Talk:Wahhabism/Archive 1

message: I've noticed that there is like maybe one or two sentences on criticism of Wahhabism. And that's rather odd, because there have been several books written on it. The article on Zionism has extensive criticism in the article. Furthermore, it's also relevant, because it's not just modern scholars, but even scholars that knew Wahhab personally, when he was alive, had criticized him. I can also get a public domain copy of one of these historical Islamic texts. Like someone else below, I am not a Jew, Christian, or Muslim, and I think America sucks too, so I have no pro-Wahhabi or anti-Wahhabi POV to sell. But anyway, I'll work on adding a new section within the article on criticism of Wahhabism. 69.138.24.96 18:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding Criticism

message: Will someone describe the reasoning behind the following criticism?
From the article:
"Wahhabism is often maligned and attacked by adherents of the Ash'ari and Maturidis as being anthropomorphist."
What does Wahhabism supposedly anthropomorphize?
:::See the above reminder. Even if you disagree with their criticism, if they claim that, it is a fact. Only if it is a rare, unscholarly claim should it be removed. 69.138.24.96 17:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ibn Taymiyyah got into trouble because some accused him of having a rather too-literal interpretation of phrases such as God's hand in Qur'an verse 48:10... AnonMoos 23:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Anthropomorphist" critism

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree completely, such as the Saudi Imams recently declaring several fatwas against terrorism. But make sure you're using sources and not original research. 69.138.24.96 17:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anjouli's concern about bias

message: 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)
thread_title: Please cite references

message: 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)
thread_title: About American mosques

message: 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)
thread_title:  Write, stop talking 

message: 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)
replies: text: All the websites you mentioned are the ones maintained by Saudi Arabia and its official clerics.  Just like the Wahhabies claim that they are the only correct Muslims, the Saudi Government claims they are the only correct Wahhabies.  Then they go ahead and say they are not Wahhabies but Salafies.Hassanfarooqi 18:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dissociating from Osama bin Laden

message: 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
I agree, and in much the same line of thinking, I removed the traditional honorific "peace be upon him" following the first reference to the Prophet Mohammed. I did this not out of disrepect, or because I don't wish peace upon him or anyone else, but because this is an encylopedia and not a religious tract. I'm sure this will piss off trillions of people, but that's not my intention.
--Brent 09:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious apologetics

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Salafi/Wahhabi 

message: 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
Mohammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab is not the "Leader" of the Salafi Manhaj, or Wahhabi school of thought (which DOES NOT Exist).  Salafi means, to follow the Salaf (the righteous predecessors) and the Prophet Muhammad.  So the leader of it is the prophet himself.  It is not a group, hizb, or anything like that.  It is adhereance to the curriculum of the Prophet and his companions. --Abu Mahdhoorah 03:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just typpical Wahhabi word play.  By your definition every Muslim would be a Salafi whether he is a Shia or a Sunni because they all claim with their own proof that they follow the Salaf.  Then every Sunni loving the House of Muhammed would be a Shia.  Every Shia followiing Sunnah of Prophet would be a Sunni.  Both Shias and Sunnies would be Ahl-Hadith as they follow Hadith.  Shia, Sunni, and Ahl-Hadith will all be Ahl Quran because they all follow Quran.  What an absurd logic.  The fact is, Salafi/Wahhabi/Nejdi sect is a sect in Islam which is controlled by House of Saud and his paid clerics with splinter groups like Al-Qaeda.Hassanfarooqi 19:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salafi or are the same Wahhabi 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Salafis and Wahhabis are not Sunnis 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: In the related links section for Islam on Wikipedia, it states Wahabisim as a movement and not a school of thought, it states Hanbali as one of the main Schools of Thought, but Wahabism is more common than Hanbali, I was always under the impression that the four were: Hanafi, Wahabi, Shafi and Maliki, anyone agree? Or is Wahabisim not considered a school of thought because it came along a lot later than the rest?
:If I am not mistaken, the "Schools of Thought" are actually theological schools that were historically followed. They were Hanafi, Shafa'i, Maliki and Hanbali. Wahhabism came much later.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 23:59, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
::Wahhabism is the fifth school and is "Ghair Muqallad" (non followers) and advocates against following any of the four Sunni shools.  They are more influenced by the Hanbali school but claim they refer to Hadith directly bypassing the Fiqah, hence the term Ahl HadithHassanfarooqi 19:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wahabi-School of thought or 'movement'

message: If Saudi Arabia is officially Wahhabi, then there should be some official statement documenting that. Can anybody find a citation? --Yodakii 08:36:04, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
take a look at the title of this book --Striver 00:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Officially Wahhabi 

