Talk:Wahhabism

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)

There is NO wahhabism. They only label us as 'Wahhabis' to scare People and make us look like terrorists. The truth is, salafis do not say using technology for dawah is bid'ah and kill Muslims unlawfully. We do not believe in actions that will harm the muslims, as in we do not revolt against leaders where in the end, innocent people die. That is the ideology of the khawarij:terrorists, extremists with no care for human life. That's why people killed uthman bin affan and ali bin Abi talib. They claimed them as non Muslims for silly reasons and killed them in that way. ISIS lured people by saying "if you don't join Islamic state you are non muslim".

A good example of this is when Ahmad bin hanbal was tormented and imprisoned by mutaizilah-muslims who deny Allah's affirmed attributes and claim the Qur'an was created. "The Qur'an is the speech of Allah" he said and he forbid his followers from revolting for fear of the rest of the Muslims

bin

Being harmed. The only time revolting against the ruler is allowed is it the ruler apostates, and it must be from a trustworthy source.

People mainly label us as we refute innovated actions in the religion.there are many ayat in the Qur'an that say not to innovate ideas and split the religion. I would

ll reference an ayah but I'm sure where it's from. Allah states(something like this along the same lines):" do not be of the disbelievers. Of those who split their religion and became sects, each sect in what they innovated rejoicing. " may Allah forgive me if my translation was wrong.

The person who sprouted terrorism nowadays is sayyid qutb, leader of Muslim brotherhood, an ideology where they will accept any innovated beliefs and use that tolerance to gain power.

Check where you gain information from. There are terrorists who will say ' Im salafi ' but they are so deviated that they worship Allah on the edge of a cliff, below which is the hellfire. Religious Conspiracy Theorist (sus) (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

thank you for explaining that more clearly. 108.24.1.166 (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 19 December 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. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

---

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Relisting comment: For a clearer consensus. – robertsky (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Islam has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 06:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

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.

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab.jpg
• محمد بن سعود.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Splitting sections

Iskandar323, criticism section can be expanded in the other article. Criticism sections of religious movements and ideologies are given seperate articles. Comparison with other Salafi movements can also have a seperate. In the history section, some texts can be summarised to shorten the points but thats probably it. Most the events described are relevant to the main article.

Or one must take the tedious task of summarising the entire history section in this article, while making a seperate history section article. Also note that to reduce core sections while maintaining the criticism section, while it has its own seperate article; leads to WP:BIAS; which is another reason to have a seperate article for it.

shadowwarrior8 (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Shadowwarrior8: Hi, ok, so the facts are these: the article is currently 150kB of readable prose, 50% more than the recommended length at which WP:SPLIT states an article: "Almost certainly should be divided". And the only two sections that are so large that their removal would be able to make a major dent in the size of the article are "History" and "Views". Now the main function of an article about a religious branch /group /movement is to outline what that group is, its believe, views and practices, so "Views" is absolutely essential to the core subject of the article. That leaves us with history, for which there is a longstanding Wikipedia practice of creating "History of X" child articles to achieve precisely the kind of page size reduction that we needs here, and I do not personally find the idea of summarizing the history section all that daunting. I find it is far easier to be selective when it is known that the material is preserved in full elsewhere. On the contrary, for reasons already mentioned, I disagree with the use of removing the criticism section. This would simply create two unbalanced articles, here and the child. Here, there would be support and no criticism, and in the child there would be criticism, but not counter-criticism. Here, on the other hand, the balance can never be fundamentally ruptured so long as there are both support and criticism sections operating together in tandem. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I mostly agree. I would also like to point out that "Comparison with other Salafiyya movements" can also be summarised and made into a seperate article. @Iskandar323 Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps, or simply just better summarized - there are a lot of lengthy paragraphs in that section with just a single reference located at the end. Whether these are single-sourced or just partially unsourced, the representation is undue. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so - since you are responsible for most of this article, shall I leave it to you to copy the history across to "History of Wahhabism" (currently a redirect) and take credit for that page's creation? I will then assist with summarizing here. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Since this will be a big split, care needs to be taken to follow WP:PROPERSPLIT and properly attribute this article as the source for the content and the place to go to understand the attribution and history of the copied content/sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I have moved the relevant contents to History of Wahhabism. The article prosesize is reduced to 92 KB. Now we need to summarize the History section Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

