Contents

1 Anjouli's concern about bias 2 Saudi donations to Wahhabi schools 3 Wahhabai Islam is the main religion in Saudi Arabia 4 More claims of bias 5 Accuracy versus NPOV 6 Any NPOV descriptions of Wahhabism makes it sound bad to most contributors 7 Please cite references 8 About American mosques 9 Write, stop talking 10 Need discussion of variety within Wahhabi Islam 11 Dissociating from Osama bin Laden 12 Website references 13 The media and Wahhabism 14 Catgeory on totalitarian religions 15 Religious apologetics 16 Problems with this article 17 Salafi/Wahhabi 18 Salafi or are the same Wahhabi 19 Salafis and Wahhabis are not Sunnis 20 Disputed

Anjouli's concern about bias

This page is/was extremely biased against Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism in general, and a lot of it plain nonsense. (Minarets forbidden in Saudi Arabia?)

Althought there are a significant number of Saudi extremists, the vast majority are very moderate and not at all puritanical about their religion. I've cleaned this page up a bit, but it needs more work to achieve a NPOV.

Anjouli 16:15, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Saudi donations to Wahhabi schools

Shalom, RK.

I agree "Saudi laypeople, government officials and clerics have donated many tens of millions of dollars to create Wahhabi religious schools, newspapers and outreach organizations." is fine.

Not too sure about "As late as the 1980s people were put to death for converting to a non-Islamic religion". Last reference I can find is 1973. Do you have a reference?Anjouli 11:19, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Breathtaking! That is a most characteristic quibble. Anjouli's program of intellectual dishonesty is a disgrace to us all. If people were legally liable to a death penalty for adopting a religion other than Islam, and were executed as late as 1973, and that fact cannot be mentioned, this article will remain tripe. Wetman

Let's be polite here please. I am not a Christian, Muslim or Jew and have no cause to promote. I removed the 1980's allegation because it is completely unsupported. The reference I have is not for Saudi Arabia, it is for Pakistan, it is not specifically Wahhabi and it is only a single unsupported reference in a publication issued by a body that just might not have a NPOV due to its declared religious orientation. It might belong somewhere else in Wiki, but certainly not here. I do however agree that this article is still in bad shape and could do with a complete rewrite - preferably by a disinterested third-party. Anjouli 05:48, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What article? What publication? What publishing body that just might not be as neutral. Wetman 01:16, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have disputed the NPOV of this page because it seems to represent Saudi Arabia as a hot-bed of raving Wahabbism, which patently is not true for the majority of Saudis. It's like portraying all Irish as IRA supporters. Some are, but most are not.

A lot of criticisms can be levelled at the Saudis, but this is not one of them. The House of Saud now sees the few raving Wahhabis as a danger to their own rule and is promoting a much more liberal interpretation of Islam.

Hi Anjouli... I agree this page is heavily biased against Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism. However, in order to avoid an edit war I think it would be most appropriate if you can find references for the things you state (not because I disbelieve them, but because this is the simplest way to avoid arguments). For example, it's probably relatively easy for you to show that there are many Shia living in Saudi. Graft 17:19, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

RK has helpfully documented that. He has not supported the claim that the Saudis execute people for changing to a different branch of Islam, so I have removed tht. I'm happy for it to go back if it is documented. Certainly to say that the Saudis ban minarets and smoking is nonsense, as anybody who has ever seen any footage of Saudi on the evening news will confirm. Almost all mosques have minarets and many Saudis smoke publically. (What about the famous Shisha pipes of Saudi Arabia?). More on Wahabbism in Saudi when I get a moment. Anjouli 05:23, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wahhabai Islam is the main religion in Saudi Arabia

