this is a sign that they are contentious and need to be discussed before insertion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a problem with one of the proposed sources. An editor used this source: Cultural Terrorism and Wahhabi Islam, by Helena Kane Finn, 8 October 2002, published on Council on Foreign Relations website as a citation for the following statement: "Professor Bernard Lewis, a leading scholar of Islam, has noted that the Wahhabis are to Islam what the Ku Klux Klan is to Christianity. They can be accused of hijacking Islam." However the source appears to be an "opinion piece" (US English "think piece"). WP:NEWSORG says: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The source is therefore only reliable as a source for the views of Helena Finn. It is not a reliable source for the views of Professor Bernard Lewis. Maybe she understood him correctly; maybe not.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Mrs Finn is a US career diplomat, who claims to be an expert on the Moslem world (see her CV). The article in question is listed on her CV. The article was published in 2002. In 2002-03 her husband was US ambassador in Afghanistan. That some US diplomats were allowed to publish such extreme views is astonishing.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Problems with use of another source. The disputed edit,[6] also uses this source: The rise and rise of Wahabism, by Velly Thevar, 10 May 2009, The Telegraph of India.

This is used for a citation for: "Wahabism,Saudi Arabia’s dominant faith is an austere form of Sunni Islam and Its explosive growth began in the 1970s when Saudi charities started funding Wahabi schools and mosques", which appears immediately under a heading "Wahabi relationship with Terrorism". If you look at the article those exact words do appear. You need either to put the words you are quoting in quotation marks or to paraphrase them. You must do one or the other. (See Wikipedia:Copy-paste.)

But hang on. This appears directly under a heading "Wahabi relationship with Terrorism". So let us see what the article has to say about the Wahabi relationship with terrorism:

• "Only a minuscule section of Wahabis is drawn towards terrorism"
• "Some Wahabis are and will be terrorists. But the overwhelming section has nothing to do with terrorism"
• "'If we have to seriously root out terrorism, we have to root out Wahabism. They are interlinked,' argues Saed Noori..."
• "Not everyone agrees that a link exists. B. Raman, a former intelligence official and now director of the Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai, doesn’t believe there is a “direct” link between Wahabism and terrorism."

If you are going to cite articles, you have to do so fairly. It is dishonest to cherry pick the bits that make your case.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not only Saudi Arabia but arab countries like egypt that want to weaken ethiopia..war on ethiopia is not a religious war so it shouldn't be included its mostly political..saudis may have funded the secessionist war in eritrea its merely political strategy and has nothing to do with wahabism..the 77 somali government were communists and even if they did receive financial aid it again is saudis plan to have an ally in the region..also the land somalia invaded is ethnically all somalis and technically ethiopia shouldn't have any dominion over it..now the funding by saudi of Al-Shabaab quite possibly to destroy somalia through religious conflict could be included in this article.

The comparison of wahabism and Ku Klux Klan is somewhat accurate but is not explained in-depth..wahabism grew out of arab nationalism so the leaders of the movement have made it seem like the religion of Islam can only be led by arabs & this is pure racism to the non arab muslim world..islam is obviously not a religion of arabs..saud even tried to declare himself the caliph of the muslim world for simply being king of arabia which the muslim world rejected..a recent example of racism in wahabi ideology is the libyan civil war, when the libyan al qaeda militias began targeting black muslims. Mrs finn is just stating facts and after reading her piece its quite obvious she is an expert on the muslim world. Baboon43 (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the dispute here is regarding the description of Wahhabism so much as whether or not that discription comes from a reliable source. Toddy's research here indicates that it's an opinion piece, thus is can't be included as a support to make that general assertion in the article. Perhaps for the author's opinion, but then we run into the discussion: is the author notable enough to warrant the inclusion of her opinion here?

As for Shabab, then they certainly get members from Saudi but what does that have to do with the Wahhabi article? Seems more like it would relate to...well not the foreign policy of Saudi Arabia, but maybe the movement of Saudi nationals outside their country? It seems like a bit of a jump. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yea i understood Toddy's comment…somali al shabab members are following wahabi ideology..the somali population traditionally follow sufism & the al shabab have gone out of their way to ban various cultural activities..wahabism has sometimes been described as "saudi cultural imperalism"..there has been reports of beheading of sufis who don't become wahabi..somali population has responded by making their own militia to protect sufism from shabab wahabism ----> Ahlu Sunna Waljama'a..& also the recent mali issue is the same thing Baboon43 (talk)

I don't know much about either conflict (Somalia or Mali) but it seems like something plausible. Are there already sources or sections about this on those articles? As far as I know, it should be acceptable to "borrow" that material as long as its not a wholesale reproduction of an existing page. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I can see that religious intolerance by Somali militias of the Wahhabi faith is relevant to this article. But it is not reasonable to put this a heading marked "terrorism".