There are just a couple of broken refs to deal with, but I'll try and fix them. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Done ... it's kinda nuts that it's still only just below the 100kB theshold. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Wahhabism is a incorrect western term

first of all his name is Muhammad and his father is wahhabi. To be correct you should call them Muhammadi. Buy that's not correct either. The correct term is salafism. Because salafi literally means pious predecessor and it's derived from the name for 3 generations of the companions of the prophet Mohammad saw namely salaf al salih that means the pious predecessors. So if you're against this you're automatically against the prophet Mohammad saw and the companions Ra. Salafism is not only in Saudi it's all over the world. Everybody that follows the way of Muhammad saw and of the companions Ra they're salafi's. The other sects follow their desires and want to give it their spin to it. But the Sunnah contradicts their believes. And the we the traditionalists, salafi's, the people that adhere to the Sunnah of the prophet Mohammad saw and the companions Ra we confront them with the truth and they don't like it. Because they're innovators that are committing idolatry which is forbidden in islam. It will take you out of the fold of Islam. So people don't let yourselfs get fooled. Do your research. Don't let them demonise our pious predecessors and scholars. May Allah guide you all. 196.77.249.186 (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

may Allah reward you and aid us salafis. Jazakallahu khairan for helping clarity the truth. Religious Conspiracy Theorist (sus) (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Still a bit long

@Shadowwarrior8: If you have some spare energy, it would be good to build on the progress we made with the splitting off of the history section. I don't necessarily think anything else needs to be split, but I think that quite a lot of sections with their own existing child articles could potentially be better summarized/trimmed of the more undue, overly detailed or poorly supported content. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 I shall trim that particularly large "Militant & Political Islam" sub-section in International influence and propagation and move it to a seperate section in International propagation of Salafism and Wahhabism article. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we also need to do something about "Definitions and etymology" - it's fairly of control. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Definitions

This section needs to be sorted through and turned into a useful, prose summary. The list that currently exists in place of this is just the sourcing, the first part of the job, with the write-up left incomplete. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Demande d'édition semi-protégée le 31 octobre 2023

Le Le terme Wahhabisme est attribué auShaykh Muhhammad AbdulWahhab car il fut l'un de ceux qui ont revivifié l'appel au tawhid (l'unicité) dans la moitié du 12ème siècle après l'hégire (1750). Il fut épaulé dans cette revivification par le prince, l'imam Muham-mad Ibn Saud,. L'affiliation au Wahhabisme est utilisée par les ennemis de l'islam, les ennemis du tawhid, les ennemis de la sounnah, et ce jusqu'à ce que chaque ennemi de la sounnah et du tawhid traite les gens du tawheed et de la sounnah de wahhabites, et ceci en référence au terme wahhabisme. De même ce qualificatif ne lui a jamais été attribué par les savants de la da'wah (l'appel) de son vivant, ni attribué à ses enfants, petits enfants et frères dans la da'wah et ce jusqu'à notre époque. Et personne n'utilise ce terme si ce n'est les gens des superstitions, les gens des innovations, les gens du shirk. Ils sont ceux qui attribuent les gens de la sounnah à ceci...De plus,la croyance du Sheikh Muhammad ibn abd el wahhab n'est autre que la croyance SALAFIYYAH qui n'est pas TERRORISTE,le terrorisme n'a rien à voir avec la salfiyyah ,les terroristes ont eux une croyance DEXAGERATION qui n'est pas la croyance de la salafiyyah.

Le Minhaj as Salafi repose sur le Coran et la Sounnah authentique. C'est la religion de l'Islam pure, libérée de tout ajout, diminution ou altération. C'est adhérer à la voie du Messager (Mohammed e)et des vrais croyants, les pieux prédécesseurs (As-Salaf us-Salih).

As-Salaf est un terme général se référant aux pieux prédécesseurs de l'Islam et à tous ceux qui suivent leurs pas dans leur croyance, actes et morale.

La description de « Salafi » s'applique à toute personne qui se cramponne vraiment aux Salafs. Ce n'est pas l'attachement à une personne singulière ou à un groupe de personnes, c'est l'attachement à une voie qui ne se détournera jamais du chemin du Prophète (Mohammed) , de ses compagnons et de ceux qui les suivent vraiment. De plus la Salafia ne repose pas sur le fait de suivre un Cheikh en particulier ou un imam, c'est une adhésion au Coran et à la Sounnah authentique comme l'ont compris et pratiqués l'ensemble des pieux prédécesseurs (as-Salaf us-Salih).