Anjouli is writing things that are incorrect. Wahhabi Islam is the main form of Islam in Saudi Arabia. Non-Wahhabi Muslims in Saudi Arabia report non-stop discrimination. Non-Wahhabi Muslims outside Saudi Arabia are afraid of it, and reject it. I just don't see why it is consdiered biased to note how strong and popular this form is in Saudia Arabia. As for a claim that this article is biased against Wahhabism in general, please specifically state how. Granted, to most non-Muslims, and even to liberal Muslims, Wahhabi Islam looks bad, seems violent, is definately puritanical and neo-medieval, and very fundamentalist... but so what? Some religions really are this way. I know of a version of Judaism that seems to me to be much like this (Ultra-Orthodox Judaism), and there are versions of Christianiy like this as well. Yet the the Wikipedia articles on these subjects present them pretty well. An NPOV discussion of a religion doesn't require that it make all religions sound equally progressive and tolerant. They aren't. RK 23:26, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

The U.S. Department of State offers the International Religious Freedom Report, released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Their report on Saudi Arabia is very clear: RK 23:32, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

International Religious Freedom Report - Saudi Arabia

The country’s total land area is 756,981 square miles and its population is approximately 17 million, with an estimated foreign population of 7 million. ...The majority of Saudi citizens are Sunni Muslims predominantly adhering to the strict interpretation of Islam taught by the Salafi or Wahhabi school that is the official state religion. Approximately 1 million citizens are Shi’a Muslims, who live mostly in the eastern province, where they constitute approximately one-third of the population.

Saudi Arabia is an Islamic monarchy without legal protection for freedom of religion, and such protection does not exist in practice. Islam is the official religion, and the law requires that all citizens be Muslims. The Government prohibits the public practice of non-Muslim religions. The Government recognizes the right of non-Muslims to worship in private; however, it does not always respect this right in practice. ...The Government continued to detain Shi'a religious leaders and members of the Ismaili Shi'a community in Najran province... Members of the Shi’a minority continued to face institutionalized political and economic discrimination, including restrictions on the practice of their faith....An overwhelming majority of citizens support an Islamic state and oppose public non-Muslim worship. There is societal discrimination against adherents of the Shi’a minority.

Freedom of religion does not exist. Islam is the official religion, and all citizens must be Muslims. The Government prohibits the public practice of other religions. The Government recognizes the right of private worship by non-Muslims; however, it does not always respect this right in practice. Saudi Arabia is an Islamic monarchy and the Government has declared the Holy Koran and the Sunna (tradition) of the Prophet Muhammad to be the country’s Constitution. The Government bases its legitimacy on governance according to the precepts of the rigorously conservative and strict interpretation of the Salafi or Wahhabi school of the Sunni branch of Islam and discriminates against other branches of Islam. Neither the Government nor society in general accepts the concepts of separation of religion and state, and such separation does not exist.

Are we deciding that the U.S. State Department's report to too biased to be quoted? Or can the quotes concerning Wahhabism be put into the article Wahhabism. Any issues with this? Wetman 01:16, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

More claims of bias

The term velabi in the last sentence needs to be explained.

The mosque at the Kaaba in Mecca certainly has minarets (images-google mosque+mecca and see), so that sentence seems to br wrong.

