Talk:Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

POV again

Regarding this comment left on my talk page, I believe User:Qadri fan may be mistaken about certain things. As the topic relates to this article, I'm replying here rather than on Qadri fan's talk page. Where I use the second-person pronoun below, I'm addressing that user.

First of all, as an established editor, I suggest Qadri fan reads WP:DTR. Secondly, as the template in question targets those who failed to use an edit summary, it was highly inappropriate to issue it to someone who did.

If you'd read the edit summaries I in fact left, you'd have seen that all (I repeat, ALL) of the "see also" links you provided were already in the text. The preference on WP is to include wikilinks in the text of an article in preference to a designated "See also" section. Furthermore, the MOS quite clearly indicates that such sections go prior to Notes and References.

Regarding my removal of Category:Mujaddid, I did so as it appeared a loaded claim to make considering it isn't currently supported either in the prose nor with reliable sources.

Regarding my removal of the external links, one of which was in the wrong section, I did so because the article has a history of alternative POVs trying to turn the article to their own viewpoint. Consequently, when I re-wrote the article, I kept the sole external link that I did because it led to a neutral topic. I think it best if no external links are added except for those are strictly neutral. This is within the spirit of both WP:NPOV and WP:LINKFARM, the latter of which I beleive I quoted in my edit summary.

I see you provide a list of possible contentious claims (in your words, "defamatory and libellous"). I shall deal with each of them in turn.

• "founder of wahhabi movement"

I don't see what could possibly be defamatory or libellous about this. Just look in any reputable encyclopedia.

• "'Abd al-Wahhab was not a good student and was arrogant and defiant with his teachers"

If you don't like this statement, then take it up with Ibn Humaydi.

• "Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab did not complete his studies, but whether he was expelled or dropped out is unknown"

If no reliable source indicates how the subject left school, then we can hardly be expected to invent it.

• "...his reformist ideas were formulated while..."

Feel free to change it to "developed", "arose" or some other synonym, but it'll still mean eactly the same thing.

• "Indeed, he personally organised the stoning..."

Reliably sourced.

• "When she died, he inherited her property and wealth."

Very reliably sourced, to the Encyclopædia Britannica no less.

• "...upholding and propagating Wahhabi doctrine."

Reliably sourced.

I note that none of the statements you take issue with are any that speak favourably towards al-Wahhab. Perhaps the bias may not be mine, then?

Nonetheless, if you choose to read the comments above on this talk page, you'll see that the version of the article that I left is the one that has consensus. I will not edit war with you, but I do urge you to keep our policies of reliable sourcing and neutral point of view in mind, and to revert yourself back to the neutral version. I also urge you to avoid templating the regulars, and certainly not with incorrect templates.

Regards, ClaretAsh 00:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't disagree with anything you've written above. Your version looks considerably more neutral to me. I will also point out to Qadri fan that calling edits "defamatory and libelous" is 1. inaccurate 2. a clear violation of NPA and 3. treading very closely to NLT territory. If you wish to contest someone's edits, do so in a calm, civil manner. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of any disagreement in the above discussion, I've adjusted the article to be more neutral. ClaretAsh 00:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

@Qadri fan:

Please don't make wholesale reversions as you did here. If you'd read my edit summaries and examined my edits, you'd have seen how pointless it was to re-add Ibn Taymiyyah, Tawheed and Shirk (Islam) to a see also section. Two of those were already linked in the article and one I made the effort to incorporate elsewhere. Consequently, to list them again in a "See also" section is just silly. The same goes for the link to Ahya.org, which was already included in the references, no less. Regarding the accusations of bias, I suggest you re-examine your determination to include links to blatantly POV websites; titles such as "Short Biography of The Reviver Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab" and "Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab – a reformer concerning whom many malicious lies have been told" do not suggest neutrality.

I urge you to stop adding biased external links and unecessary wikilinks to the article or at least participate in a discussion here on the talk page according to the principles of Wikipedia. ClaretAsh 12:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi ClaretAsh, your edits appear to be biased and have therefore been reverted.