message: I'm not quite sure how long that section on Traditional Sunni Views was there, or how it morphed, but it had turned into an incredibly convoluted treatment of madhabs, ijtihad, and mujtahids. I tried to straighten it out and then realized that whoever had written it had turned it into a treatise on what Salafis believe. Moreover, this editor was strongly of the opinion that ALL Salafis of course deferred to the Salafi mujtahids. I'm not at all sure that this is true. There are any number of Salafists (primarily jihadis) who seem quite comfortable following their own judgments and rejecting any outside legal opinions. I imagine that if the writer of that section had gotten down to brass tacks -- listing the authorities whom Salafists recognize as mujtahids -- that the article would have devolved into extended wrangling as to which scholar was to be followed and which rejected. 
Any editors who profess to speak for all Salafis should be distrusted. There are just too many versions of Salafism out there. I'm not sure how I would categorize them myself, as I'm still reading and researching. But I know enough now to be wary of people who claim to be THE authority on  TRUE Salafism. Zora 07:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ijtihad, mujtahids 

message: Anon, I can't say that I'm all that sympathetic to the Wahhabis either. However, we have to try to keep the article neutral in tone. Let readers draw their own conclusions. Zora 03:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavily copyediting anon's comments 

message: Since the Salafi article was recently rewritten, the last para of this article no longer linked to anything in the Salafi article. I therefore rewrote it. It desperately needs references and is probably NOT the best treatment of religious trends in Saudi Arabia. It's just a rough start. I hope other editors can expand, clarify, and add cites. Zora 17:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite of last para 

message: Guys, it is not right to add PBUHs and the like to Islam-related articles. This is a secular dictionary. Nor is it right to erase language that says that there is a difference between Wahhabism per se and Salafism in general. Contemporary Saudis have done much to try to erase or confuse the difference, but much that is characteristic of modern Salafism was not a feature of early Wahhabism. Now if you can quote a scholar of the history of Wahhabism, or of Salafism, who says differently, we can say that there's a controversy and give both views. What is in the article now is based on contemporary writings in English. It should be better cited. The article as it stands is just a sketch and could use a lot more work. Zora 19:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest edits 

message: I just reverted a large number of edits to this page by User:Sayfullah.  They were POV essays from a Sunni perspective deriding Wahabbism. While they did contain some interesting points their was no mention of how they could be incorporated in the article.
I hope what I've done isn't seen as censorship of the talk page. I ask User:Sayfullah to please comment here, in his/her own words, on how the information they have could be used to improve the article.
This talk page is only for discussions about improving the Wahhabism article, religious debates should go elsewhere. Ashmoo 22:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of User:Sayfullah edits 

message: Anons revised the article to claim that Salafism was the only true Islam. Someone also added a claim that Wahabism was a pejorative term invented by the British, against whom the Salafis were rebelling. That latter bit is completely wrong. The House of Saud came to power with British support. The British were supporting local independence movements in order to undermine the Ottomans. Zora 03:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various edits by anons 

message: Being someone who knows very little about Islam, I came to this Wiki page in order to gain a better understanding of the sect and why it is such a common discussion in American media.  Unfortunately, the article is so bland it is essentially useless.  My suggestion is to be less concerned about offending anyone and more concerned with presenting a pertinent, real-world description of Wahhabism in the current global environment. Lux 21:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely uninformative 

message: This page is so gay. I know yall can add more and make it better. And Wahhabiyya and Salafiyya are the same thing. Its just that the lable Wahhabi is offensive and i dont want to hert anyones feelings.
:Please God pray the above editor does not enter anything into the main pages!212.11.191.18 12:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I DONT LIKE HOW THIS PAGE IS SET UP

message: I completely revamped the para that someone added on the Hempher conspiracy theory. Anyone who looks at that text can see that it is a forgery; Englishmen simply do not express themselves that way. It reads like a translation from Arabic. However, there is something to the claim that the British supported the Saudis, and I added an academically respectable reference to make that point. Zora 05:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The book was translated and retranslated many time.  In some translations, people added words.  This can make it look like forgery as the English is not that of an Englishman.  The Wahhabi-English connection carried even after the first world war.  David Holden and Johns explain this in their biography "The House of Saud".Hassanfarooqi 18:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hempher theory is crackpottery 

message: Someone added a lot of parenthetical comments to the section on Wahhabi beliefs, basically accusing them of hypocrisy. Someone else removed the word Sunni -- perhaps out of a feeling that they aren't REAL Sunnis. I reverted to a version that is more neutral. No, I'm not particularly sympathetic to the Wahabis (as an American, a woman, a Buddhist) but WP is founded on NPOV, which means being fair even to people with whom you disagree. Zora 02:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wahhabis are Sunnis, like it or not 