Otherwise I don't find much to object to in this article. Adam 05:13, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Factually, it's getting there. Did you see the hate-filled earlier versions?. But it still has a 'spin'. It's not just a matter of being factually correct - it's a matter of balance. A similar-sized article on the Catholic Church that was 75% Spanish Inquisition and Pedophile Preists could be factually correct and fully-referenced, but it would not be balanced. If it was the main Wiki reference for Catholicism, it would give readers a completely wrong impression. Please understand I am not defending the Saudis. They have a lot to answer for. I am defending a NPOV. Anjouli 05:30, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It will be very difficult to find someone who can give a positive assessment of Wahhabism - almost by definition this encyclopaedia is being written by western-educated intellectuals, and we regard absolutist religions with horror. And if we did find someone they would probably delete the whole article and give as a Wahhabist tract. (see the problems at Mother Teresa for example.) Adam 06:39, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, it isn't easy. I study this region for a living and have lived many years in both Israel and Saudi Arabia. There are idiots and extremists on both sides, but the vast majority are moderate and sensible people. 'Western' just about sums up the problem the rest of the English-speaking world has with Wikipedia. (See the talk on Mecca for instance.) For sure, there are many raving fundamentalist Wahhabis - Osama Bin Laden for one - but to accuse the Saudi government of supporting them is plain wrong. The Saudi government and majority of the population (particularly following the last Riyadh bombing of an Arab housing community) are scared to death of the fundamentalist Wahhabis and never miss a chance to arrest or discredit them. Not that I'm defending this, but the article gives the opposite impression. Saudi Arabia is no more completely fundamentalist Wahhabi than America is completely fundamentalist Christian. My main issue is this article is more about Saudi-bashing than about historical and current Wahhabism. It needs balance.Anjouli 07:29, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A comment on Anjouli's opinion on Wikipedia. Historically the encyclopaedia is a characteristic project of the Enlightenment intellectual (Diderot, Voltaire etc). It rests on the assumption that there is an objective truth about all subjects, which can be known to humans and discerned through scientific inquiry, and written about dispassionately by the enlightened intellectual. WP reflects this ideology as much as any other encyclopaedia, and so it should. This ideology cannot help but be hostile to the absolutist religious view of the world, which holds that knowledge belongs to God and can only be known to humans through revelation or scripture. That absolutist view is today most typically represented by Islam, although it exists also in Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism. The very fact that we are writing about Islam in a rationalist and secularist manner makes us hostile to Islam whatever our subjective intention, so we might as well acknowledge that. We can try as hard as we like to be NPOV about Islam, but we will never succeed in doing so in a manner satisfactory to serious Muslims. So we shouldn't try to defer to them. (I take the same view in relation to Catholics at Mother Teresa, by the way: as an atheist I have no specific hostility to Islam, just to the theocratic worldview in general). Adam 06:13, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Adam, I was with you all the way (although skeptics might disagree with you and with Diderot about objective truth) until you said ""So we shouldn't try to defer to them.". I agree a NPOV is difficult for anyone, but that does not mean we shoudn't even try. And do we "defer" by having a NPOV? Certainly not. I'm also not too happy about your use of the word them. Who does it refer to? Wiki editors who happen to be Muslims? If that's not a POV, what is? Whilst we are declaring our beliefs, I should state that although -- or perhaps because -- I get paid (partly) to studying religions, I am a Brianist by faith, and all Brianists are Atheists by definition, so we have some common ground.

I find Fundamentalist Islam as abhorrent as I find National Socialism. That does not mean I accept a Wiki article that says Hitler banned socks, or killed half the population of India. I would edit such an article because it was factually incorrect. The same here. Saudi Arabia does not ban either minarats or smoking. To say so is nonsense. Does that make me guilty of "intellectual dishonesty"? I hope not. Anjouli 14:21, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Accuracy versus NPOV

Hello Adam. Let's talk NPOV here. Read the article and then ask yourself 'does it have a POV'? If so, does that POV more closely represent the attitude of a a militant Wahhabi, an Ashkenazi Jew, or someone disinterested as both you and Anjouli claim to be. Now look up user RK and see if you guessed right. I'm not expressing an opinion you notice. Just make up your own mind. Abdurahman 10:33, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Please Abdurahman, let's judge editors just by their editing skill and NPOV. I don't think RK is neutral, but I would not say somebody was incapable of neutrality on Wahhabism because he was a Jew. Anjouli 14:29, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Of course it has a POV. Its POV is that absolutist theocratic religions are bad. And it is impossible for an encyclopaedia article not to have that POV. That's the point I was making above. It has nothing to do with RK being Jewish, it has to do with him (and me) being a western intellectual with western intellectual values. Adam 10:44, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I must disagree. An encyclopedia should state fact not opinion. Even if the majority opinion (which I happen to share) is that absolutist theocratic religions are bad, an encyclopedia should not state this as a fact. If an encyclopedia states opinion, it should say whose opinion it is stating and , if there is a major opposing view, state that conflicting opinion also. To be respected Wiki MUST NOT become a soap-box for opinion - otherwise it becomes little better than a chat room.Anjouli 14:34, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Anjouli on this. When Adam Carr states that any encyclopedic account of Wahhabism will cary a certain POV which may be offensive to some he means an encyclopedic account of Wahhabism in practice involving specific individuals, places and times. To the best of my knowledge Wahhabism nowhere mandates absolutist government or totalitarian tendencies. These are as a result of specific individuals' influence on the application of the philosophy. I don't see how facts about absolutist Wahhabist practices belong in an article about Wahhabism philosophy.