May I remind you that Wikipedia is a free and open encyclopaedia and welcomes contributions from all individuals, provided that the edits are backed by authentic references.

And thus, your stranglehold on the page edits and authoritarian control shows you haven't quite understood the purpose of an open encyclopaedia. As an "established editor", I urge you to remind yourself of the Five pillars of Wikipedia, and What Wikipedia is not.

If you continue to maintain an absolute control over the topic, and are unable to work with other editors in good faith, then perhaps this is not the place for you.

May I also kindly remind you to study the topic at hand before you perform further edits, and would like to take this opportunity to also remind you about WP:NOTBATTLE, WP:NPOVT, and particularly WP:NOTYOURS.

I look forward to working with you and seeing the article progress into a NPOV-friendly article. Kind Regards, Qadri fan (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Third party opinion

See: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab

I agree with ClaretAsh's summary above. The see also links are already included in the article. The youtube link is specially not appropriate for the external links section, IslamQ&A isn't either. No comment on ahya.org. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't necessarily mind the see also links. Ahya.org is definitely POV... but maybe it can be included as a Wahhabist POV of Abd al-Wahhab? Youtube is generally inappropriate.VR _talk 05:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That source is already included to support a claim that the subject went to Mecca and Medina. However, it doesn't support the statement by itself, being balanced with another source as well as a clarifying note regarding variations between official sources on that particular topic. I removed it from the external links section as to include it thus suggests POV. As a source for a minor claim, though, and in conjunction with others, I don't consider it inappropriate, especially considering the status and topic-relevance of the source's author. ClaretAsh 06:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Problems with Arabic sources

I had previously edited the page without referencing my edits,so as a result my edits were removed.The problem is my sources are mainly Arabic because it's my first language but I find it difficult to reference an Arabic page without using Google translation for non-Arabic speakers to understand.Google translation is pretty useless when translating full paragraphs or articles,for an example see this page:http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alnourparty.org%2Fpage%2Fanswer Google Translation renders the source rather useless. How can I reference Arabic pages without having to use Google translation and if I don't use it will my edits get removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sami nasri (talk • contribs) 03:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

interwiki

There was no interwiki to his movement, Wahhabi, and his ideal background, Salafi. So I added those to lead and infobox. Yakamoz51 (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ibn Abdul Wahhab's Death

It seems very peculiar that there is no mention of this man's death, it's circumstances or significance.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yusuf-al-amriki (talk • contribs) 08:28, 14 May 2006‎ (UTC)

Gay claims

Mention the claims that he was gay!--88.111.117.55 (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Lede neutrality

I'm somewhat concerned by language like "detractors" and "totally alien". Where are we getting these phrases from? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I also find problematic the phrase, "...was an Arabian Islamic scholar and founder of a movement that sought to eradicate anti-Islamic practices that had cropped up in Arabia in the 18th century (examples being seeking solace on the graves and burial grounds of various individuals, etc.)." Eradicate anti-Islamic practices... according to whom are these practices anti-Islamic? Ditto for "participants of this reform effort." I recommend rewording the lede as follows:

Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (Arabic: محمد بن عبد الوهاب; 1703 – 22 June 1792) was an Arabian Islamic scholar and founder of a movement that sought to eradicate practices that had cropped up in Arabia in the 18th century and which he claimed to be anti-Islamic. Opponents of this movement coined the term "wahabi" or "wahabism", though neither Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab nor any of the movement's participants referred to themselves as such. His pact with Muhammad bin Saud helped to establish the first Saudi state and began a dynastic alliance and power-sharing arrangement between their families which continues to the present day in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The descendants of Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab, the Al ash-Sheikh, have historically led the ulama in the Saudi state, dominating the state's clerical institutions.

