![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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.
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, Claret Ash 00:00, 7 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. Claret Ash 12:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
Mention the claims that he was gay!-- 88.111.117.55 ( talk) 19:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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.
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)
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)
رحمه الله ‘may God have mercy on him’ is a generic honorific for a dead Islamic religious personality
I don't see you guys delete or complain about the pictures of the Shia imams.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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.
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, Claret Ash 00:00, 7 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. Claret Ash 12:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
Mention the claims that he was gay!-- 88.111.117.55 ( talk) 19:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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.
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)
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)
رحمه الله ‘may God have mercy on him’ is a generic honorific for a dead Islamic religious personality
I don't see you guys delete or complain about the pictures of the Shia imams.