Talk:Barelvi movement/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Usage of proper terms

It is called Twassuf to describe intercession in Islam and Dihkr for devotional chants sometimes drums are involved.Lagoonaville (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Lagoonaville, I presume you mean Tawassul? It doesn't have the narrow meaning you ascribe to it. See the Wikipedia page on Tawassul. And Dhikr has a much fuller and richer meaning than merely devotional chants, as its Wikipedia page also shows. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you say barelvis are not doing tawassul? Lagoonaville (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

They do, with a FAR fuller meaning than you ascribe. The previous wording was preferred by an editor consensus. Stick to that. By the way, the source hosted at: https://www.academia.edu/7643961/Anti-Americanism_in_Indonesia_and_Pakistan is merely an unpublished memo titled “Americanism in Indonesia and Pakistan” to participants in a Duke Anti Americanism Workshop from Christopher Candland. It’s hardly a reliable source. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The Barelvi website is very clear: http://www.alahazrat.net/islam/waseela.php" Tawassul should be added. Veneration wording links to an unknown page. Lagoonaville (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That is certainly NOT a reliable, authoritative, and neutral third-party source. Two good sets of Wikipedia guidelines that I have found really useful can be found HERE and HERE. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Being "neutral" doesnt apply here. It is one of their websites and that is their wording of the specific practice. The source is clear of the fact that its not just the deceased persons that intercede but also living. Please take a look at the discussion here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Barelvi" Lagoonaville (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Would a post on a local Anglican-affiliated website (of unproven official authority) be a good source for establishing a certain official Church of England doctrine? Clearly not. It doesn't make sense to me to use your source to prove a Barelvi doctrine. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not a blog. What is intercession in Islamic terms? The rest of the practices seem to be linking to the correct terminology "zikr mawlid etc Lagoonaville (talk)

Read my amended question. Please establish that this site is an OFFICIAL site expressing official doctrines. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I dont believe you have done any research on this group. If indeed your are trying to play devils advocate, I dont have thee time. The websites about us section clearly dedicates the website to this movement. Lagoonaville (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't get personal. How do you know that I'm not Barelvi? A website's dedication to a movement does NOT make it a reliable source on that movement. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You have not answered any of my questions. Lagoonaville (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You have not addressed the issue I raised. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lagoonaville:, you're being beliggerent and uncooperative. The way things stand now, any attempts by you to alter the article from the previous consensus will be reverted. You will not achieve whatever goal you have without being polite and collegial with other editors. It might be a good idea to take a day or two off, relax, and come back when you're ready to work with the community at large. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like there is no objection to my reliable source. Lagoonaville (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You'll just get reverted if you edit against consensus. Bromley86 (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I have provided reliable source https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#tbm=bks&q=+Barelvi+Islam+is+closely+tied+to+devotion+to+pirs+and+belief+in+their+powers+of+intercession+(wasilah)" Lagoonaville (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Bear in mind I'm no expert in this; I was just offering a friendly warning. In that vein, making a case is better done by making a case, point by point, with specific cites and page refs, rather than that sort of linking. Bromley86 (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW, you can wrap external links in square brackets, which can make a case easier to follow. Bromley86 (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• • • Sources insupport of barelvi practicing tawassul or waseela***

'"Barelvi Islam is closely tied to the devotion to pirs and belief in their powers of intercession (wasilah)"'. State and ideology in the Middle East and Pakistan. Page 84 [1]

"Darul Uloom (Pretoria) was the first fully-fledged Barelwi madrasah. It was established in 1989, at a time when the Deobandi-Barelwi confclit in South Africa was at its peaks. During the 1980s, Deobandi attacks had heightened against popular Sufi practices such as the visitation to shrines of Sufi saints, the celebration of Muhammad’s birth (mawlid), and against beliefs in the intercession of saints (tawassul)"' Muslim Schools and E'ducation in Europe and South Africa).page 76 [2]

"According to Barelwi scholar, Muhammad is no mere mortal. He possesses ‘ilm al-ghayb (knowledge of the unknown) and is the primary focus for tawassul (intercession) with God". Encyclopaedia of Islam.page 88 [3]

'"Barelvis believe in the wasilah (higher standing or great religious status) of dead saints and their brakkah (spiritual power, blessings, holiness), to be found in their shrines". Islamic Fundamentalism in Pakistan, Egypt and Iran. page 399 [4]

