Talk:Wahhabism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Untitled

http://www.meforum.org/2514/a-saudi-view-of-orientalism Mazin S. Motabbagani (or, in accurate transcription, al-Mutabaqani) is assistant professor of Orientalism at King Saud University in Riyadh, and head of the Occidental Studies Unit in the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, also in Riyadh. Born a Jordanian by origin in 1950, he submitted his doctoral thesis in 1993 to the faculty of Islamic propagation at Riyadh's Muhammad bin Saud Islamic University where he also taught. Motabbagani's thesis, like most of his later academic work, focuses on Orientalism (al-istishraq), the study of Islam and the Muslim world by Western scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.255.183.58 (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Re secondary ISBNs

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

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

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

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

"No point in citing both a hardback and a paperback"

Surely, there should be only one isbn. If they are different formats/editions, then potentially other parameters will be different too: publication date, publisher, even page number. Makes no sense to me to have two. DeCausa (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Potentially, yes, but not surely. In some cases books are issued in (typically) hard-back and paper-back that are otherwise identical. If an editor is confident that is the case, I think it makes much more sense to have two ISBNs than two full-references that differ only in the ISBN. But (did you read my second paragraph?) I propose you all work that out elsewhere; here I am only showing how that can be implemented, without the errors currently obtained. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know but I'm adding a proposal to this thread: all second isbns to be deleted. I see no point in having two for any one citation. There is no point in citing both a hardback and paperback edition. Only one has any utility. DeCausa (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You are going into a sub-topic, so you should have split off a sub-section (as I have just done). As to "see[ing] no point in having two", I just showed you: to avoid nearly identical references. Also, a reader, wanting to check the source, might not know there is an identical edition in paperback, so there is utility in putting that information up front. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

"you should have split off a sub-section". No...You've invented your own personal TPO there, but, meh, whatever. "I've just showed you: to avoid nearly identical references". There is no need to have two references for the same work in the first place. "A reader, wanting to check the source, might not know there is an identical edition" Huh? Citations aren't for providing a library catalogue - what a pointless waste of Wikimedia kb's. It makes no sense and fortunately, what you have suggested is not normal practice. No need to do anything other than the norm here. DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

  You seem unable to grasp the distinction between how to do something, and whether to do something. A failing which rather makes any discussion of the point futile — you just don't get it.

  But try considering this: if some source comes in two forms that differ only in their cover (hardback or paper), and thus have different ISBNs, and one editor consults and cites one, and another editor the other, are separate full citations required, that differ only in the ISBN?

  Speaking of wasted kilobytes — yeah, we're up to two of them here. Ironically, the changes I suggest pretty much make no net difference in size; your "pointless waste" comment is itself totally pointless. Please try to focus on more pertinent comments. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You've opened a thread about how to do it. I don't care about that. I think it shouldn't be done. I've hijacked your precious thread. You're pissed with that. I dont care about that either. I'm going to delete the unnecesary isbns unless anyone else wants to keep them. Yep, I think I've pretty much "grasped" it. DeCausa (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Demonstrating that you have nothing pertinent to say. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Toddy1, agreed. That's why each citation should have only one edition and isbn. DeCausa (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

section on practices

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

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

It's not a great article generally so anything that helps to bring out Wahhabism's key features more than currently stated is to be welcomed. However, I'm not sure about what you have added. I want to look at it more closely but on a first read it looks like you've equated Saudi practices with Wahhabi practices, but there is a difference between what is dictated by the Nejdi/Hejazi cultural inheritance of Islam and what is dicated by Wahhabi doctrine. They're not the same. DeCausa (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Having looked at it again, what you've added are practices in Saudi Arabia rather than what is specifically attributable to Wahhabi doctrine with the possible exception of the paragraph that begins "Thaqafah Islamiyyah". I think to include it here you have to establish that it is derived from Wahhabi doctrines specifically - otherwise it's more appropriate for Islam in Saudi Arabia. Many practices you mention are not distinctively Wahhabi: for instance, the paragraph on gender includes the phrase "like many conservative Muslims". I don't think there is anything inherently Wahhabi about the Muttawa either: other Islamic cultures have similar arrangements, see Islamic religious police. My suggestion is that the paragraph that begins "Thaqafah Islamiyyah" could usefully be added to the beliefs section, but unless you have sources that specifically attribute the other aspects to Wahhabism, then they are more appriate to Islam in Saudi Arabia. That's just my view. DeCausa (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The Kingdom of SA was founded on an alliance with Ibn Abd al-Wahhab. If Ibn Abd al-Wahhab issued a fatwa urging Muslims pledge loyalty to Al-Saud, was that a "practice in Saudi Arabia" and not "distinctively Wahhabi"? How about the al-Ikhwan? Were they "distinctively Wahhabi" and their killers following a practice of Saudi Arabia? and Ibn Baz? was he not really "distinctively Wahhabi"? THis could get pretty absurd.

