Jump to content

Talk:Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Fixing template
No edit summary
Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 21: Line 21:
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
}}

==Strange Obsession with removing Calligraphic image on <i>this</i> particular page==
There is no sense in removing this image, as there is such a calligraphic image on nearly every page about an Islamic scholars. See: [[Ibn Ishaq]], [[Ibn Majah]], [[Abu Dawood]], [[Ibn Qayyim]], [[Ahmad bin Hanbal]], [[Ibn Kathir]], [[Muhammad al-Bukhari]] etc. The list goes on.

Frankly I am concerned about whether this image is being removed due the personal bias of some people. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Suleman14b|Suleman14b]] ([[User talk:Suleman14b#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Suleman14b|contribs]]) 08:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:{{Ping|Suleman14b}} The problem is that there is no benefit from it. It was designed using Photoshop by a random guy in Wikipedia and it contains something like "God bless his soul" which is something that I think is not acceptable in Wikipedia and again there is no educational benefit from this photo. I understand that there are also calligraphic images for other articles but that's not a valid reason to put a made up image that praise him in this article (don't count the prophet Muhammad photo and Sahaba because these images are from Masjid Al Haram.) Many Muslims from both Shia and Sunni sides don't like this guy and he was a politician that many people didn't like. --[[User:SharabSalam|SharabSalam]] ([[User talk:SharabSalam|talk]]) 10:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
:The only one that looks like this image from the examples you gave is the one in [[Ibn Taymiyyah]] which I removed since it contains something like May Allah bless his soul. Many Muslims (Shia, Sofis and Sunnis) don't like Ibn Taymiyyah. Ibn Taymiyyah said that Sufis and Shia are not believing in one God (Mushrikin) so it would be not a NPOV to put a photo of his name and praise his soul. I will also soon start a proposal to remove all of calligraphic images that have no benefit nothing educational and not valuable.--[[User:SharabSalam|SharabSalam]] ([[User talk:SharabSalam|talk]]) 11:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

{{Ping|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.
:{{Ping|Suleman14b}} my opinion on him is not the reason for the deletion. This is about maintaining Wikipedia NPOV "blessing his soul" or "May God have mercy on him" is not even acceptable to prophet Muhammad. You can't say prophet Muhammad peace be upon him in wikivoice and remember it's an own work a made up photo. Also (and this is not related to my objection,) not just some people the whole community of Shia and 3/4 of Sunni Muslim don't like Muhammed Ibn Abdulwahhab who is mainly a politician and those who like him are called Wahhabis who hold the same ideology as ISIS and the Saudi regime. The ideology of intolerance.--[[User:SharabSalam|SharabSalam]] ([[User talk:SharabSalam|talk]]) 12:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
::I agree with your stated reason of removal. If someone knows Arabic and wants to remove that part so that only name is left, then calligraphy image can be put back. This way, that phrase should not be even used at all – next to non-prophets' names. --[[User:Obsuser|Obsuser]] ([[User talk:Obsuser|talk]]) 18:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


== Calligraphy section ==
== Calligraphy section ==

Revision as of 15:14, 4 April 2021

Template:Vital article


Calligraphy section

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

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

Photo

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

That phrase (as I know) is used only for 25 Quran prophets (and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab was not one of them); also, that phrase is not equivalent to "rest in peace" at all. Who would use it from Commons if not Wikipedia at first... It is not about disrespectfullness of that phrase only for Muslims but also about incovenience for others (if it was applicable whatsoever, better example of that incovenience but with validity). It is not good to express opinions that are irrelevant here on talk pages, if you continue – that will be described as trolling vandalism and you will be blocked. --Obsuser (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
رحمه الله ‘may God have mercy on him’ is a generic honorific for a dead Islamic religious personality. By confusing it with the honorific for the prophets (عليه السلام) you have disqualified yourself from editing articles about Islam.
Please, get your sectarian nonsense out of Wikipedia. There is no reason this article about one of the most important Islamic scholars of the last centuries should stand apart by not having the calligraphy. 95.79.223.70 (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sectarianism need to end. Just accept that a huge part of the Islamic nations admires and study the works of Muhammed Ibn Abdul Wahab. I don't see you guys delete or complain about the pictures of the Shia imams. AmirsamanZare (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Sunni Muslim.
رحمه الله ‘may God have mercy on him’ is a generic honorific for a dead Islamic religious personality
You said it!, "honorific"!. Wikipedia generally doesn't include honorific terms let alone phrases (see MOS:HONOUR).
Also, I know what رحمه الله means, I am an Arab. The phrase is equivalent to the English "rest in peace".
I don't see you guys delete or complain about the pictures of the Shia imams.
I actually have tried to delete them. I generally don't think we need own-work Arabic calligraphy. Many Sunnis denounce the ideas of Ibn Abdul-Wahhab that inspired terrorists. Maybe this is why I am focusing here more.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to that, I have a concern about the notability of this work. For example, can you draw a person- lets say I drew Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab's picture from my mind, can I use that drawing in Wikipedia?
And what is the educational purpose of these pictures. These images can be deleted from Wikimedia commons if they weren't used in Wikipedia projects per Commons:COM:SCOPE which says that the media file must be "realistically useful for an educational purpose".
I also want to note that some pictures like the one in Ali are notable because they are from Hagia Sophia.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested Edits