References

Note, I didn't check the sources to make sure what's written is true--I only tried to make the language more neutral.Ljpernic (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's good, except that the article Wahhabi movement spells it with two "h"s. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 12:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Fraudulent book attributed to his brother

It is known among historians of the region that while Ibn Abdul Wahhab's father and brother initially disapproved of his movement, they eventually retracted their criticisms. It is also known that the book attributed to Ibn Abdul Wahhab's brother was written by an Iraqi author with a similar name. This is not even a secret or something only known to academics in the Arabic language, but since the mid-2000s followers of Sufism in the Western world have brought up this claim, knowing that many in the West do not know Arabic and can't look at the primary sources to confirm or deny.

With that in mind, I would like for concerned editors to have a look at the citation used to support this claim which is now in the English version of this article. It links to a book on Google Books but the actual page isn't available. I would like to see what this source actually says though either way, it should be noted that this is simply a claim of some individuals. In Arabic, followers of Sufism who disagree with Wahhabism gave up on this claim long ago once it was disproven, and it only seems to be some English speakers that still cling to this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Due to lack of response, I am going to be WP:BOLD and simply remove the reference to this book. I don't deny that it could possibly be contained within the given source; but without a version online, and given that it's citing a known fabrication - again, there have been more than one research pieces by historians in the Middle East showing that this book was written by an Iraqi who only had a similar sounding name to the subject's brother - I think it's reasonable that it be removed until a better, clearer source can be found. Even then, the way that it is presented should adhere to WP:NPOV; some people claim that the subject's brother wrote this book. The fact that it is a claim should be made clear, as well as the fact that counter-claims exist. As abhorrent as much of the modern world finds the fundamentalist movement of the subject, neutrality must still be adhered to; there is no reason to exaggerate or paint any individual in a better or worse light than reliable sources can show. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo is there a data on the dubious claim of him murdering his brother for criticizing him? [1] has written pretty much about it (and devoted his life to it), but non with authority. Messiaindarain (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead neutrality and possible disputed factual accuracy

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

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?

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 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

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[2] 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. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Section "Contemporary recognition" lacking sources

I cannot find sources/references for following statments: 1) "strict prohibition of visiting such sites (including mosques)" What does this mean? Visiting Madina After hajj is ok. Including Al-Masjid an-Nabawi with the grave of Muhammed, Abi Bakr and Umar, Am Baqi', Quba Mosque, Jannat al-Mu'alla and Hirā' 2) "Saudi government renovated the tomb of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab"an d Which tomb? It Was A unmarked grave. Tombs are against Wahhab's doctrine 3) "an important place of visitation within the kingdom's modern borders" Visiation here means Ziyara, this is an insult against the saudi. An unproven polemic. The references do not back this, only the touristic attraction.--Yortas (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Yortas: You're right, that material seems to be an unsourced polemic. I've reinstated your edit with some copy editing. Eperoton (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Sfn references do not lead anywhere

References such as Abir 1987: 4, 5, 7; Metz 1992; Philby 1930: 8 etc. (about two dozen of examples) do not lead to any sources. This should be fixed. --Obsuser (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Strange Obsession with removing Calligraphic image on this particular page

There is no sense in removing this image, as there is such a calligraphic image on nearly every page about an Islamic scholars. See: Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Majah, Abu Dawood, Ibn Qayyim, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Ibn Kathir, Muhammad al-Bukhari etc. The list goes on.

Frankly I am concerned about whether this image is being removed due the personal bias of some people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suleman14b (talk • contribs) 08:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Suleman14b: The problem is that there is no benefit from it. It was designed using Photoshop by a random guy in Wikipedia and it contains something like "God bless his soul" which is something that I think is not acceptable in Wikipedia and again there is no educational benefit from this photo. I understand that there are also calligraphic images for other articles but that's not a valid reason to put a made up image that praise him in this article (don't count the prophet Muhammad photo and Sahaba because these images are from Masjid Al Haram.) Many Muslims from both Shia and Sunni sides don't like this guy and he was a politician that many people didn't like. --SharabSalam (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The only one that looks like this image from the examples you gave is the one in Ibn Taymiyyah which I removed since it contains something like May Allah bless his soul. Many Muslims (Shia, Sofis and Sunnis) don't like Ibn Taymiyyah. Ibn Taymiyyah said that Sufis and Shia are not believing in one God (Mushrikin) so it would be not a NPOV to put a photo of his name and praise his soul. I will also soon start a proposal to remove all of calligraphic images that have no benefit nothing educational and not valuable.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: You see Wikipedia doesn't work according to your (or anyone else's) whims and wishes. Wikipedia is supposed to to be non-partisan and unbiased. And your Section entitled "Photo" at the bottom of this talk page clearly shows you are biased against him, hence any statement or reason you give is not without ulterior motive.