Le véritable Salafi met en valeur le TAWHID qui est le fait de vouer tous nos actes d'adoration à Allah exclusivement : dans l'invocation, dans la demande du secours, dans l'appel au refuge dans la facilité et la difficulté, dans l'immolation, dans le serment, dans la crainte, dans l'espoir, dans la confiance totale en Lui ... Le véritable Salafi cherche activement à réprouver le CHIRK (polythéisme) par tous les moyens. Il sait que la victoire est impossible sans le Tawhid et que le Chirk ne peut se combattre par lui même (c'est-à-dire : ce n'est pas avec une forme de Chirk que l'on peut combattre le Chirk). Le véritable Salafi adhère à la Sounnah du Prophète (Paix et bénédiction d'Allah sur lui) et de ses compagnons après lui. 197.244.10.246 (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, this is the English Wikipedia, so you should write in English in most cases. If you want to suggest an edit to the French version of this article, please make the request at the talk page on the French Wikipedia. Liu1126 (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Relevance of this page relative to Salafi movement

As is mentioned in the article, "Wahhabism" does not seem to refer to any kind of distinct movement or philosophy within Islam or among its followers. Is it really justified for this page to even exist, since all the things described actually pertain to Salafism? In my opinion having this whole page for what is essentially an exonym is not only confusing, but actually problematic. It also seems to have been the opinion a few contributors on this page have tried to get through, albeit in a very engaged way. On the Salafism and International propagation of Salafism and Wahhabism pages they seem to be used almost interchangeably. Is there an historical distinction that has disappeared, or am I fundamentally misunderstanding something there? If it's the former then this page should probably be way shorter and focus on that in my opinion. Choucas Bleu (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Opposition to new, shorter, to-the-point lede

@Shadowwarrior8:

As-Salamu Alaykum,

Without edit warring and attacking a newcomer who spent time re-working the lede, please inform me what is wrong with the new lede, so that we can make changes if need be. Please also explain why you removed copious amounts of sourced material I added in. (contribs) אב דהן (talkpage) 16:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@AvDahan

Firstly, do not change anything to the lede without consulting with me and Iskandar323. We both have been working on this page and there was a consensus to the current version of the lede.

Secondly, do not engage in personal attacks. Focus on content, not the contributor. I pointed out discrepencies with your edit, not your personality.

Thirdly, do not engage in edit war.

Now coming back to the content, mention clearly what content you want to insert or remove from the current lede. There is nothing lengthy about a 4 para lede.

"a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate."

You also engaged in removal of sourced content from the lede, without re-instating that content in the body. We can have a discussion on this, and if it is found appropriate, we shall insert or remove content from the lede or in the body. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Shadowwarrior8: You still seem to have a love for biting the newcomer it seems! Not surprising for an editor who seems to engage in many edit wars and disputes, judging by your contributions. Your gatekeeping the lede with imperatives like "do not" is quite interesting, it is as if you believe you and the other editor own it. Perhaps you simply forgot to write, "Firstly, please do not change anything in the lede" - or have manners left us? Dear me.

Pointing out that you are a biter and lack civility is not a personal attack - or else you would be guilty of it yourself by accusing me thus.

I have engaged in an edit war have I? I believe you edited my change back just hours after I made it instead of discussing it on here first. Regardless, I will try not fall into 3RR myself, though the guilt of edit warring lies squarely with yourself. Unless one does count my one re-instating that took place weeks after you reverted my original edit, I have no history of edit warring whatsoever, whereas in your contributions we find many.

Perhaps, we got off on the wrong foot and need to change the tone of our language from barking orders as if we own the place and biting the newcomer, to being more collegial?

This would set a good environment in which to have a frank discussion on the lede.

What say you, brother? (contribs) אב דהן (talkpage) 03:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@AvDahan I think maybe you should avoid having bad faith assumptions about other editor's actions and communication styles. I did not issue any "orders" to you. I did not accuse you of editwarring either, I warned you from knowingly or unknowingly engaging in editwars, since you are a newcomer.