What I would agree with is adding something about there being two tendencies in Wahhabism -- namely those obedient to the Council of Senior Scholars and royal family and those opposed to them. I can find sources on that. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Disagree. The edits make a pretty clear distinction. Your link above leads to a blank page in the book. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't: I can read the link. It makes a similar point to the one I was making. You've conflated conservative Islam as it is in KSA with the specifics of Wahhabism. You think it's the same thing, but it isn't. I gave examples of the mistake you made above, but if you don't see it, good luck...I've got too many other things on at the moment to get into this. DeCausa (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Found the text. Will attempt to add it BoogaLouie (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I also want to back off a point. Yes, I was wrong, some/many of the practices of wahhabism I mentioned are shared by other conservative Muslims. But does that mean they should not be mentioned? especially in light of the fact that conservative Islam in the Muslim world would not have near the strength it has -- would not exist in some places -- without the tens of billions of dollars spend by the foundations and government of the KSA since the 1970s to promote Wahhabi Islam? --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Decausa, do you have a source on how "there is a difference between what is dictated by the Nejdi/Hejazi cultural inheritance of Islam and what is dicated by Wahhabi doctrine"? This sound a bit like distinguishing between American democracy and the political system of United States. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Not to hand, and without spending time searching. But I really don't understand the point of the section you've created. The "Beliefs" section covers the main distinctive areas of Wahhabism, but not necessarily very well. It would be better to put effort into that section and improve it by finding further sources on expanding those areas. Just because it's something that's done in KSA doesn't automatically make it Wahhabism. It has to be traced back to the teachings of ibn Abd al-Wahhab in some way. For example, I've never seen a serious source attribute the driving issue to to Wahhabism. That has always been attributed to Saudi societal factors. The fact that it has been supported by ulema who happen to also be Wahhabi from time to time doesn't make it "Wahhabi". What makes an issue Wahhabi is a derivation from one of the principles ennunciated by ibn Abd al-Wahhab which is set out in the Beliefs section. Any else is better suited to Islam in Saudi Arabia. I've said more than I intended to on this. DeCausa (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You "don't understand the point" of the practices section?

I don't know where to begin in replying.

• Are not the practices of a religion an important part of a religion?
• Would you disqualify Sunday services and cerebrating Christmas from an article on Christianity because Jesus didn't practice them?
• What are users of wikipedia more likely to be looking for in an article on Wahhabis? the finer points of whether Ibn Abd al-Wahhab totally or partially condemned taqlid, (".... or blind adherence, only at scholarly level in the face of a clear evidence or proof from a hadeeth or Qur'anic text")? Or what is considered haram by wahhabis?
• Is not Wahhabism profoundly intertwined with religious practices in the Najd, (and which had many syncretic practices before ibn Abd al-Wahhab, so I've read)?
• What sources say that Wahhabism is limited to practices directly linked to ibn Abd al-Wahhab? Are not practices of people widely identified as "Wahhabis" part of Wahhabism?
• Here is an excerpt from New Encyclopedia of Islam by Cyril Glasse (a convert), typed out by myself:

"Wahhabism is noted for its policy of compelling its own followers and other Muslims strictly to observe the religious duties of Islam, such as the five prayers, under pain of flogging at one time, and for the enforcement of public morals to a degree not found elsewhere" (p.470)

Is that serious enough for you?

Are you going to tell us that Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Saudi Arabia) is not part of wahhabism because the original Wahhabis were volunteers and the mutaween are paid? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Do what you will with this article. I don't have time to interfere. I've already pointed out to you that the Saudi Muttaween are not unique and have existed as an institution outside of Wahhabism. The Glasse quote? So what? I don't see your point. Anyway good luck with this. You'll turn it into an article that should be renamed Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia. DeCausa (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I plan to integrate some of the information into the Islam in Saudi Arabia article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Also hope to add more nuance to the section distinguishing between ulema. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

This article is a false and has no honesty. It is written with bad intent to Wahhabism. Be carfull it may has a legal consequences.

You convert Wikipedia as a fight Zone for mutilate your enemies. not a place for knoweledge.

Big text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.246.181.41 (talk)

Fact is, no one calls himself a "Wahhabi" . Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Saudis use the terms "Islam"(to denote their religion) , "Sunnism/Ahlul Sunna wal Jama'ah"( to denote their Denomination) and "Salafiyya"(to denote their methodology). Thus, they identify as "Muslims", "Sunnis" and "Salafis" respectively. In terms of jurisprudence Saudis are mostly Hanbalis and some are Malikis. There are also Zaahiris and Ahl-i Hadith (who don't adhere to a madhab) and in general they accept Shafi'i and Hanafi too, and individually there maybe some Saudis who belong to these schools Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Check this out: Ahl al-Hadith

In the contemporary sense, it refers to a reformist movement. The term Ahl al-Hadith is often used interchangeably with the term Salafi or as a branch of the latter movement. The Ahl al-Hadith are often called Wahhabis by their adversaries, though the movement itself claims to be distinct from Wahhabism. The movement has the most adherents in the Indian subcontinent, where it possesses some notable distinctions from the Salafi movement, most of whose adherents are found in the Arab world and Indonesia. The combined number of adherents in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan are estimated to range between 59-64 million. In the modern era, the movement draws both inspiration and financial support from Saudi Arabia.

BoogaLouie (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Problem with cite

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

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

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

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

Number of Wahhabi

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

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

Hi, Not entirely surprising. World Christian Encyclopedia, published 2001, gives a figure of 7 million worldwide, though I would say that is slightly on the low side.--Peaceworld 11:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

That would be 1/4 of the population of Saudi and leave no room for any Wahhabis elsewhere! --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

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

This article is a false and has no honesty. It is written with bad intent to Wahhabism. Be carfull it may has a legal consequences. You convert Wikipedia as a fight Zone for mutilate your enemies. not a place for knoweledge.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.246.181.41 (talk)

Inclusion of section for criticism of the appellation 'Wahhabi'

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

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

Khaled Abou El Fadl lack real knewldge in Wahhabi> he is very bad choice as a refreance in this matter> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkhunani (talk • contribs) 08:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree I haven't met anyone who would refer to themselves as "Wahhabi" in Saudi Arabia. actually it's only heard US news outlets like "madrasahs" which just means SCHOOLS for goodness sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.184.3.98 (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Dispute over lede

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

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

replacing it with this:

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

Problem is

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

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