I can also see that if Saudi Arabia is sponsoring the spread of the Wahhabi faith, this is also relevant to this article. But that does not belong under a heading marked terrorism either.

That some "security experts" think there is a link between Wahhabis and terrorism, does belong under a heading marked "terrorism". But it would need to be cited accurately and fairly. The source for the claim also stressed that only a tiny minority of Wahhabis in the country in question support terrorism, and that other "security experts" denied the alleged link, and these points would need to go in to.

That an article about terrorism was used for a source for claims about the spread of the Wahhabi faith does not entitle editors to put statements about the spread of the Wahhabi faith under a heading marked "terrorism".--Toddy1 (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

most wahabis are law abiding citizens and are not terrorists...at times the purpose of Salafism is to inculcate terrorism, but in general, the purpose of Salafism is to provide a new Math’hab, to estrange the world’s Muslim population from traditional Islam..there may not be a need to put "somali militias fighting al shabab" under terrorism section although Al-Shabaab is designated a terorist organization by most western countrie???s .. Baboon43 (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Connections between Wahhabism and Sufism?

First of all let me be clear that the source is NOT reliable as it is a blog. The blog does, however, reference other sources that could be checked out. The post is here. What the guy is insinuating is that despite the rhetoric, Sufism has a connection with Wahhabism and Salafism which followers of all those movements often deny or don't know about. His tone is obviously non-neutral and in fact he seems biased against ALL of those groups. What he is saying, however, is something I have read in Arabic sources previously. Perhaps there is more to this? Can we research this? MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

blogs can be reliable but this is more of a conspiracy then RS since it talks about the "occult" and i have come across something like this before..its more of an assumption then facts but comparing sufism with salafism is ridiculous these are two opposite movements..also there's many types of so called "sufi groups" some of them even practice magic..simply calling yourself a sufi doesn't necessarily make you one..this blogger also only focuses on one sufi group and tries to generalize…blogger also doesn't take shots at ibn taymiyah which leads me to believe he is a wahabi himself but instead attacks sufism and tries to connect it with what he calls salafism..he says that ibn taymiyah accepted sufi occult as if ibn taymiyah wasnt an occult scholar himself..then he tries to make a point about abdulwahab liking sufis! if thats the case then why did wahabis call the people of medina non muslims??? why did they enslave muslims upon their conquests? overall this article is an attack on sufism & a few jabs at what he calls salafism so he can seem to be neutral..there is actual sufi wahabis though those that mix both movements together for ex hamza yusuf he is critical of wahabism as a political movement but is fine with the belief of wahabism..he calls himself a sufi and criticizes wahabism somewhat..this isnt RS more conspiracy perhaps but is atleast more neutral then the blog..it criticizes ibn taymiyah and also sufism saying its from sabian occult background..[7] Baboon43 (talk)

Oh, I wasn't suggesting we use the blog article I posted itself. It's clear not RS, VS or NPOV. I was suggesting looking into the issue, as in Arabic sources I have read intimations about tacit relationships between Sufism and Salafism. Similarly, I know of some sheikhs in Morocco, Saudi and Pakistan for example who have been described as "Sufi-Salafis." Is there anything academic regarding this issue? That's what I'm suggesting, it seems like a topic we could look into. Not original research, I mean secondary and tertiary sources. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

the most popular sufi salafi group is the "muslim brotherhood"..these alliances are more political...salafi beliefs intruding into sufi movements is mainly to eventually drown out sufism....once the population accepts a form of salafism the salafist ideology proposed can be imposed without opposition..the egyptian population mainly sufis would not accept a full blown salafi ideology so a compromise of sufi salafi traditions were put in place as was done with deobandi in pakistan..something that could be mentioned is that ibn taymiyah had some sufi beliefs for example he was for the celebration of Mawlid but wahabis ignore all this and say celebrating mawlid is forbidden. Baboon43 (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well Baboon, that is one point of view which could possibly be represented. Obviously, a conspiracy theory about Salafi infiltration won't be supported by all views so any such section would have to be fair. But this is basically what I am suggesting, how have the movements interacted? I am sure we can find secondary scholarly sources which have researched this point, but nobody has taken the initiative to bring them to Wikipedia yet. I think Brill Publishers would be a good place to look. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Libyan Wahabi mufti