While I discuss in a civil manner, I prefer to be a bit sharp and to-the-point in my conversation style, inorder to stay focused on the content and avoid turning talk page discussions into a forum. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to have to ask: are you actually a newcomer or have you had previous accounts? Because this is an awful lot of knowledge of terms and detailed speech based on our behavioural policy. Most 50-edit editors wouldn't be waxing quite so lyrical about such things. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Whenever making sweeping changes to a stable-ish lead, regardless of how merited or not it is, it's always helpful to put a little effort into explaining the perceived issues and proposed alterations on talk, esp. if there's pushback. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: At least this was a more polite response.

I am happy to discuss the changes in redaction and new sourced material in depth, and why the new lede is superior, and if it is deemed necessary, I am sure between the three of us we can tweak it to produce something superior.

First, let me bring both of them to compare. (contribs) אב דהן (talkpage) 03:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Current

Wahhabism (Arabic: ٱلْوَهَّابِيَّة, romanized: al-Wahhābiyya) is a reformist religious movement within Sunni Islam, based on the teachings of 18th-century Hanbali cleric Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (c. 1703–1792).[1][a] The term "Wahhabism" is primarily an exonym; it was not used by Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab himself or his followers, who typically refer themselves as "Salafi", "Sunni" or "Muwahhidun".[b] The movement was initially established in the central Arabian region of Najd and later spread to other parts of the Arabian Peninsula,[c] and is today followed primarily in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Wahhabi movement opposed rituals related to the veneration of Muslim saints and pilgrimages to their tombs and shrines, which were widespread amongst the people of Najd. Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his followers were highly inspired by the influential Hanbali scholar Ibn Taymiyyah[d] (1263–1328 C.E/ 661 – 728 A.H) who advocated for a return to the purity of the first three generations (Salaf) to rid Muslims of inauthentic outgrowths (bidʻah), and regarded his works as core scholarly references in theology. While being influenced by Hanbali doctrines, the movement repudiated Taqlid to legal authorities, including oft-cited scholars such as Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim (d. 1350 C.E/ 751 A.H).[3]

Wahhabism has been variously characterized by historians as "orthodox", "puritan(ical)", or "revolutionary",[e] while its adherents describe it as an Islamic "reform movement" to restore "pure monotheistic worship". Socio-politically, the movement represented the first major Arab-led revolt against the Turkish, Persian and foreign empires that dominated the Islamic world since the Mongol invasions and the fall of Abbasid Caliphate in the 13th century; and would later serve as a revolutionary impetus for 19th-century pan-Arab trends.[f] In 1744, Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab formed a pact with a local leader, Muhammad bin Saud,[4] establishing a politico-religious alliance with the Saudi monarchy that lasted for more than 250 years. Wahhabi movement gradually rose to prominence as an influential anti-colonial reform trend in the Islamic world that advocated the re-generation of the social and political prowess of Muslims. Its revolutionary themes inspired several Islamic revivalists, scholars, pan-Islamist ideologues and anti-colonial activists as far as West Africa.[g]

For more than two centuries, Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab's teachings were championed as the official creed in the three Saudi States. As of 2017, changes to Saudi religious policy by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman have led to widespread crackdown on Islamists in Saudi Arabia and rest of the Arab world. By 2021, the waning power of the religious clerics brought forth by the social, economic, political changes, and Saudi government's promotion of a nationalist narrative that emphasize non-Islamic components he led to what has been described as the "post-Wahhabi era" of Saudi Arabia.[h] Saudi Arabia's annual commemoration of its founding day on 22 February since 2022, which marked the establishment of Emirate of Dir'iyah by Muhammad ibn Saud in 1727 and de-emphasized his pact with Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab in 1744, has led to the official "uncoupling" of the religious clergy by the Saudi state.[i]

Proposed

Wahhabism (Arabic: ٱلْوَهَّابِيَّة, romanized: al-Wahhābiyya) is a Islamic reform movement, based off of the teachings of the eponymous 18th-century savant and theologian Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab,[1][a] that lays an exclusive claim to representing the pure, orthodox (Sunni) and uncorrupted Islam.[b]