@GenoV84: As I explained in the edit summaries, "Replaced "absolute monotheism" with "puritanism", as he can't be said to be the one who introduced the doctrine of "absolute monotheism", as affirmed by brown p.245, he called for a return to it."[1], ""Replaced "oppposition to religious innovations" to "opposition to sufism", more specific" - this is supported by sources in the article and other sources[2], we can bring them and discuss them on the talk page if you'd like. I do not contest that we find the wording in the source, but the infobox details "notable idea(s)" and "absolute monotheism" is not a new idea.[3]

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

@ParthikS8: Thank you for your reply. I'm fully aware that Wahhab didn't invent the concept of "absolute, unadulterated monotheism" within Islam,[4] and that he wasn't the first to criticize religious innovations, prayers and devotional practices towards saints, tombs and shrines within Islam; in fact, the sources clearly state that he was considered (and regarded himself) more as a puritanical-revivalist preacher and reformer rather than an experienced scholar,[5] but his "uncompromising message of strict monotheism that shunned many popular religious practices",[5] which he deemed idolatrous, constitutes the ideological core of Wahhab's doctrine and theology, and, as I said before, the sources state that he criticized and opposed devotional practices that were widespread among all Sunni Muslims during his lifetime,[4][5] not only those who adhered to Sufism; in fact, his own family and brother,[4][5] who were Hanbali jurists just like him, rejected his teachings alongside most Islamic scholars...[4][5][6] and they were not Sufis. Therefore, to make Wahhab simply look like an anti-Sufi puritan would be incorrect and a misrepresentation of his religious thought. Moreover, I disagree with presenting Wahhab's doctrine as "Salafi", because that would be partially incorrect: according to David Commins, the tendency to refer to Wahhab's doctrine as Salafi "is a recent development that first emerged among Wahhabism's defenders outside Arabia well before Wahhabis themselves adopted the term."[6]--GenoV84 (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GenoV84:
Thanks for the reply, I'd like to apologise for my rudeness above.
I very much agree with you that he was not just opposed to Sufism, as you have shown (although you didn't cite a particular source to show his father/brother were non-Sufis, I think we will both agree that he was opposed to more than just Sufism, based off the sources in the article). The question now is one of compromise and wording. I think we should keep the point on puritanism and sufism, as I have provided an explicit source for these in the article.[7] At the same time, I agree with you that we would be mischaracterising him if we said that he was solely opposed to Sufism.
Currently it says,

Puritanism,
opposition to Sufism

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

Puritanism
Opposition to Sufism

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

opposition to religious innovations within Islam

I am not sure this quite captures all that he was against and it seems to make a judgement that which he opposed were innovations (and such judgements are not for Wikipedia to make). I would suggest "Opposition to perceived religious innovations within Islam" but this is far too long, we need something succinct.
As for him representing Salafi doctrine, this is simply what is reported by numerous sources.[8][9][10][11][12][13]
In summary, I suggest we keep "Puritanism" on the first line, and then put "Opposition to Sufism", on the next line down, and finally we should think of what to put on the third line. I am personally drawing a blank. Perhaps you can find sources which expound on exactly what his brother/father opposed him in, as the article just says they opposed his doctrine. ParthikS8 (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On a sidenote, you will note the title of this section.
The following IP, 2409:4070:4294:e626::1172:68a5, has re-added the content that both of us removed. Also numerous IPs seem to be adding content without sources/ explanation. Perhaps page protection is in order? ParthikS8 (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ParthikS8:

It's fine, don't worry about that. Thank you for your suggestions, and... I think we should propose page protection if vandals continue with their disruptive editing, but for the moment we should limit ourselves to warn them.
Before I begin to address the issue with "Puritanism" and "Opposition to Sufism" (which I agree with), I want to clarify one of my previous statements: when I said, referring to Wahhab's doctrine, that qualifying it as "Salafi" is partially incorrect, I didn't mean that it's wrong, but simply that it would be anachronistic, because Wahhabis adopted the term "Salafi" as a self-designation much later.[6] Indeed, Wahhab's first followers denominated themselves as ahl al-Tawhid[6] and al-Muwahhidun[4][5][6][14][15] ("Unitarians", or "those who affirm/defend the unity of God"),[4][5][6][14][15] and were called Wahhabis by their opponents.[5][6][14] According to Professor Abdullah Saeed, Wahhab should be considered one of the "Precursors" of the modern Salafi movement rather than a full-fledged modern Salafi, because he predates modern Salafism.[16] Nevertheless, the Wahhabi movement is considered "the most influential expression of Salafism of the Islamist sort, both for its role in shaping (some might say: 'creating') modern Islamism, and for disseminating salafi ideas widely across the Muslim world."[14]--GenoV84 (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's brother, Sulayman ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, and their father, 'Abd al-Wahhab, they both disagreed with Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and didn't share his doctrinal statements because they considered his teachings, and the way Wahhab intended to impose them in Arabia, too extreme and intolerant.[17] According to the Arabian historian and Mufti of Mecca, Ahmad ibn al-Zayni Dahlan's account of the dispute between Wahhab and his brother Sulayman:

Sulayman [ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab] once asked his brother Muhammad [ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab], "How many are the pillars of Islam?" "Five," he answered. Sulayman replied, "No, you have added a sixth one: He who does not follow you is not a Muslim. This, to you, is the sixth pillar of Islam."[18]

Therefore, I think that the most appropriate insertion as the first line would be "Wahhabism", because it comprises Wahhab's theology and religious thought as a whole, then "Salafi Puritanism" as the second line and "Opposition to Sufism" as the third line, although he also opposed and criticized Shia Islam[15] and the Ottoman Empire[15] (the latter on a political and religious level),[15][17] but these aren't new or notable ideas, as well as his opposition to Sufism and his puritanical-reformist approach to Sunni Muslim practices that he considered shirk and/or bidʻah.... In summary, if we had to indicate a specifically new and notable idea attributable only to Wahhab, it would be Wahhabism itself, since Wahhab is the founder of Wahhabism.--GenoV84 (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notes/Citations

References

  1. ^ Brown, Daniel W. (2009). "The Wahhābī Movement". A New Introduction to Islam. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. p. 245. ISBN 978-1-4051-5807-7. Retrieved 1 June 2020. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  2. ^ Sirriyeh, Elizabeth. Sufis and anti-Sufis: The defence, rethinking and rejection of Sufism in the modern world. Routledge, 2014.
  3. ^ E.g. see Alimardi, Mohammad Mahdi. "The Concept of Monotheism and Oneness in Islam and Sikhism." The International Journal of Humanities 19.1 (2012): 71-84.
  4. ^ a b c d e f Brown, Daniel W. (2009). "The Wahhābī Movement". A New Introduction to Islam. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. p. 245. ISBN 978-1-4051-5807-7.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h Haykel, Bernard (2013). "Ibn ‛Abd al-Wahhab, Muhammad (1703-92)". In Böwering, Gerhard; Crone, Patricia; Kadi, Wadad; Mirza, Mahan; Stewart, Devin J.; Zaman, Muhammad Qasim (eds.). The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. pp. 231–232. ISBN 978-0-691-13484-0.
  6. ^ a b c d e f g Commins, David (2015). "From Wahhabi to Salafi". In Haykel, Bernard; Hegghammer, Thomas; Lacroix, Stéphane (eds.). Saudi Arabia in Transition: Insights on Social, Political, Economic and Religious Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 151. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139047586.011. ISBN 978-1-107-00629-4.
  7. ^ Van Bruinessen, Martin. "Sufism,‘popular’Islam and the encounter with modernity." Islam and modernity: key issues and debates (2009): 125-157.
  8. ^ Sedgwick, Mark. "Contextualizing Salafism." Tidsskrift for Islamforskning 4.1 (2010): 75-81.
  9. ^ Mneimneh, Hassan. "The Spring of a New Political Salafism." Current Trends in Islamist Ideology 12 (2011): 30-34.
  10. ^ Østebø, Terje. "Salafism, State-Politics, and the Question of" Extremism" in Ethiopia." Comparative Islamic Studies 8 (2012).
  11. ^ Reynolds, Gabriel Said. "Saudi Arabia, Salafism, and US Foreign Policy." Principles 3.5 (2017).
  12. ^ Anzalone, Christopher. "Salafism in Nigeria: Islam, Preaching, and Politics." American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 35.3 (2018): 98-103.
  13. ^ Rabil, Robert G. Salafism in Lebanon: From apoliticism to transnational jihadism. Georgetown University Press, 2014.
  14. ^ a b c d Silverstein, Adam J. (2010). "Wahhabism". Islamic History: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 112–113. ISBN 978-0-19-954572-8.
  15. ^ a b c d e Ágoston, Gábor; Masters, Bruce, eds. (2009). "Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, Muhammad". Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. New York: Facts On File. p. 260. ISBN 978-0-8160-6259-1.
  16. ^ Saeed, Abdullah (2013). "Precursors of the Modernist-Salafiya Movement". In Esposito, John L.; Shahin, Emad El-Din (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Islam and Politics. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 29–30. ISBN 978-0-19-539589-1.
  17. ^ a b Khatab, Sayed (2011). "Wahhabism". Understanding Islamic Fundamentalism: The Theological and Ideological Basis. Cairo, Egypt: American University in Cairo Press. pp. 63–75. ISBN 978-977-416-499-6.
  18. ^ Khatab, Sayed (2011). "Wahhabism". Understanding Islamic Fundamentalism: The Theological and Ideological Basis. Cairo, Egypt: American University in Cairo Press. p. 71. ISBN 978-977-416-499-6.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad_ibn_Abd_al-Wahhab&oldid=1015952861"