This mufti of libya wants to discourage mawlid [8] could b included in this article. Baboon43 (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No, he really couldn't. Discouraging mawlid isn't specific to Wahhabism - other movements, and even Muslim scholars who predate all these current movements, also opposed the celebration. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

oh please the only people that discourage mawlid today are wahabis..& plus its already known that all the leaders that have arrived since dictatorships fell are all wahabi muslim brotherhood members..so tell me what kind of non wahabi sheikh wants sufi shrines demolished? "The issue of whether Sufi shrines should be demolished or not was referred by NTC leader Mustafa Abdul Jalil to the Grand Mufti, Sheikh Sadiq Al-Ghariani for a decision. Ghariani is believed to personally favour demolishing the shrines. However, he himself went to Derna in May and preached at the mosque favoured by the Salafists, the Masjid Al-Noor" [9] Baboon43 (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Demolishing shrines is clearly an act by the Salafi movement; discouraging mawlid is not. Considering the controversial nature of that celebration historically, there really is no way to ascribe such discouragement to only a single movement, especially one which doesn't self-identify. I don't know who this Libyan guy is, but I do know that Wahhabism is a POV fork and unless you can find a reliable secondary source specifically stating "so-and-so is a Wahhabi," then they shouldn't be described as such in an encyclopedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It goes without saying, of course, that what you provided above does provide justification for mentioning that individual in the Salafi article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

i just proved to you he's a wahabi and u said demolishing shrines is an act of wahabism but now you want a source that literally calls him a wahabi? "Their hatred for comparisons between Jesus and Muhammad encouraged the Wahhabis to ban mawlid, or birthday celebrations for Muhammad." [10]..it really doesn't matter if some orthodox might be against the celebration..only a Wahabi will make a nation-wide address encouraging people to not celebrate mawlid and it comes at a time when the wahabi government has just taken over libya this is not rocket science. salafi wahabi is synonym so why would it be in salafi section and not wahabi section? Baboon43 (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Salafi and Wahhabi are not synonyms, Baboon. That's the point. We've been through this before; while the media occasionally throws the terms around with little meaning (one American conservative commentator even called Hezbollah "Wahhabi"), academia does make a distinction. We've rehashed this issue enough times for it to be clear that putting words in another editors mouth isn't going to yield positive results for the articles in question. Your source mentions the person as being a Salafi, so take this issue over to the article for Salafi. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

no im not taking this to salafi..go and read the wahabi article introduction.."wahabi is used interchangeably to salafi" & its not a POV fork hence there is several academic reviews on this subject..that salafi article has many issues..salafi (3 generations) and salafi/wahabi movement should be two separate articles not mixed in together..the american conservative who called hezbolah "wahabi" is wrong and most likely an error..im talking about academics not those politically driven experts who want to bundle everything thats anti american into one pot. "by the end of the 1970s, however, the saudi government had fully co-opted the term salafiyya, and from that moment on the term became a synonym for wahabi doctrine". [11] Baboon43 (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

If you want to quote the article, let's quote the relevant passage in full:

"The terms Wahhabi and Salafi and ahl al-hadith (people of hadith) are often used interchangeably, but Wahhabism has also been called "a particular orientation within Salafism", and an orientation considered ultra-conservative and apolitical. Salafism, on the other hand, has been termed as the hybridation between the teachings of Ibn Abdul-Wahhab and others which have taken place since the 1960s."

Thus it's very clear that what you're saying isn't something which academia takes for granted, and in fact it's usually those politically driven experts who mince words. Again, this has been discussed before, and I believe it was even once discussed by you and I. The source you provided seems reliable, but it doesn't mention the guy having a connection to Wahhabism; it mentions him having a connection to Salafists.

The simplest way to work out such a dispute is to avoid original research regarding this person and stick to what the sources themselves say. What's wrong with that? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

That being said - I almost forgot to mention this - the source you quoted above from Harmattan publishers is also reliable, and could be used to source the first clause of the full passage I quoted. Always when we have reliable sources, even if they seem to conflict with one another, it's best to find a way to synthesize rather than having a source competition. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

i have discussed this with you previously that when salafi and wahabi is analyzed there has to be a differentiation so people can understand that at one point they were separate but now are synonym..these two movements have joined forces & i guess its reasonable that a source calling him specifically wahabi might be needed but frankly its something that must be discussed with more then just two editors..the sources that mention wahabi/salafi being synonym should also be added into this article. case in point he doesnt need to be refered to as wahabi in the article as wahabis prefer the term salafi anyway..there also needs to be a section on mawlid as many RS say that the wahabis are highly against this celebration..they call it innovation and that it leads to "worshiping the dead"..i previously showed u a source on your talk page that al albani was telling wahabis that they use hanbali fiqh therefore they dont follow true salafism(wahabism) [12]..so basically in that article it showed saudi wahabi followed some form of traditional school hanbali fiqh..so saudi wahabi can be a term that uses hanbali school to back its fatwa as well as salafi (ibn taymiyah) fiqh..if we are going to analyze it that way then the libyan mufti falls directly into saudi wahabi teachings as he not only takes salafi fiqh but also hanbali as shown here on p.9 [13] Baboon43 (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Again Baboon, the problem is that we fall into original research with what you're suggesting. You're bringing sources which are valid sources, but you're then drawing empirical conclusions based on those sources. Please double check Wikipedia:No original research and I think what I'm saying will become clear. There are more sources that use the two terms as synonyms, yes, and they should be in the article, yes, as do the sources which state that the two are separate and different movements. This is the thing about when valid sources don't agree with each other; we don't weigh one source over the other, but rather include both statements in the article. Final conclusions will be drawn by each reader for him/herself; we as editors don't need to do that for them.

