Talk:Wahhabism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Apaugasma (talk | contribs) at 19:00, 29 December 2022 (→‎Requested move 19 December 2022: o). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Suggest page is deleted

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]

Reply to request for deletion

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
Delete this page for the honesty of knowledge Wahhaism is Salafi. But enemies of Saudi Arabia invented it. And you here supporting the claim. most of article is false and not correc> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkhunani (talk • contribs) 11:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the essay on verifiability, not truth and perhaps you will understand.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haneef James Oliver

An editor tried to add the following:

Author Haneef James Oliver completely refutes the term "Wahhabi" in his book "The Wahhabi Myth". Moreover, he argues with fact based answers as to why Salafis can't be called Wahhabis?.
Oliver, Haneef James (2002). The Wahhabi Myth: Dispelling Prevalent Fallacies and the Fictitious Link with Bin Laden. Trafford Publishing. ISBN 978-1-55395-397-5.

The URL is not to the book, but to an advert for the book. Some user-generated reviews of this book on internet bookshops seem favourable, so maybe it is a good book to read. However it is published by www.trafford.com, so it is self-published. WP:RSSELF says "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Toddy1 (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Major issues and criticisms with the topic

Issue #1 The whole page is about Wahhabism which is basically a word used to refer to Salafi/Sunni Muslims by other groups. Those called Wahhabis never refer to themselves as Wahhabis and the term is usually used to demean the group similar to (please pardon the expression) when you call black people n*****. Sure the origin of the word isn’t bad, in the case of Wahhabism it’s a reference to the Sheikh Muhamman Ibn Abdulwahhab, and in the case of the n word it refers to the word negro which is the color black. The word Wahhabism is generally associated with terrorism, extremism, among other negative things and this is not a coincidence. The term is strictly political and used by people against the sect referred to by the term.

Issue #2 and much more importantly Since this wikipedia and not a blog, the information in the article should not be the opinion of the writer with the sources being opinions of other writers. When you read this article it is almost 70% opinions with the sources being opinions too. This makes the whole topic a biased mess with each side. To further understand my point, take a look at the first paragraph of the article pasted below.

Wahhabism (Arabic: الوهابية, al-Wahhābiyah) is an Islamic doctrine and religious movement founded by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.[a] It has been variously described as "ultraconservative", "far-right"[1] "austere",[2] "fundamentalist",[3] or "puritan(ical)";[4][5] as an Islamic "reform movement" to restore "pure monotheistic worship" (tawhid) by devotees;[6][7] and as a "deviant sectarian movement",[7] "vile sect"[8] and a distortion of Islam by its detractors.[2][9] The term Wahhabi(sm) is often used polemically and adherents commonly reject its use, preferring to be called Salafi or muwahhid,[10][11][12] claiming to emphasize the principle of tawhid[13] (the "uniqueness" and "unity" of God)[14] or monotheism, dismissing other Muslims as practising shirk (idolatry).[15] It follows the theology of Ibn Taymiyyah and the Hanbali school of jurisprudence,[6] although a small minority of Hanbali leaders renounced ibn Abd al-Wahhab's views due to Ottoman influence.[5]

I hope this shows how unwikipedia-worthy this writing is.

My suggestion This article is extremely messy, opinions and facts are mixed together and needs a complete rewrite. Until that happens I suggest putting a notification on the article that it is very opinionated to warn readers not to take information written in the article as facts.

To be honest I don’t think this topic is going to be written according to the Wikipedia guidelines any time soon due to the inherent issues with the topic discussed in issue #1.

Thanks 4eebwiki (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dawa

At Wahhabism#Initial opposition, there is a link to DAB page Dawa which needs to be fixed. This is not a requested edit, because I don't know the answer. If the page had a lower protection level, I would have added a {{dn}} tag. Narky Blert (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC) Vahhabism is going to terrorist activities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:D8C:5D4C:0:0:7B4A:E12 (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exploits

The beings of wahahbism are extremist and still are the exploits and sayings of Muhammed ibn wahahb as a terrorist and radical should be known by everyone and that the only country following this is the Saudi Arabia and Saudi family before the Saudi family, Muhammed ibn wahahb should be know as the one who caused the wars that we see today terrorist plots.