message: Wahhabies know that they are not an acceptable form of Islam.  So they penetrate among the sunnies by declaring themselves as sunnies and then corrupt their faith to hire them as terrorist.  Here are the fundamental differences.
# Wahhabies believe that God physicall exists on the seventh heaven i.e. he is bound by time-space.  Sunnies believe time-space is a creation of God and God is free from its creation.  7th heaven does not have any creation and therefore it has God's pure view.  Ref.  They quote Ibn Taymiyyah who walked up the stairs to show how God ascended to his throne.
# Wahhabies believe God is a superior being.  The book "Aqaid Ahlas Sunna Wal Jamat" printed by Saudi official clerics describe God having two eyes, hands etc.  Sunnies being God is the real being his creatures the virtual beings.  Therefore Quranic reference to his hands refer to his authroity, his eyes to his knowledge etc.
# Wahhabies believes in spreading their version thru sword killing anyone who does not confirm to the doctorine of Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab.  The victims have always been Sunnies.  Abdul-Aziz bin Saud killed the entire family of Governor of Najd including women and children, when he raided and conquered Riyadh (ref: The House of Saud by David Holden Y Richard Johns).  When they raided Hejaz, they killed 70,000 that were children of Holy prophet and his holy companions.  All Sunnies!!!  Sunnies do not believe in killing non-combatants.
# Wahhabies do not follow any of the recognized sunni Imams i.e Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafai, Imam Malik, or Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal.  They consider Taqleed against Islam but follow Ibn Abdulwahhab and his children, known as Aal-Sheikh.  By Ibn Saud-Ibn Abdulwahhab pact, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia is always from the House of Ibn Abdulwahhab and the King from the house of Saud.  That is why they initially called themselves "Ahl-Hadith" or "Ghair Muqallad".  Only when they are among Sunnies, they call themselves Sunnies.Hassanfarooqi 16:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The fundamental differences between Sunnies and Wahhabies 

message: I chopped this whole section. Because the weasel tag was added a while ago and no action has been taken to fix it. Additionally, the whole thing seems like OR, mixing the British Wahhabi 'conspiracy' with general British sponsorship of the Saudi regime. None of the quotes refer specifically to the 'conspiracy', but seem like 'proof' one way or the other, making it seem even more like OR.

Some Muslim opponents of Wahhabism have claimed it is actually a British imperialist conspiracy. They claim that a British spy named Mr. Hempher enlisted the founder of Wahhabism, Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, in a plot to bring down the Ottoman empire. As proof, they present a text purporting to be the memoirs of Mr. Hempher.
Pro Saudi historians do not accept this conspiracy theory.  Saudi-born historian Madawi Al-Rasheed's authoritative A History of Saudi Arabia does not mention the supposed Mr. Hempher at all. However, al-Rasheed does say:
: "Throughout the 1920s and the 1930s, Britain remained the main external player behind the formation of the Saudi state ... To argue, however, that the Saudi state of 1932 was a British 'invention' misses an important aspect of the internal dynamics that shaped the state and led to its consolidation. While Britain may have been a key force behind state formation, the rise and consolidation of the Sa'udi state resulted from a complex process that cannot be traced to any single external factor." (al-Rasheed 2002, p. 3).
Independant historians like David Holden (who was dubbed pro-Arab and assasinated mysteriously) clearly describes in his book "House of Saud" how the Wahhabies came into power with the help of British army officers like Captain Shakespear, Colonel Philby and Lawrence of Arabia. Some Western media organisations such as the American PBS network also mention the alleged "Oil for Security" deal per which the the United States is to help protect Saudi rule in exchange for continous Saudi oil supply to the USA. 
Ashmoo 02:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: British conspiracy

message: I chopped this section for exactly the same reasons. Criticism are needed, but they must conform to WP rules & standards. 

Many of today's Islamic scholars have criticised the Wahhabi doctrine for its
literal interpretation and description of the attributes of Allah, which consists of 
anthropomorphism, that is, likening Allah's attributes to his creation. Descriptions of 
Allah having a literal shape, hands, arms, legs and a shin bone have attracted much
criticism.
Uthaymeen of Saudi Arabia, a prominent Wahhabi, claimed that "'His (Allah's) settling on the Throne' means that He is 
sitting in person on His Throne in a way that is becoming His majesty and greatness. Nobody 
except He knows exactly how He is sitting." ('The Muslim's Belief' p.11) Some consider this to be giving human attributes to God.
Ashmoo 02:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I am tired of Wahhabis being considered as Sunnis by wikipedia.  Sunni scholars have time and again denounced wahhabism.  The wahhabis denounced sufism, taqlid, and the practice of following a maddhab- things which are canonized in sunni islam.  Just because Wahhabis hate Shias does NOT mean they are Sunnis.  In Islam there is a three way fight between the Ahlus Sunna, the Shia, and the Wahhabis.  This has been proven by the Sunni websites that were linked to in the main article on wahhabism.  Wahhabism is a heresy, pure and simple.71.102.163.7 23:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wahhabis are not Sunnis

message: The article states that followers of the teachings of Wahhabi object to watching television and photographing any living being with a soul.  However, it certainly seems that here in the West, we see photos and/or videos made by people that are (as far as I know) Wahhabist Muslims.  In particular, I'm thinking of videos released by Osama bin Laden and other jihadists from Saudi Arabia.  So is it (1) in fact, these aren't Wahhabist Muslims, (2) they are Wahhabist, but feel that broadcasting their message is more important than restrictions on photography, or (3) the article is wrong about restrictions on photography?  I would suggest that someone with access to reliable information on this issue (i.e., not me) make this point clear in the article.  GeoGreg 20:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs and television? 