And, as sad as this might be, the essays Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability are relevant here. As Denzel Washington's character said in Training Day, it's not what you know; it's what you can prove. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

the point is since he is a salafi he can be included in this article thats all Baboon43 (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I understood your point, and if that wasn't clear in my responses then I apologize. But to mention every salafi in the wahhabi article is going to touch on original research, because obviously not everybody (I would argue most, but I could be wrong) uses the terms as synonyms. My point is that if sources call him salafi, include him in that article. You find any source, even one, which calls him wahhabi, then include him here. But if we open this door you've mentioned, then imagine all the abuses that could come about on such articles on Wikipedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

have a look at the "sufi criticism" section. Baboon43 (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Uh...what am I looking for exactly? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

where it specifically says "salafis are oppressed in china"..why is that included in this article and not salafi? Baboon43 (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It absolutely shouldn't, and good on you for noticing it. Not sure how I missed that. For the sake of consistency, it ought to be removed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

trying not to duplicate salafi and wahabi article..i think we should stick to the rule that makes it relevant to the sections in this article and/or if wahabi is mentioned specifically in the RS. Baboon43 (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm with you 110%. I'll go ahead and remove it now; I don't expect anyone else to object, but if so then let them speak now or forever hold their peace. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm...a great deal of that section is information about Salafis in China, with the article using both terms at times. It seems poorly written and I'm not sure which parts to take out. Would you feel comfortable with removing the entirety of the two paragraphs starting with "Salafis have a reputation for radicalism..." and ending with "...After the communist revolution the Salafis"? It should just be merged into the Salafi article. What do you think? MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

i acutally meant for future purposes..it would be best to stick with the status quo here. Baboon43 (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Salafi which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Wahabi term used by wahabis

This source clearly shows that wahabiyya was a term used by those najd scholars & is not merely a term created by their opponents..."Ghaliyya al-wahhabiyya was a Bedouin amira al umara in the early eighteenth century, an Arab tribeswoman from Tarba, near Ta'if, just southeast of mecca. at the beginning of the century when foreign muslims attempted to take control of mecca, ghaliyya formed and led a military resistance movement to defend mecca. Legend grew among her battlefield adversaries that she possessed the magical ability to render the wahabi forces invisible". [14] Baboon43 (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The source actually doesn't mention who referred to her with that name, thus it really isn't a proof that she identified herself in that way - it's obviously not an Arabian family name but rather a nickname, and alqab in the Middle East are most often given to a person based on reputation. Either way, the link you've provided isn't a proof of Ghaliyya al-Wahhabiyya's self-identification by the name and even if that were the case, this one woman theoretically identifying in that way wouldn't be worth mentioning in this article beyond the fact that "this one lady called herself by the name." Worth noting that the bio on her on the Arabic Wikipedia doesn't mention where the name came from, either. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Please note that [[:ar:غالية_الوهابية]] is a neater way of referring to an article on another language Wikipedia than using a URL. The effect it produces is: ar:غالية_الوهابية --Toddy1 (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Noted. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Salafi Movement which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

POV removal

Many sources I have found are highly partisan ,wahabi sites which are neither neutral nor objective.The sites like Ummah.com,Islam Q A ,ahlalhadeeth, a forum named islamicawakening are wahabi sites.The article must be supported by third party neutral and verifiable sources.I have also tried to remove some un sourced claims which were POV statements.I think opinions of neutral editors will help in making consensus. Shabiha (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, like with the Salafi article, 99% of your edits here were helpful and appropriate. But also like the other page, it is preferable to discuss large-scale edits like this before engaging. There is one thing I would point out: in this edit, you removed content which was supported by two sources. One of them was obviously unreliable and invalid, while the other, the New Encyclopedia of Islam, was very clearly appropriate and enough to retain the content in question. It was surely an issue of oversight, but again all the more reason to engage in large-scale editing collaboratively.