Everyone should know first and foremost He attacked and murdered Muslims first, calling them non believers when most of the Muslim world is 80%-95% Sunni Muslims they have three tiers of wahahbism the original extremists, the moderately extremists and what you see today in the world the Quran is dangerous if not Interpreted properly wahahbism group also believes that the use of technology is biddah so when you see these Muslim YouTubers broadcasting their hatred and incorrect teachings threw technology it's hypocritical as they are using the Internet and phones and computers wahahbism would have been stamped out if the ottomans or mughal empires were still around to deal with the problem the fact is the Western world allowed this kind of behaviour and dangerous teachings which is still affecting the world today Fuxxy1 (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vahhabism

Vahhabism wikipedia is wrong... Vahhabism is not hambali. But its terrorist groups 2409:4071:D8C:5D4C:0:0:7B4A:E12 (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page move without discussion

@Shadowwarrior8: While it is good to edit boldly, the page move you made is not the sort of uncontroversial correction that should be made without discussion. Wahhabism is the clear WP:COMMONNAME for this subject in English, so very good reasons indeed would be needed to move away from this. That said, you are welcome to start a move request discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323 Okay, thanks for the reminder. I am aware that Wahhabism is a commonname.

But I think using this exonym alone is quite misleading in this article since term generally refers to a wide swathe of religious groups of seperate origins that shares common doctrines. Sometimes, conservative movements with opposing doctrines are also used to denote "Wahhabism".

Hence I suggest that this article title should be more precise to denote the Arabian regional movement descended from Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his students.

And this is why I suggested the title Muwahhidun (Wahhabi), since:

  • There are multiple Muwahhidun movements historically
  • There are multiple movements getting referred to as "Wahhabi"
  • A seperate article is needed to for the term Wahhabi, which is different from the movement of Muwahhdin-Wahhabi

Hence the title Muwahhidin(Wahhabi) shall be more precise, accurate and less confusing. Moroever, the existing links of "Wahhabism" shall always lead to here; since it automatically redirects here. Meanwhile "Wahhabi" when used as a pejoritave epithet or to denote other movements not descended from Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, someone needs to create a seperate article for the label. Something similar to Fascist (insult).

Thank you

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense that there were multiple movements historically whose adherents called themselves Muwahhidun, since this is quite a generic term. This weakens the case for using the term to denote Wahhabis. However, are there really multiple movements that are referred to as Wahhabi? I understand it as quite specific to the Saudi tradition and overseas movements that have adopted its traditions. As you say, it would be consistent with other pages on religion to have a separate page on Wahhabis, just as there are separate pages on Christianity and Christians. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On a technical note, in terms of WP:CRITERIA, the fact that you need to clarify the term "Muwahhidun" with "(Wahhabi)" tells you that Wahhabi is the more precise term, so why not simply be concise and use the most precise term? A term that immediately requires disambiguation when used as a title is plainly inferior to a term that requires no such disambiguation. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 March 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) SnowFire (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC) SnowFire (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wahhabism → Muwahhidun (Wahhabi) – using the exonym "Wahhabism" alone is quite misleading in this article since the term may mislead many people in conflating the movement with a wide swathe of religious groups of seperate origins that shares common doctrines. Sometimes, conservative movements with opposing doctrines are also used to denote "Wahhabism".

Hence I suggest that this article title should be more precise to denote the Arabian regional movement descended from Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his students.

And this is why I suggested the title Muwahhidun (Wahhabi), since:

  • There are multiple Muwahhidun movements historically
  • There are multiple movements getting referred to as "Wahhabi"
  • A seperate article is needed to for the term Wahhabi, which is different from the movement of Muwahhdin-Wahhabi

Hence the title Muwahhidin(Wahhabi) shall be more precise, accurate and less confusing. Moroever, the existing links of "Wahhabism" shall always lead to here; since it automatically redirects here. Meanwhile "Wahhabi" when used as a pejoritave epithet or to denote other movements not descended from Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, someone needs to create a seperate article for the label and its etymology. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iskandar323 This is a reply of the discussion from thevprevious talk section.

Mutiple English language encyclopeadic sources have used the term "Muwahhidun" in its entry to refer to the movement of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab. This is enough to also add the term as the article title.