— Elijah Gregory

Any NPOV descriptions of Wahhabism makes it sound bad to most contributors

(1) I think that any acurate description of Wahhabi Islam will make it sound bad, unpleasant, or perhaps even horrible to most Westerners. It even appears this way to many liberal Muslims, many of whom are victims of Wahhabi oppression. But we can still keep NPOV by merely describing such Wabbahi beliefs and practices, and letting the reader draw their own conclusions. RK 20:47, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

(2) Many human rights groups (who have no problem with Islam in general) do take issue with Wahhabi Islam and governments that promote it; it would be fair to note which organizations speak put against it, and we can summarize these views. RK 20:47, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

Adam Carr states that "That absolutist view is today most typically represented by Islam, although it exists also in Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism. The very fact that we are writing about Islam in a rationalist and secularist manner makes us hostile to Islam whatever our subjective intention, so we might as well acknowledge that. We can try as hard as we like to be NPOV about Islam, but we will never succeed in doing so in a manner satisfactory to serious Muslims."

I agree, however, NPOV policy does not mean that an article will be acceptable to all readers. We have alrady established that many of our articles are totally unacceptable to Orthodox Jews, many traditional Chrisitans, many Hindu nationalists, etc. But that has never been our policy or aim. NPOV only means that we try to state facts as impartially as possible, and attribute specific views to specific groups. Forget about Wahbbai Islam...most forms of religious Islam would totally disagree with most of our entries on Islam, Christianity, Judaism and God. They would want to see such articles written from their point of view, and would view our articles as incorrect, heretical, or even as "attacks on Islam". The same attitude unfortunately manifests itself in the views of many fundamentalist religious believers of many religions. But this, so far, has not been too big a problem to handle. We just need to follow the same NPOV policy here for Islam that we already do for our articles on other religions. Thus, I think that the ideas Adam Carr, Anjouli, and myself all want to express can be expressed in these articles, and still maintain NPOV. I don't see any big problem. RK 20:47, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I broadly agree with most of the above points. But it is theoretically possible to make a statement of fact about a group's beliefs that is acceptable to them. If you say that Group A believes this, and Group A says "no we don't", then you are factually incorrect and should remedy the matter. Who better to say what they believe than Group A themselves? Of course it is not that simple. Group A may be divided into sub-sections who have different beliefs, some of whom ignore the more ridiculous 'rules' of their scriptures. The proper answer is to write new articles for the sub-sections, or at least mention their differing beliefs in the article.

My main problem with the original article was that it seemed to be more about Saudi Arabia than it was about historical Wahhabism. That is not to say there is no place for this in Wiki, but I do not think this article is it.

For example it would be quite correct to write a section on Catholicism stating that the Catholic Bible says Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live and that Catholics did in fact execute witches (and Jews) in the past. On the other hand, it would be quite wrong to point the finger at the modern Italians, just because they are a Catholic nation - although you could probably find a few fundamentalist Christians who would like to execute witches. Same with Saudi Arabia. Although theoretically a Wahhabi state, most Saudis (and certainly the government) are NOT raving Wahhabis. Greedy, corrupt, nepotistic, undemocratic, wasteful, oppressive - yes, maybe. But certainly NOT Wahabi fundamentalists. To say so is factually incorrect. Most of the Wahhabi fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia are in jail! The government and people are terified of them.