message: I dont feel that paragraph about the reports of `dangers` of Wahhabism in Bosnia in the intro is in the appropriate place.
It should form part of a detailed section on the spread/influence of modern Wahhabism if it is to appear at all. That kind of detail is beyond me so other help would be needed. At the moment its very much out of place.
Secondly I cant see the point in reffering to a brief report on a radio show whos contents cant be verified and Im quite concerned that the only link provided here was to a non-BBC article via Freerepublic (a radical right-wing forum).
So I have replaced the forum link with a direct link to the article (which Im not convinced should stay) but will hold off deleting or moving the paragraph itself until others give their views.
--Mazzarin 11:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Growth in Bonsia

message: T. E. Lawrenece was symapthetic to the causes of the Arab Revolt of Hijaz by the Sharifs of Mecca, not the  Al Saud dysnasty.
Messiaindarain (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of [[T. E. Lawrence]]

message: Hi all, please review my edits - I've cleaned up the Beliefs section and I removed the section called "Disregarding (most) Islamic scholars" because it was poorly written and rehashing the exact same points in the text preceding it. Moreoever, the sources used were not really in line with what was actually written. I find this is actually the case for a lot of what is written. Let me know if there are any concerns with my version. Sakimonk  talk 01:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edits 

message: yes occupation by their fellow sunni muslims from the ottoman empire.occupation of parts of saudi arabia by the sunni muslim ottoman turks is in large part responsible for the rise of wahhabism.the rest of the blame for the causality is by the saudi arabian muslims themselves.human causality goes all the way back to the big bang itself.remember,assess and discern all of it as accurately as possible with as little bias and preference as possible.it's not a contest,we are all of one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.82.169 (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  came about partly because of occupation 

message: I believe the law recently changed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facherty (talk • contribs) 11:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update needed on the position of women drivers in Saudi Arabia? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Wahhabism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120115051208/http://islamlib.com:80/en/article/muhammad-ibn-abd-al-wahab-1703-1791 to http://islamlib.com/en/article/muhammad-ibn-abd-al-wahab-1703-1791
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Solarium42 asked in his/her edit summary Where exactly does source say "Many Sunni and Shia Muslims....believe in a conspiracy theory"?
Try the URL provided in the citation:   When you see the page displayed, try the "previous" and "next" buttons.
The source says: "In a conspiracy theory widely accepted by many Muslims it is claimed that Abd'al-Wahhab was a 'duped of the British secret service'[20] and Wahhabism was a creation of the 'British Imperialists as a means of diving and weakening Islam."-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Where exactly does source say "Many Sunni and Shia Muslims....believe in a conspiracy theory"?

message: I have a source this paragraph saying that it was Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt that crushed the Wahhabis in 1818 rather than what is stated in the article => "The Ottoman Empire eventually succeeded in counterattacking. In 1818 they defeated Al Saud" 
I guess Ibrahim Pasha was Ottoman? Makeandtoss (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for annoying you! But I am truly confused, was Ibrahim Pasha an Albanian who ruled over Egypt for the Ottoman Empire (fought against Al Saud in 1818) and then fought against the Ottoman Empire in 1831 ? Makeandtoss (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: The year 1818

message: I only found two sources mentioning the establishment of Wahhabi rule over "southeastern Syria". Can someone help me find more information about this event ?  Makeandtoss (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Occupation of southeastern Syria

message: External links section had various valuable links to scholarly articles about wahhabism / salafism, to be recently almost uniformly changed to the pro-wahhabi / pro-salafi websites on the subject. Main website that practically replaced them all is called salafimanhaj.com. Besides criticism of ISIS and al-Qaeda (conducted officially by the Saudi government as well, which in practice doesn't stop them from preaching openly the same ideology , ), the website for example refers to Shia Muslims in derogatory terms, such as rafida. In accordance with the Wikipedia's neutrality policy, it should be clearly stated that these websites that replaced scholarly articles are wahhabi/salafi run. Not all people are experts in the Islamic field to differentiate between the groups and ideologies. --Szalony Mnich (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The external links seem to predate most of the article's contents, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't clean up this section according to the criteria of WP:EXT. Please be bold and remove inappropriate links. Eperoton (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links