Just because you or some other people don't like him, doesn't mean you can remove media. According to this logic, all of the calligraphic images on any Islamic page should be removed, just because some group disagrees with it.

Just because you don't wish blessings upon Ibn Taymiyyah or Ibn Abdul Wahab doesn't mean there aren't others who do. You might as well go and vandalise Christian pages because you don't agree with them.

The calligraphic image is in the public domain, and it is perfectly fine to use it. None of the pages I mentioned above are of Sahaba. They are all of "Muslim Scholars" of which Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab was one.

Your reasons for removing the image are sectarian, which is not allowed here. I am adding the image back, and I request you or anyone else does not remove it. I also request anyone else reading this to support Wikipedia's unbiased nature.

@Suleman14b: my opinion on him is not the reason for the deletion. This is about maintaining Wikipedia NPOV "blessing his soul" or "May God have mercy on him" is not even acceptable to prophet Muhammad. You can't say prophet Muhammad peace be upon him in wikivoice and remember it's an own work a made up photo. Also (and this is not related to my objection,) not just some people the whole community of Shia and 3/4 of Sunni Muslim don't like Muhammed Ibn Abdulwahhab who is mainly a politician and those who like him are called Wahhabis who hold the same ideology as ISIS and the Saudi regime. The ideology of intolerance.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your stated reason of removal. If someone knows Arabic and wants to remove that part so that only name is left, then calligraphy image can be put back. This way, that phrase should not be even used at all – next to non-prophets' names. --Obsuser (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Calligraphy section

The image used in the infobox, File:محمد بن عبد الوهاب.png, is under Creative Commons as the uploader's own work. On the one hand, it's calligraphy; on the other, we wouldn't allow an artist's rendering of a company logo to appear in lieu of the genuine logo. Is it fitting to use calligraphy this way? —C.Fred (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

One's name is not a company logo. There is nothing genuine (in a way that it can be protected by any copiright rule) in the calligraphy representation of anyone's name. So, I think using calligraphy that way is completely OK but after the problem with extra undesired (and unfit!) text is resolved. --Obsuser (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Photo

Hi I recently deleted the photo of this article that only has Abulwahhab name and "God put mercy on him" which is equivalent to "rest in peace" . The photo is made by a random guy who just wrote that and almost no one use it except Wikipedia . I think this is disrespectful to many Muslims who believe that this guy was a disgraceful for Muslims. Me as a Sunni Muslim think this guy is in hell. SharabSalam (talk) 05:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

That phrase (as I know) is used only for 25 Quran prophets (and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab was not one of them); also, that phrase is not equivalent to "rest in peace" at all. Who would use it from Commons if not Wikipedia at first... It is not about disrespectfullness of that phrase only for Muslims but also about incovenience for others (if it was applicable whatsoever, better example of that incovenience but with validity). It is not good to express opinions that are irrelevant here on talk pages, if you continue – that will be described as trolling vandalism and you will be blocked. --Obsuser (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

رحمه الله ‘may God have mercy on him’ is a generic honorific for a dead Islamic religious personality. By confusing it with the honorific for the prophets (عليه السلام) you have disqualified yourself from editing articles about Islam.

Please, get your sectarian nonsense out of Wikipedia. There is no reason this article about one of the most important Islamic scholars of the last centuries should stand apart by not having the calligraphy. 95.79.223.70 (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The sectarianism need to end. Just accept that a huge part of the Islamic nations admires and study the works of Muhammed Ibn Abdul Wahab. I don't see you guys delete or complain about the pictures of the Shia imams. AmirsamanZare (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I am a Sunni Muslim.