Also Shabiha, I strongly advise you to withdraw your RfC below - that is a step in the dispute mediation process; nobody has disputed or even commented on your edits before now, and most likely nobody will dispute them, rendering it unnecessary. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be better to revert to the version of 16:04, 4 March 2013. Whilst some of the changes made since then,[15] have some merit, it would be better to discuss each of them individually. For example, it is difficult to see any objection to the use of ‎books and websites written by Wahhabis are sources for what Wahhabis believe. As far as I am aware, books and websites written by Americans are allowed as sources for articles about Americans. You cannot have one rule for one subject but a different rule for others.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm...I actually didn't expect there to be any opposition to the edits. Well, I don't know how Shabiha feels, but if you (Toddy) revert to that version then I would be alright with it as long as you also open the discussion here on the talk page. I'm not sure about other editors, though if you are disputing some of the edits, they are on a large enough scale that I guess, technically, you have the right to revert until further discussion takes place. I guess; I don't know for sure. Caution is always the best route, though (that's a reminder for all, including myself). MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I have opened discussion below. Let us discuss the various deletions individually. Some may be the best thing to do. Some might be mistaken deletions.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab advocated a popular purging of the widespread

The following was deleted:

Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab advocated a popular purging of the widespread practices by Muslims being what he considered to be impurities and innovations in Islam. It is claimed that this was carried out by some of his more extreme followers by the killing of innocent Sunni Muslims however this is fiercely debated.

Please could you explain why it was deleted? Deleting this sentence, makes the next sentence make less sense, as it begins with "his".--Toddy1 (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The forum is not valid and good source.Ummah is a Forum.Its talking about history in POV language.It can be linked to other valid source though and wordings can be be neutralized. Shabiha (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Well Shabiha, if you feel the text can be neutralized and given another source, why not neutralize the language yourself and simply put the "citation needed" tag? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

2. However they eventually seized control of Hijaz and the Arabian peninsula

The following was deleted:

However they eventually seized control of Hijaz and the Arabian peninsula after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, safeguarding the region from colonial interference and Saudi Arabia was founded as a nation state upholding the tenets of Islam as preached by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.

Please could you explain why it was deleted?--Toddy1 (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Due to non reliable source.Valid third party source may be added. Shabiha (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Shabiha, when you say that a valid source may be added, do you mean to say that the text itself was true and the only problem was the source? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the source. Just because a source is written by Wahhabis does not make it unreliable as a source on Wahhabis. --Toddy1 (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

3. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab further explains in his book Kitab al-Tawhid

The following was deleted:

Ibn Abd al-Wahhab further explains in his book Kitab al-Tawhid, which draws directly on material from the Quran and the narrations of the Prophet, that worship in Islam includes conventional acts of worship such as the five daily prayers; fasting; Dua (supplication); Istia'dha (seeking protection or refuge); Ist'ana (seeking help), and Istigatha to Allah (seeking benefits and calling upon Allah alone). Therefore, making du'a or calling upon anyone or anything other than God, or seeking supernatural help and protection that is only befitting of a divine being from something other than Allah alone are acts of "shirk" and contradict the tenets of Tawhid. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab further explains that Muhammad during his lifetime tried his utmost to identify and repudiate all actions that violated these principles.

The most important of these commentaries are those by Ibn Abd al-Wahhab in particular his book Kitab al-Tawhid, and the works of Ibn Taymiyyah. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was a follower of Ahmad ibn Hanbal's school of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) like most in Nejd at the time, but "was opposed to any of the schools (Madh'hab) being taken as an absolute and unquestioned authority".

Please could you explain why they were deleted? I know that the statement "Ibn Abd al-Wahhab further explains in his book Kitab al-Tawhid" is not a proper citation, but you could have made a stab at making the start of a proper citation from it.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Not verifiable,linked to primary source not preferable,the second para is unsourced claim. Shabiha (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Shabiha, do you mean that the source is not verifiable or that the claim itself is not verifiable? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

4. Wahhabism denounces the practice of total blind adherence to the interpretations of scholars

The following was deleted:

Wahhabism denounces the practice of total blind adherence to the interpretations of scholars, at a scholarly level, and of practices passed on within the family or tribe. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was dedicated to champion these principles and combat what was seen as the stagnation of Islamic scholarship which the majority of Muslims had seemingly fully adhered to without question, through taqlid of the established Ottoman clergy at the time.