The title of this article is Wahhabism, and I think it should be a factual account of the history of Wahhabism, carefully documented and supported by references, since it is controversial. The other matters (which I am not trying to suppress) should go in their proper places: Saudi Arabia, Dawa , Saudi Arabian foreign relations, or whatever, with an appropriate link. Anjouli 06:11, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I removed a 'related' link to totalitarian religious groups . The link disambiguates to the cult article which makes the link entirely inappropriate as Wahhabism is not related to activities typically related to cults (small localized movement, mass suicide, etc.). Moreover relating Wahhabism to totalitarian religious groups is inappropriate because any totalitarian aspect of Wahhabism in practice derives solely from human influences. Any reference to totalitarianism in connection with Wahhabism should also reference the specific individuals involved and the times they operated in which brought the alleged totalitarianism into Wahhabism. This is a technique I have noticed often on Wikipedia pages to render controversial subjects NPOV.

— Elijah Gregory

Please cite references

References should be provided to back up the claim that minarets are forbidden by Wahhabism, and that ciggerettes are unlawful. During my trips to Saudi Arabia I have seen both minarets and people smoking out on the streets. Also, I think it is questionable to claim that Wahhabism is the predominant form of Islam in America without factual evidence. The testimony of Kabbani alone is not enough to merit the placement of this claim, he is considered in some circles to be a politically motivated character, and being a member of a Sufi order makes his neutrality questionable in this regard. Anjouli's suggestions should be followed and are the best bet for having a neutral article.

ThaGrind 10:19, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

About American mosques

The statement on American mosques should be removed. Using the claims of one man to make such a statement is dangerous, especially in the current environment where Wahhabi and Islamist have essentially become slurs and are synonomous with terrorist. If you ask me, I would give a much lower percentage of Wahhabi dominated mosques, and that would be based off my own experiences, I wonder if my own opinion of such an issue would warrant inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Another problem I see with this article is the labelling of the Muslim Brotherhood as Wahhabi. I find this problematic as Wahhabis seem to be a neo-medieval movement. A more accurate label for the Muslim Brotherhood would be Sulaffiya, which is a movement that is often confused with Wahhabi. They are both similar in their strict interpertation of Islam and desire to stick to the Quran and Sunnah alone, but the Sulafi movement is progressive at some level.

The Wahhabi label also needs to be explored more. It was used by the British during the occupation of India to label what they considered radical Muslim groups, such as those found at Deoband, but these groups would not fit into the Wahhabi mold set by Abd al-Wahhab. As many previous posters have said, this article should be based on factual evidence and stick more to the history, as such, I feel it is justified in deleting the opinions of Kabbani. As for the reference to ciggarettes, it does seem strange to me, but I do know that many scholars of the Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence consider it forbidden to smoke, and I know that Abd al-Wahhab was a proponent of this school, so it may make sense, but the reference to minarets is strange as I have never heard of any Muslim group claiming that they are not allowed. DigiBullet 21:49, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have found a webpage by a Salafi group that aims to discern the differences between the Salafi and Wahhabi movements: http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/ . I think it would be useful to some level, although it obvously has it's own bias. But the view that the Wahhabis or Salafis have of their own movements should be included in any such articles to give it more balance DigiBullet 21:59, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I´m simply missing some historical facts (like founders, political impact in differnt countries..such a like). Wiki has done that quite good on other religion/denominations...Why not here? (from Germany)

Write, stop talking

It seems more words are being wasted on political correctness than the length of a useful redraft. Someone, put one in.