In particular, the movement champions the teaching that going to graves to seek blessings or saying "Ya Muhammad" is blasphemous polytheism (shirk) that makes one an infidel (Kafir) rather than being merely sinful.[3][4] It further teaches descriptions in the Quran of God's ascension, coming, having hands, face, eyes etc. are to be interpreted literally.[5][6][7] It further opposes rituals related to the veneration of Muslim saints and pilgrimages to their tombs and shrines, and many of the practices of Sufism that are popular in the Muslim world.[c] Whilst being influenced by Hanbali doctrines, the movement repudiates Taqlid (blind-following) of legal authorities, including oft-cited scholars such as Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim (d. 1350 C.E/ 751 A.H).[8]

Established in Najd, the movement is especially popular in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.[d] For more than two centuries through to the present, Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab's teachings were championed as the official form of Islam and the dominant creed in three Saudi states. As of 2017, changes to Saudi religious policy by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman have led to widespread crackdown on Sahwa movement extremist scholars in Saudi Arabia and rest of the Arab world. By 2021, the waning power of the religious clerics brought forth by the social, religious, economic, political changes, and a new educational policy asserting a "Saudi national identity" that emphasize non-Islamic components have led to what has been described as the "post-Wahhabi era" of Saudi Arabia.[e] The decision to celebrate the "Saudi Founding Day" annually on 22 February since 2022, to commemorate the 1727 establishment of Emirate of Dir'iyah by Muhammad ibn Saud, rather than the past historical convention that traced the beginning to the 1744 pact of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, have led to the official "uncoupling" of the religious clergy by the Saudi state.[f]

Discussion

Ok, I have added in both ledes, to allow for quick comparison. (contribs) אב דהן (talkpage) 03:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Some initial points of difference between the two:

• It is not my intention to remove any source material, and I believe I haven't.
• However, I have reworded some statements to better reflect source material, including new sources added.
• Main problem with current lede it is far too long and off-putting to get into the article. Guidance may state "four paragraphs", however these are chunky and off-putting paragraphs.
• There is also a lot of waffle and mention of subsidiary points that are supposed to be mentioned in the article below. (I moved some stuff on exonyms to the main article.)
• First paragraph: I (reader) need to know what immediately "Wahhabism" is, or at least what Wikipedia is claiming it to be. What defines it and then makes (supposedly) makes it different to any other theological trend or group? Two things: (westerners/outisders) define it as a "reformist movement" and the "adherants" view themselves simply as Sunni Muslims, to the exclusion of others who claim to be Sunnis. Done. No waffle about history or "term" is an exonym, that goes in the body, or perhaps a brief mention later on in the lede.
• Second paragraph: what are the actual beliefs that the movement restores/champions, that sets it apart from other Sunni-claimants? This can be immediately stated, succintly as I have done without waffle. This is new, sourced content for some part, though I re-worked some sources into here too.
• Third paragraph: a criticism of the current lede is the repetition. At the beginning we mention Saudi, last paragraph mentions Saudi again; we have repitition of Islamism in 3 and 4. No! Just state briefly the geographic locale of the start of Ibn AbdulWahhab's dawah, and some brief history there. If the reader is then interested further they can... read the article!
• No fourth paragraph, not needed, and just look how quickly you will finish reading those three!
• Current lede is incoherent in ideas of the main paragraph. Is the third paragraph about external characterisation or about history or what? It is all a bit of an incoherent mess.
• New lede is very structured, readable and coherent with 3 paragraphs with three clear ideas: 1) What is so-called "Wahhabism" in a nutshell. 2) What beliefs does the movement champion. 3) Brief intro to history. DONE.

Hope I have been detailed enough in this introductory statement of why the newer lede is superior. Now if there are specific points you would like to tweak or discuss, then we can do so and hopeful work towards instituting the newer, shorter and more coherent to-the-point lede. (contribs) אב דהן (talkpage) 03:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, the lede is a summary of the body of the article. The current version was agreed upon after re-structuring the previously un-organized page and carefully summarizing the most important points present in the body of the page. We also edited in the lede in such a way that is consistent with the lede section of other religious movements like Deobandism.