Please could you explain why it was deleted?--Toddy1 (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The source does not support POV wordings and para.It has non neutral language like total blind adherence to the interpretations of scholars. Shabiha (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

If the problem was the text not adhering to the source, then why didn't you just edit the text instead of deleting all of it along with the source? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Disclosure: I don't mean to go back on what I said earlier. Overall, I think your (Shabiha's) effort was a show of good initiative. Toddy has, however, raised some interesting questions; I am mainly seeking clarity here, as your (Shabiha's) responses all seem to be a bit terse. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

5. His idea was that what he perceived to be blind deference to religious authority obstructs

The following was deleted:

His idea was that what he perceived to be blind deference to religious authority obstructs this direct connection with the Qur'an and Sunnah, leading him to deprecate the importance and full authority of leaders at the time, such as the scholars and mufti's of the age. When arguing for his positions, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab would use translations and interpretation of the verses (known as ayat in Arabic) of the Qur'an that were contrary to the consensus amongst the scholars of the age, and positions against which there had been consensus for centuries. This methodology was considered extremely controversial at the time, in opposition to established clergy of the era, and was refuted as being erroneous by a number of scholars. However the Wahhabi movement saw itself as championing the re-opening of ijtihad, being intellectual pursuit of scholarly work clarifying opinions in the face of new evidence being a newly proven sound or sahih hadeeth, a discovered historical early ijma (scholarly consensus from the early Muslims) or a suitable analogy, qiyas, based on historical records; in contrast to the witnessed saturation of Islamic jurisprudence that no longer considered ijtihad to be a viable alternative to total scholarly taqlid, being total submission to previous scholarly opinion regardless of unquestionable proof that contradicts this.

And replaced by:

His idea was that what he perceived to be blind deference to religious authority obstructs this direct connection with the Qur'an and Sunnah, leading him to deprecate the importance and full authority of leaders at the time, such as the scholars and mufti's of the age. When arguing for his positions, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab would use translations and interpretation of the verses (known as ayat in Arabic) of the Qur'an that were contrary to the consensus amongst the scholars of the age, and positions against which there had been consensus for centuries. This methodology was considered extremely controversial at the time, in opposition to established clergy of the era, and was refuted as being erroneous by a number of scholars.

Please could you explain why it was changed?--Toddy1 (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Due to Obvious POV sentences attributed to Wahabi Shaikh Al Bani through Non reliable Wahabi source of Islam Q A. Shabiha (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm...well Shabiha, I do take issue with your reasoning here. There are a few issues:

1. If the sentences breach NPOV, then why didn't you just rewrite them?

2. Albani was a Salafi, but he was a critic of Wahhabism as mentioned on his own Wiki entry.

3. Islam QA is a Salafi site, not a Wahhabi one. Can you bring verifiable sources to level that claim against the site? Accusing people or institutions of Wahhabism is serious business.

I hope my two questions and one comment help clarify the discussion in general, rather than fog it up. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

6. Fiqh

The following was deleted:

A popular misconception associated with the movement of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab is the condemnation of the legal schools of jurisprudence, however documentation of a letter correspondence by Ibn Abd al-Wahhab recorded by his son Abdallah refutes this accusation.

"And also we are upon the madhhab of Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal in the matters of jurisprudence, and we do not show rejection to the one who made taqleed of one of the four Imaams as opposed to those besides them...

... And we do not deserve the status of absolute ijtihaad and there is none amongst us who lays claim to it, except that in some of the issues (of jurisprudence), when a plain, clear text from the Book, or a Sunnah unabrogated, unspecified and uncontradicted by what is stronger than it, and by which one of the four Imaams have spoken, we take it and we leave our madhhab...

... And we do not investigate (scrutinize) anyone in his madhhab, nor do we find fault with him except when we come across a plain, clear text which opposes the madhhab of one of the four Imaams and it is a matter through which an open and apparent symbol

... Thus, there is no contradiction between (this and) not making the claim of independent ijtihaad, because a group from the scholars from the four madhhabs are preceded choosing certain preferred opinions in certain matters, who, whilst making taqleed of the founders of the madhhab (in general), opposed the madhhab (in those matters)."

Please could you explain why it was deleted?--Toddy1 (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Self praise,POV language sourced to wahabi site which is unverifiable. Shabiha (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Self praise for whom? If you actually read that website, they appear to call themselves Wahhabis in an ironic sense; most of the people they quote are scholars from the mainstream schools of thought in Sunni Islam, usually from about a thousand years before Ibn Abdul-Wahhab was born. Now about verifiable, I don't know, that would need further reading. Can you (Shabiha) explaing why the site breaches Wikipedia:Verifiability?