Amen! (erm, so to say...) C'mon Anjouli, where's your history and philosophy of Wahhabism? Wetman 01:16, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Need discussion of variety within Wahhabi Islam

I have not looked at this for a while, but it seems to be in fairly good shape now. I think the link to totalitarian religious groups is a bit POV, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to remove it. Tempted to try posting the same link on another religion's article and then listen for the howls of protest :)

Main thing missing now is the concept that there are Wahhabi moderates and Wahhabi fundamentalists (like Osama). Article gives the impression they are all fundamentalists. Some Saudi (Wahhabi) clerics have questioned if Osama Bin Laden is even a Muslim, let alone a Wahhabi. Much of what he has done is clearly forbidden in the Qu'ran. Anjouli 09:58, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Certainly it is a missing concept! Anjouli will please post into the article an External link to a published document expressing the POV of Wahhabi moderates, so that we may see what moderate signifies in this context. Surely there must be something Can the official U.S. State Dept. International Religious Freedom Report be quoted in the article, or are they too biased? Wetman 10:15, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Some factual additions My additions are meant to be very carefully limited to characterizing the actual tenets derived from the basic Wahhabi literature. Please copy here and discuss, rather than merely suppress, any information that seems incorrect. Thank you. Wetman 11:03, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Dissociating from Osama bin Laden

Currently, Wahhabis claim that many Muslim Brotherhood scholars are corrupted by innovations. The Muslim Brothers Sayyed Qutb, and Yusuf al-Qaradawi are all condemned by the Wahhabi movement. Wahhabis claim that Osama bin Laden is not a Wahabi, but a Qutbee (follower of Sayyed Qutb)

Which Wahhabis claim this? What innovations? Where is it claimed? Can we have a quote? What would identify a Qutbi from a Wahhabi? Lots of names are being read out of the Wahhabi movement here by somebody, but absolutely no information is tranmitted in this text. It's a smart maneuver, to dissociate Wahhabism from Osama bin Laden, but a quibbler has to do better than this. I vote we delete this unless it can be improved. Wetman 01:16, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Can this be given some weight, or shall we throw it out? Wetman 01:16, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hey Wetman, ok if you want to know i'll show it to you:

First of all, this really is a huge thing that most people do not understand, Wahhabbis dont like Bin Laden, and hate the Muslim Brotherhood, but most people who read their writings know this.

If you need sources here you go:

First if you goto www.salafipublications.com which is a Wahhabi/Salafi site you see the link "Deviated Groups/Sects" under groups if you goto "Muslim Brotherhood" here is what you see

http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/

Second is a reference by Bin Laden himself:

In an interview which appeared in the takfiri/jihadi magazine Nida'ul Islam, Bin Laden performs unrestricted takfir (declares them to have left the fold of Islam) upon the present day Muslim governments:

"At the same time that some of the leaders are engaging in the major acts of disbelief, which takes them out of the fold of Islam in broad daylight and in front of all the people, you would find a fatwa (verdict) from their religious organisation. In particular, the role of the religious organisation (i.e. the Salafi scholars) in the country of the two sacred mosques (i.e. Saudi Arabia) is of the most ominous of roles, this is overlooking whether it fulfilled this role intentionally or unintentionally, the harm which eventuated from their efforts is no different from the role of the most ardent enemies of the nation."

Continuing in his reference to the presence of the organization of Salafi scholars in Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden terms the Standing Committee for Issuing Religious Verdicts "an idol to be worshipped aside from God."

When considering this, one wonders how it can possibly be understood that Bin Laden and his followers are "Wahhabis" as is being repeatedly mentioned in the media!

- abridged from the book: The 'Wahhabi' Myth

Third of all, http://www.fatwa-online.com/ a Wahhabi Saudi Fatwa sites states that Video Tapes are prohibited, and suicide bombings are prohibited, bin Laden engages in both.

http://muttaqun.com/ another prominent Wahhabi website says video tapes are prohibited, any type of video, any pictures, and bin Laden does these.

You must understand, Islamist Terrorism is not under Wahhabism. Wahhabism wants to ban pictures, music, red clothing (no joke), pants below the ankles, and says you must "vomit" if you eat while standing up. Thats what Wahhabism is, its this extreme movement within Islam. Most Wahhabi scholars, like Sheikh al-Albani, say you must have a CALIPH before you engage in Jihad. Also the Wahhabi head scholar of Saudi Arabia said that suicide bombings were illegal. Wahhabis may cut people's hands off, beat you for not praying, and other things like that, but they aren't the bin Laden Islam. That is the largest myth everywhere.