رحمه الله ‘may God have mercy on him’ is a generic honorific for a dead Islamic religious personality

You said it!, "honorific"!. Wikipedia generally doesn't include honorific terms let alone phrases (see MOS:HONOUR).

Also, I know what رحمه الله means, I am an Arab. The phrase is equivalent to the English "rest in peace".

I don't see you guys delete or complain about the pictures of the Shia imams.

I actually have tried to delete them. I generally don't think we need own-work Arabic calligraphy. Many Sunnis denounce the ideas of Ibn Abdul-Wahhab that inspired terrorists. Maybe this is why I am focusing here more.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

In addition to that, I have a concern about the notability of this work. For example, can you draw a person- lets say I drew Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab's picture from my mind, can I use that drawing in Wikipedia?

And what is the educational purpose of these pictures. These images can be deleted from Wikimedia commons if they weren't used in Wikipedia projects per Commons:COM:SCOPE which says that the media file must be "realistically useful for an educational purpose".

I also want to note that some pictures like the one in Ali are notable because they are from Hagia Sophia.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Wording in "notable ideas" field of Infobox, citation linking to primary source having nothing to do with article sentence

Contested Edits

• this
• and this

@GenoV84: As I explained in the edit summaries, "Replaced "absolute monotheism" with "puritanism", as he can't be said to be the one who introduced the doctrine of "absolute monotheism", as affirmed by brown p.245, he called for a return to it.", ""Replaced "oppposition to religious innovations" to "opposition to sufism", more specific" - this is supported by sources in the article and other sources, we can bring them and discuss them on the talk page if you'd like. I do not contest that we find the wording in the source, but the infobox details "notable idea(s)" and "absolute monotheism" is not a new idea.

I will revert the infobox content and await for your reply, please try and come to a consensus on here rather than reverting, biting on my talk page or leaving a misleading edit summary that lumps me in with IP vandals. ParthikS8 (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@ParthikS8: Thank you for your reply. I'm fully aware that Wahhab didn't invent the concept of "absolute, unadulterated monotheism" within Islam, and that he wasn't the first to criticize religious innovations, prayers and devotional practices towards saints, tombs and shrines within Islam; in fact, the sources clearly state that he was considered (and regarded himself) more as a puritanical-revivalist preacher and reformer rather than an experienced scholar, but his "uncompromising message of strict monotheism that shunned many popular religious practices", which he deemed idolatrous, constitutes the ideological core of Wahhab's doctrine and theology, and, as I said before, the sources state that he criticized and opposed devotional practices that were widespread among all Sunni Muslims during his lifetime, not only those who adhered to Sufism; in fact, his own family and brother, who were Hanbali jurists just like him, rejected his teachings alongside most Islamic scholars... and they were not Sufis. Therefore, to make Wahhab simply look like an anti-Sufi puritan would be incorrect and a misrepresentation of his religious thought. Moreover, I disagree with presenting Wahhab's doctrine as "Salafi", because that would be partially incorrect: according to David Commins, the tendency to refer to Wahhab's doctrine as Salafi "is a recent development that first emerged among Wahhabism's defenders outside Arabia well before Wahhabis themselves adopted the term."--GenoV84 (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@GenoV84:

Thanks for the reply, I'd like to apologise for my rudeness above.

I very much agree with you that he was not just opposed to Sufism, as you have shown (although you didn't cite a particular source to show his father/brother were non-Sufis, I think we will both agree that he was opposed to more than just Sufism, based off the sources in the article). The question now is one of compromise and wording. I think we should keep the point on puritanism and sufism, as I have provided an explicit source for these in the article. At the same time, I agree with you that we would be mischaracterising him if we said that he was solely opposed to Sufism.