I'm not arguing against you Shabiha, but I want you to understand something that will ease your time editing here. What I am about to say goes for you, Toddy, me and all other editors. Your opinion is not a form of evidence. If the site really is a breach of WP:V, then you need to demonstrate that; good faith works on general editing, but not when discussion contentious issues like this. If you just give one sentences responses to everything Toddy (or any other editor) says, then they aren't likely to agree with you or even understand your point. You need to spend some more time on your comments and explanations here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It is worth noting, by the way, that the information is absolutely true - the Wahhabi movement follows the Hanbali school in fiqh and always has. In fact, members of the Salafist movement, which is often (erroneously) thought to be the same thing as Wahhabism, often criticize the Wahhabist clerics of central Saudi Arabia on this point as Salafists are reformist in fiqh while the Wahhabis are, technically, traditionalist in this area. I'm not commenting on the source itself, I'm just saying that other sources could be found for the same line. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see any good reason not to use this source for this. In what respect is it "unverifiable"? I suspect that someone has misunderstood this and many other Wikipedia policies.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

7. and this is not contradictory to the lack of the claim to ijtihaad

The following was deleted:

"... and this is not contradictory to the lack of the claim to ijtihaad. For it has been that a group of the imaams of the four madhaahib had their own particular views regarding certain matters that were in opposition to their madhhab, whose founder they followed."

However some modern day adherents to wahhabism consider themselves to be 'non-imitators' or 'not attached to tradition', and therefore answerable to no school of law at all, observing instead what they would call the practice of early Islam. However, to do so does correspond to the ideal aimed at by Ibn Hanbal, and thus they can be said to be of his 'school' however only a scholar would be capable of this level of ijtihad and most Salafi scholars warn against this for the uneducated laymen.

Please could you explain why it was deleted?--Toddy1 (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Ahlalhadeeth,Islamicawakening are discussion forums not good source for wikipedia and third one http://saaid.net/monawein/h/index.htm is a broken link. Shabiha (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't read forums at work, and in general I am inclined to agree with Shabiha that forums are not acceptable as a source, but allow me to ask this. Do those threads quoted from the forums contain sources? What I mean is, do any of the posters quote citations for what they say? If so, then in theory, the link to the forum could just be replaced with the citation. This is especially important because whoever put in the link to IslamicAwakening, for example, claimed in the citation that it provides a translation of original Arabic sources. Again, I can't view the page, but in theory that could be acceptable.

Also, you (Shabiha) still haven't addressed what I brought up earlier. The following source was removed:

Glasse, Cyril, The New Encyclopedia of Islam Altamira, 2001, p.407

And as far as I know, that appears to be a valid print source. Why was that removed? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Dead links should be marked as dead links. That a citation is to a dead link is not a valid reason for deleting the statement. That the statement was supported by a valid citation is important. In many cases editors are able to repair links (sometimes websites restructure, and pages temporarily go down for some months and then reappear with new URLs). In other cases editors are able to find replacement citations. The knowledge that the information was supported by a citation helps a lot. This is also the reason why it is desirable with newspapers and books to quote the page, edition, etc. An online article may have disappeared, but the paper copy still exists and could be accessed.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

8. And it is that we accept the aayaat and ahaadeeth of the Attributes upon their apparent meanings

The following was deleted:

"And it is that we accept the aayaat and ahaadeeth of the Attributes upon their apparent meanings, and we leave their true meanings, while believing in their realities, to Allaah ta'aalaa. For Maalik, one of the greatest of the 'ulamaa' of the Salaf, when asked about al-istiwaa' in His Saying (ta'aalaa): "Ar-Rahmaan rose over the Throne." [Taa-Haa: 5] said: "Al-istiwaa' is known, the "how" of it is unknown, believing in it is waajib, and asking about it is bid'ah." "

Please could you explain why it was deleted?--Toddy1 (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Islamicawakening being a forum is not valid source and http://saaid.net/monawein/h/index.htm is broken link. Shabiha (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The explanation in and of itself is reasonable, if too brief. But there is someone who seems to dispute the edits, so I think you (Shabiha) should elaborate a bit more; the one sentence replies might not be convincing even if you make a valid point. IslamicAwakening itself is obviously not valid because it's a forum and highly biased, but does the thread which was sources contain sources itself, like I asked above? About the dead link, I recall Toddy mentioning something about that in another discussion, though I can't remember so well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfinished business

Shabiha is currently blocked for 48 hours due to edit warring. When he returns, I really feel he should answer the concerns of other editors above. He performed [Hamza ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib this] edit not long ago so he's obviously paying attention to the page, but it seems like a poor usage of time. I have my own opinions for and against the various edits but seeing as how this was started by Shabiha's edits and the concerns of other editors regarding them, I would really like to see him reply before I jump into it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

As discussion of the deletions is clearly over, I have implemented changes based on the discussion.[16]--Toddy1 (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC: I request comments on biased,non neutral,unverifiable and partisan sources in the Wahabi Article?