You may be able to quote thousands of Western sources that back up that "Osama is a Wahhabi" but im quoting you source INSIDE wahhabism itself.

Also... the Taliban used the HANAFI school of law in their country, and Wahhabis use the HANABALI.

Osama bin Laden is not a wahhabi, he's just as bad, and Wahhabism is just as bad, but he's not a wahhabi.

If your so sure bin Laden is a wahhabi, can you give me anything that Osama bin Laden has in common with Wahhabism? Other than basic things (i.e. they are both Muslims, etc.)

thanks

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/ another Wahhabi/Salafi Islam website lists "Ikhwan" (brothers) under "Deviated Sects".

This is just another proof that Wahhabis themselves hate Musilm Brotherhood. Under "deivated people" 3 huge Muslim Brothers are listed, Hassan al-Banna, Yusuf Qaradawi, and Sayyed Qutb.

Also under the aalaahuakbar.net site it is stated:

"...Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden have often called for jihad against countries they consider "infidel" such as the United States, urging his followers to target Western interests in Saudi Arabia and abroad.

Other militants have also used Islam as a rallying cry, justifying attacks by saying they are doing God's will.

"Young Muslims must try and better themselves and their country but not through violence, because Islam is not a violent religion, it is a merciful religion,"..."

The main main, main, thing about Wahhabis is that they are opposed to any innovation or "bid'a". Thats the number one feature in a wahhabi, they want to eliminate anything that was created after the time of the first 3 generations after the Prophet Muhammed's death. I dont see Osama bin Laden saying "lets stop the innovations!" so what does Wahhabism and Osama bin Laden have to do with each other?

thanks you

Website references

I found a great site with resources on Wahhabism if anyone wants to Wikify: http://www.islamonline.net/fatwaapplication/english/display.asp?hFatwaID=39389

Thanks

The media and Wahhabism

The current coverage of Western media of Wahhabism in the media is sensationalized and unbalanced to say the least. They seem to tie Wahhabism to Bin Laden and Terrorism as a direct cause and effect 1:1 relationship. It is true that Wahhabism deserves some critique, by Muslims nonetheless (as I will elaborate later, and alluded to in my revision), but that it incites killing of non-Muslims indiscriminately is simply not true.

Note that the article is not making this claim about Wahhabi Islam in general. RK

No religion has as its basic tenets killing, lying, stealing, ...etc. ANY RELIGION! It is true though that certain charismatic leaders within a religion or a sect can usurp the teachings and funnel the faith of the few towards murder or stealing or other crimes. This is then a cult and not a religion or a sect anymore.

That is your opinion, and a valid opinion. But when millions of people follow a religious teaching, such a large group is generally referred to as a religion. RK 14:03, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

As for bid'a, their view is a valid view. bid'a applies only to religious matters, for example a new form of worship (prayers, ...etc.). In this sense, Islam does not allow the introduction of a new type of worship. In worldly matters, this does not apply, and innovation is indeed encouraged.

As for Osama bin Laden, he is a product of politics and social factors more than any religious ones.

As for Wahhabi criticisms, I think they are as follows:

• They developed within a desert and tribal environment, not in a metropolis. Therefore they were confined to tribal customs and practices in many areas, for example, the minority view of women covering their face became the ONLY valid view.
• Having not been exposed to non-Muslims, their views are not favorable at all, depending on hearsay (compare with Christians who never saw Muslims, and only read biased books against them, or confine themselves to media reports)
• They are literalist and legalistic to the extreme
• They lack flexibility

Catgeory on totalitarian religions

Why is there even a category "totalitarian religions"? Most are totaliarian in the benign sense of being a total view of life and meaning or a comprehensive behavioral code. (I say that from a religion-friendly viewpoint.) It is totalitarian POLITICS/GOVERNMENT that is an issue.

On the postive side, this entry is alot better than an earlier version which seemed like a Daniel Pipes LSD trip. Minarets in Saudi Arabia banned? Comic book stuff.