Currently it says,

Puritanism,
opposition to Sufism

I think that first these should be made seperate ideas, so

Puritanism
Opposition to Sufism

On the third line we should use a term that captures exactly what he is against. Previously, the notable ideas field said

opposition to religious innovations within Islam

I am not sure this quite captures all that he was against and it seems to make a judgement that which he opposed were innovations (and such judgements are not for Wikipedia to make). I would suggest "Opposition to perceived religious innovations within Islam" but this is far too long, we need something succinct.

As for him representing Salafi doctrine, this is simply what is reported by numerous sources.

In summary, I suggest we keep "Puritanism" on the first line, and then put "Opposition to Sufism", on the next line down, and finally we should think of what to put on the third line. I am personally drawing a blank. Perhaps you can find sources which expound on exactly what his brother/father opposed him in, as the article just says they opposed his doctrine. ParthikS8 (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

On a sidenote, you will note the title of this section.

The following IP, 2409:4070:4294:e626::1172:68a5, has re-added the content that both of us removed. Also numerous IPs seem to be adding content without sources/ explanation. Perhaps page protection is in order? ParthikS8 (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@ParthikS8:

It's fine, don't worry about that. Thank you for your suggestions, and... I think we should propose page protection if vandals continue with their disruptive editing, but for the moment we should limit ourselves to warn them.

Before I begin to address the issue with "Puritanism" and "Opposition to Sufism" (which I agree with), I want to clarify one of my previous statements: when I said, referring to Wahhab's doctrine, that qualifying it as "Salafi" is partially incorrect, I didn't mean that it's wrong, but simply that it would be anachronistic, because Wahhabis adopted the term "Salafi" as a self-designation much later. Indeed, Wahhab's first followers denominated themselves as ahl al-Tawhid and al-Muwahhidun ("Unitarians", or "those who affirm/defend the unity of God"), and were called Wahhabis by their opponents. According to Professor Abdullah Saeed, Wahhab should be considered one of the "Precursors" of the modern Salafi movement rather than a full-fledged modern Salafi, because he predates modern Salafism. Nevertheless, the Wahhabi movement is considered "the most influential expression of Salafism of the Islamist sort, both for its role in shaping (some might say: 'creating') modern Islamism, and for disseminating salafi ideas widely across the Muslim world."--GenoV84 (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's brother, Sulayman ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, and their father, 'Abd al-Wahhab, they both disagreed with Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and didn't share his doctrinal statements because they considered his teachings, and the way Wahhab intended to impose them in Arabia, too extreme and intolerant. According to the Arabian historian and Mufti of Mecca, Ahmad ibn al-Zayni Dahlan's account of the dispute between Wahhab and his brother Sulayman:

Sulayman [ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab] once asked his brother Muhammad [ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab], "How many are the pillars of Islam?" "Five," he answered. Sulayman replied, "No, you have added a sixth one: He who does not follow you is not a Muslim. This, to you, is the sixth pillar of Islam."

Therefore, I think that the most appropriate insertion as the first line would be "Wahhabism", because it comprises Wahhab's theology and religious thought as a whole, then "Salafi Puritanism" as the second line and "Opposition to Sufism" as the third line, although he also opposed and criticized Shia Islam and the Ottoman Empire (the latter on a political and religious level), but these aren't new or notable ideas, as well as his opposition to Sufism and his puritanical-reformist approach to Sunni Muslim practices that he considered shirk and/or bidʻah.... In summary, if we had to indicate a specifically new and notable idea attributable only to Wahhab, it would be Wahhabism itself, since Wahhab is the founder of Wahhabism.--GenoV84 (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier, I very much agree with your suggestions and have gone ahead and enacted them. Happy editing, ParthikS8 (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Notes/Citations

References

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2021

Change "rafidah, which is an extreme Islamic sect" to "rafidah, which he regarded as an extreme Islamic sect".

Note: His view was subjective, so the article needs to make it clear that that was his view rather than stating it as a fact. David.webb271327 (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

From what I'm reading, it's the view of the source material, not the view of Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab, so the requested change would not be accurate. If this change should be made, you would need to provide a different source to be cited, and there may need to be a consensus supporting the change if we wind up with source material that says different things. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)