Second, various reliable sources have also asserted that "Wahhabism" is used as a pejoritive label to denote different Wahhabi-allied movements or those movements that have nothing to do with Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab.

Based on this, why isnt the proposed title better? Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: While some of the points made here may have merit, in terms of Wikipedia page naming policy, WP:COMMONNAME clearly leads us down the route of Wahhabism. There is absolutely no contest in Ngram, and google scholar gives us 19,300 returns for Wahhabism to just 1,380 hits for Muwahhidun (many of them non-English language texts). Iskandar323 (talk) 09:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Iskandar323, perhaps you have misunderstood my statement. I am not contesting that the term is not popular. I did infact, in the previous talk, acknowledged it as such. And this is why I included it as Muwahhidun (Wahhabi).

But what I am saying here is: "Wahhabism" is often invoked in different contexts. This article is dealing with Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's specific Saudi-based religious movement. Oftentimes "Wahhabism" is invoked to paint similar movements like Ahl-i Hadith, Salafi movement, etc. as well as dissimilar Sufi-based movements like Deobandism. In a wider sense, "Wahhabism" has also been invoked as an Islamophobic sense to censure any expression of conservative Islam be it Sufi, Salafi, and even Shi'ites. It has also been used to target political opponents and dissidents of Muslim background, as attested in many Reliable sources.

So I hope you understand my point. I do not contest the usage of "Wahhabism" , I am proposing a more accurate and less misleading title. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but if Wahhabism is the term invoked to reference similar movements, that does not mean this is not the correct page name for 'Abd al-Wahhab's momvement. It just means that these inherent ambiguities need expounding on this page. 'Accurate', in an encyclopedic sense is not necessarily objective reality. This all comes back to WP:NOTTRUTH. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iskandar323 Since you mentioned that the title is unverifiable, the title itself is verifiable, since the movement has been given the "Muwahhidun" entry in various encyclopedias.

I agree that those issues mentioned in the previous talk page could be the flaws of the proposed title. However, "Wahhabism" title has its own flaws due to the confusion that arise from its conflation with other movements and groups. But as per what you mentioned above, I agree with you that these are better elaborated in the page rather than the title. I do not insist on the proposed title, but still feel that it is better than the current title.

~~Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Very clear common name and primary topic for that name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of quotations from citations

I have removed numerous quotations from citations, as hosting so much non-free content is a violation of our non-free content rule. Also, it makes copyright cleanup extremely difficult.— Diannaa (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Diannaa Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: FYI, if you enjoyed your time editing Wahhabism, you're also going to love Rashid Rida. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 December 2022

Wahhabism → Wahhabi movement – Consistency in nomenclature as per the page titles of Salafi movement, Barelvi movement and as per proposed title change at Deobandi [1] by TheAafi. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC) ─ shadowwarrior8 (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I agree that consistency is a good thing in principle, but it does not override basic common name concerns. Wahhabism is very dominant [2]. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323

You are right on that when you compare between "Wahhabism" and "Wahhabi movement". But when you contrast between "Wahhabi" and "Wahhabism" ,[3], "Wahhabi" is far more common.

Encyclopaedic entries also get titled Wahhabi. Eg: Oxford Dictionary of Islam pg 331[4] Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but it is because the words are used for different things. Just "Wahhabi" as an adjective could appear in front of any numbers of different nouns, such as 'Wahhabi cleric', 'Wahhabi mosque', etc., so that comparison is not serving to usefully distinguish between usage of "Wahhabism" and "Wahhabi movement" as set phrases. The Oxford Dictionary of Islam today uses "Wahhabis" plural (so another collective term), while all other Oxford Dictionaries use "Wahhabhism" [5]. Wahhabism incidentally has it own consistency with Salafism and other "ism" words. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: For a clearer consensus. – robertsky (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Islam has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 06:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the Ngram already cited by Iskandar323 and per Google Scholar [6] vs [7]. Only whole proposed article names should be compared ('Wahhabi' has a myriad usages outside of the name of the movement, which naturally inflates the numbers for hits of 'Wahhabi' by itself), and we go by what is most common in reliable sources. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wahhabism&oldid=1130348386"