Should not third party ,neutral and verifiable sources support the Article ? Shabiha (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Shabiha, you opening this RfC only an hour after starting a thread for the same purpose on the article's talk page. An RfC is a step in solving disputes; nobody disputed your points or even commented yet, rendering this RfC a bit premature and somewhat inappropriate, especially considering the non-controversial nature of your original comments. I think you should withdraw this RfC and wait to see how a normal discussion goes first. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

As I explained on Talk:Salafi, this isn't a legitimate RfC question. All it asks is "Should we follow WP:V and WP:RS?"—which, of course, we are obliged to do. Instead, RfCs need to deal with questions editors actually have discretion about, such as, "What is a reliable source?" and "How much weight is this source/opinion/idea due?" and "What information is of encyclopedic relevance?" As such, I've removed the RfC tag. If Shabiha wants to start a new RfC, fine, but first make sure that the discussion among involved editors has been conducted for a while. I would also like to recommend the use of WP:RSN if you just want outside opinions on whether or not a particular source is useful, or [{WP:NPOVN]] if you want outside opinions on whether or not some information is neutral/due. Please note I am removing the tag as an uninvolved admin, and have no opinion on whatever debate triggered this, as I haven't even read it. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is that there appears to be a great deal of self published sources, which should be replaced with reliable sources and the article needs to be written to a NPOV. This can easily be done by editing and discussion and I do not see why an RfC is needed for this purpose. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Archive to avoid bloating

I propose that any discussions which ceased prior to 2013 be archived. This talk page is bloated and ugly, so if a discussion is no longer active then it doesn't need to be the first thing users see. I mean, this talk page hasn't been archive in five years. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Good idea --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright, it took me a few tries but I did it, navigation bar and all. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Needs better citations

I turned to this page for reliable information following the capture of the Boston Bombers. I was quite surprised to find at least one reference completely inaccurate and many more statements with very poor citations. I would like to add the template for "citation clean-up needed" to the top of this page but I see there is a lot of discussion of the substance of this page. Do any of you other wikipedians think that further citations are needed to make this page meet Wikipedia standards? Also, it has a singular point-of-view and no sections discussing any of the controversies here on the talk page. Thoughts may be posted here and I will come back and revisit them.Saltwolf (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to assure its admin members are not Biased

Blocked sockpuppet. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The page seems only to show aspects of the Wahhabi sect according to them. Any controversies are placed on the bottom of the page and have minimal input in the document. The admins are clearly siding with the Wahhabi's in spreading their own thoughts and ideas, ignoring that of other members, most of which, as saltwolf has highlighted, is not even referenced. This needs to be rectified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organometalic (talk • contribs) 22:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Claims about his brother writing a book against him

Every actual Arabic source I have found on the topic of the subject's brother supposedly writing a book against him have concluded that the book was originally written by an Iraqi author with a similar name, and that it was later falsely attributed to his brother. Now, if there are sources which do attribute the book to his brother then that should be shown, but currently the two citations (47 and 48) given to support this only link to Google books without any mentioned of a page number. Also considering that the primary source material such as the history of Ibn Ghannam don't even mention this book existing, I would like further discussion to take place. Obviously all sides must be shown, even those who hold that the book was in fact written by the subject's brother. As it is, though, the "Initial Opposition" section seems one-sided and in need of further research into secondary and tertiary sources. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

i doubt academics would refer to his brothers book as a source if it was forgery. its also understandable for his family to be against him since he was leading a reform..abdulwahab led a revolution against orthodox islam so its highly unlikely that everyone would be on board to this. however if what you say is true there might be an unintentional mix up with the names which made people believe that it was his brothers book. however it doesnt matter if it was his brother who was against him or not quite frankly..if RS says it was his brother we just go with it but what you brought up is interesting nonetheless. Baboon43 (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well that's the thing, does the specific RS given mention it? There is no page given, and because of the contentious nature of the claim - original Arabic sources such as that of Ibn Ghannam (I actually have access to a physical copy via a personal contact) mention that both Ibn Abdul Wahhab's father and brother reconciled with him later in life - I think that the claim should be taken down until a proper citation can be brought. At that point, yes, with an RS the claim can be mentioned. As for the academic research pointing to this book as that of an Iraqi author, then it will take me some time to sift back through the books and translate (translation of a small amount of material is allowed by editors). Of course, it won't kill us if finding such sources takes a while - there's no rush. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Useful RS

Some sources that can be used for this article [17]

This source may or may not be RS..looking for editor input on it [18] Baboon43 (talk)

Longer version [19] Baboon43 (talk) 07:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The first source looks great and professional. The second and third are blocked for me (I use Wikipedia at work, so some sites are blocked by the company's filter). Perhaps someone else can comment. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Name calling

I have removed the following from the article. it is just name calling. It reveals that the author is an intollerant bigot. I tells the reader nothing about the Wahhabi movement.

Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, the United States leading Sufi and executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, has called Wahhabism "the syphilis of Islam."

--Toddy1 (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)