So to be brief,

1st para of the lede gives a brief description of the movement in 1 sentence, gives a summary of the etymology of the term "Wahhabi" (which is extensively dealt in the body of the page) and informs the readers about the regions where the movement is prevelant. This is exactly what is appropriate in the opening paragraph. You removed the latter two sentences and altered the first sentence. You further added a contentious claim in the lead sentence that the movement "lays an exclusive claim to representing the pure, orthodox (Sunni) and uncorrupted Islam." Well, this directly contradicts the body of the page which explains about the extensive religious and political alliances between the Wahhabis and other religious movements such as the Ahl-i Hadith, the Arab Salafi movement, etc. It is also well-known that Wahhabis have co-operated with the Deobandi movement, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, etc. during the 20th century. Such a framing expressed in your version is also inappropriate for the lead sentence.

2nd para gives a brief summary of the doctrines of the movement and mentions about the key influence of Ibn Taymiyya's thought on the Wahhabi scholarship. (which is also extensively explained in the body of the page) However, you removed the latter in your edit. You also wrote: "the movement champions the teaching that going to graves to seek blessings or saying "Ya Muhammad" is blasphemous polytheism (shirk) that makes one an infidel (Kafir) rather than being merely sinful." However, this is just a repetition of the sentence "Wahhabi movement opposed rituals related to the veneration of Muslim saints and pilgrimages to their tombs and shrines, which were widespread amongst the people of Najd." You also wrote: "It further teaches descriptions in the Quran of God's ascension, coming, having hands, face, eyes etc. are to be interpreted literally." However, this is incorrect, since the early Wahhabi movement didnt adhere to Ibn Taymiyya's stance on Divine Attributes and was mainly focused on opposing rituals they regarded as grave-worship or idol-worship. It was only after Wahhabi co-operation with other Ibn Taymiyya-influenced revivalist movements (particularly the Arab Salafi movement) that they began focusing on championing Ibn Taymiyya's stance on Divine Attributes. This is also academically sourced and explained in the body of the page.

3rd para gives an important historical summary of the movement. I dont know why that section was outright deleted. Again, just check other articles like the Deobandi movement, Sufism, etc. They all have four paras in the lede section. Also, the "Wahhabism" page has more than 13,500 words. Four paragraphs constitute the appropriate lead length in this page.

4th para summarizes the current status of the movement. I dont think you have a disagreement with the 4th para.

So I hope the rationale behind the lede structure has been clarified publicly. The current discussion is only regarding the structure of the lede, and is ofcourse different from inserting reliably sourced contents into the body of the page. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I have a couple of initial observations. One merited point is that the "exonym" discussion is not really appropriate for the first paragraph of the lead. This is correct. It is an inappropriate amount of detail too early on. On some of the introductions to the first paragraph, I'm not convinced by words like "savant" are regularly used to describe the movement's founder (or mentioned in the body), or if its theology is expressly exclusive. Also bear in mind that the lead should reflect both then and now, and should reflect the movement's position today more than in the past. Do adherents for sure still think that they are exclusively correct? These are some big questions raised by just the changes in the first couple of sentences. The choice of words matters considerably in the context. Incidentally, in the second paragraph, phrases like "in particular", "it further", etc., are editorialisations that should be avoided. It's important to resist the urge to flow the copy to create a narrative style on Wikipedia. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Valid points.

Frankly, I felt the "savant" wording to be quite an orientalist and Euro-centric term in that situation. The common wording is "cleric", "scholar", etc. In this case, attributing Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab as a "Hanbali cleric" would be the most appropriate wording in the lead sentence. (this is also in line with the sources in the body)

Regarding the exonym topic, I do feel like there should be a mention of it in the lede, since it is discussed in the page. I dont find the current trimmed version to be inappropriate. Do you think that it is better to insert that information inside an appropriate note? Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Moving it to a note would be better in my opinion (maybe after the main name). The first paragraph should be very straightforward and to the point, and "exonym" is first-off a bit too jargon-y to serve that purpose, while the whole sentence is generally a bit of a detour away from the intro detail. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 Done. I have moved it into a note after the first term.

In my opinion, I dont find that sentence to be in-appropriate for the opening para because it summarized how the followers of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab described themselves. I think that's an important piece of information that could be beneficial to the readers, if put in the lede. (for matters of precision and distinction)

Recently, the page that used to be titled "Calvinism" was changed to "Reformed Christianity". (despite "Calvinism" being a very common name in english language academic sources) The rationale of various editors who supported that move was that the term "Calvinism" should be restricted only to the religious beliefs of John Calvin. Apparently, Calvin and his followers objected to labelling their movement "Calvinist". Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources

References