-- mch

Religious apologetics

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what's with all the "(may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace)". Is there a point in repeating this phrase in an encyclopedia? -- tc 8/12/2004 9:33 PM

Problems with this article

I would like to see evidence given for the following claims:

"However, many other Wahhbai Muslims in Saudi Arabia hold that Osama bin Ladin is a true Wahhabi."

"It is however the fastest growing Islamic movement, gaining more non-Muslims converts in the west than any sect of Islam."

And the absence of any serious history section, or any detailed examination of the sect's development, is a disgrace to the article as it stands, though of course a difficult one to remedy. - Mustafaa 05:25, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've heard Saudi Arabian officials on television interviews stating this directly. Up until last year Saudi public relations people denied that this was true, but since the wave of terrorism within Saudia Arabia itself, the Saudi Arabian government has given up the fiction; they now admit that Bin Ladin has supporters within Saudia Arabia, although they claim it is only a tiny percent. I have seen interviews (on American TV) with a number of Saudi Arabian citizens (not government officials) saying that a large percent of their countrymen have a sense of pride over Al-Qaeda's attacks on the US, and view Bin Ladin as a hero. However, I will try to find some references. RK 14:07, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I don't question that he has support in Saudi Arabia! But there are plenty of non-Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, and claiming that he is seen as Wahhabi would require specific evidence. - Mustafaa 05:44, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

I removed the following from the page as it appears to contradict its reason for placement:

• They are more open to non-Muslim religions than other branches

This was in the "Criticisms" section which contains material on Wahhabists being intolerant of other religions. So which is it? They are criticized for being too open to non-Muslims or for not being open enough?

— Elijah Gregory

That was just a random anon edit. I was about to delete it myself. - Mustafaa 05:44, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Salafi/Wahhabi

Can we have some sort of consensus on the whole Salafi/Wahhabi question? Should they be considered as identical? I know the Wahhabis would like to think so, but is it really fair to say that they are one and the same? Maybe by now they are... I'm not quite knowledgeable enough to answer this question, but it seems like the fact that Salafi schools have existed well before al-Wahhab came up with his particular insights gives the lie to equating these two. Graft 00:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's the same. You can say that Wahhabi's are Salafis from Saudi-Arabia. Eitherway, it's the same and we should delete (or copy) any article with the title "Wahhbism" and redirect it to Salafi. I'm waiting for your opinions A. 08:45, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

N.B.: There is a difference between Salafists and Wahhabists. Wahhabists follow the Hanbali school while Salafists reject all four schools.

Salafi or are the same Wahhabi

What made you think that you are the only right on earth and there is no right on earth but you, While

1. you have never presented any good,help or came with any humanitarian aid or humanitarian thoughts. actually, you have been killing people in the name of Allah

2.Your leader has just born on 1115 and has never lived at the time of (Mohammad peace be upon him and his family) he studied for few years and that does not give him the knowledge to forbid evil which is in your sense killing innocents and demolishing houses and buildings.(at the time of the profit he use to tell his warriors that don't harm the children,woman and old people) if Islam said that human should forbid evil, then that should be done by educating people and help them not by killing them.

3.Nobody of the innocent citizens has harmed you or harmed your believes. and remember the saying

if someone enter the land by sword, someone is going to come and force you(as you forced him,he will force you)to leave by the sword. if you enter a land by words to touch the heart of the human with love,then you will never leave his heart for ever.

thanks

Salafis and Wahhabis are not Sunnis

Due to their belief that God is LITERALLY above us and exists within space, they have left Sunni Islam.

Do Wahhabis actually believe this? I thought that this was just a slander against ibn Abd al-Wahhab, and he didn't ACTUALLY say that. At any rate, "Salafis" in general cannot possibly be said to believe that, even if in the present they are largely identified with Wahhabism. Graft 21:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

Is the content of this article still factually disputed? If so, what are the specific disputes, and what can be done to fix them. Otherwise, the disputed tag should be removed --jacobolus (t) 02:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)