• • • Source in support of Barelvi & Nahdlatul Ulama being similar movement

"The only reformist school which has vindicated the full Sufi heritage, is that of the Barelwis who have been joined by the Naqshbandis; their practice of Sufism may be compared to that of the Indonesian Nathdlatul Ulama.” Varieties of Religious Authority: Changes and Challenges in 20th Century Indonesian Islam. Page 8 [5] Lagoonaville (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright @Lagoonaville:, that's a first step. So what are you propising be changed? From what to what? Please be clear and to the point. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Veneration of the dead should link to Tawassul (Barelvis believe living and the dead may intercede so that should be adjusted) 2. Nahdlatul Ulama should be added in see also section 3. The Islamic terminology should be visible (For example when I first looked at the page I did not feel interested in finding out what "visiting" linked to because I assumed it would take me to the wiki page for what the word visiting literally meant). Lagoonaville (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Those are some interesting points to raise. Given what you've found, I don't expect points two and three to be controversial, and point three can help readers to understand Islamic terms though I would prefer to insert Islamic terms while keeping the English ones as well; readers will be more familiar with the English ones, and both can help for a clearer understanding. This obviously relates to point number one as well; I personally would support inclusion of both "veneration of the dead" as well as "tawassul" but not of deleting one. For the original rationale for that, you can check the archive at Talk:Barelvi/Archive_5#Beliefs_and_practices_-_new_edits. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It shouldnt be a problem as long as its clear that they venerate both the living and dead saints. Barelvis believe it to be a form of Tawassul Lagoonaville (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lagoonaville:, I agree with your suggestion wholeheartedly and you've made a very good point. Assuming nobody else is against it, we can probably draft a new version of the passage in question. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

How does that look? Lagoonaville (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's better without the terms being stuck at the end. Have a look at my edit. I won't object if they are added at the beginning. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Its now at the front. The terms are in the beginning but an editor who is not even taking part in the discussion is removing edits Lagoonaville (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• So you raise a frivolous ANI without giving me a chance to actually come here after my second reversion? Good job. You have no consensus for the edit you tried to make, as your change had absolutely nothing to do with what you had been discussing. You have consensus for the addition of Tawassul, but nothing to do with the Mawlid term being present above everything else, and there is no mention of the Ziyarat in this discussion anywhere. So, as far as I could tell, you made an edit that does not have proper consensus, AND you marked it as minor, which it isn't. Now, if the other editors here do agree with that edit, then fine, they can reinstate it; but right now, I'm still not seeing that you have a consensus. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I was beginning to think you were computer generated account. The discussion is for islamic terms that includes these terms Mawlid and Ziyart. GorgeCuster wouldnt mind them being in the beginning and i have put it there. Do you now understand? Lagoonaville (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• You need to actually discuss said terms rather than just assuming you can dump them in... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Are they not already in the article? Im not dumping them in if they are already there. Click on birthday and it will take you to Mawlid article. Lagoonaville (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Lagoonaville:, the problem is that you didn't discuss the proposed changes here first. When I said "draft," that means what it says; a draft. NOT edits to the main article space. Perhaps you didn't understand that as you're new, but please understand that in the world of documentation, a draft isn't the final version of a document (in this case, an article).

You must also keep in mind that you're new here and obviously are still learning about site policies and guidelines. Edit warring against an established editor and opening an ANI case improperly aren't going to yield the results you want; it's more likely to backfire.

Take a few days to cool off, don't think about it and then come back here. Don't make edits to the article yet; suggest draft versions here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not plan to rewrite the whole section. Can you explain your problem with my recent edit instead of asking for drafts and what not. Lagoonaville (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Not happening. Your cooperation has improved since you started and you're certainly learning site policies, but I don't think any of your peers will cut you slack on this specific point. We have an old version of the article which was accepted via consensus over a year ago after literally months of deliberations now in the talk page archives. The changes you have tried to implement have been opposed by other editors. Thus, there is no short cut.

There appears to be a new suggested draft below; let's discuss that first before editing the article itself. Other editors - even though who haven't been involved until now - also have the right to comment and contribute. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not think it would be this difficult to edit on wikipedia. Learning policies etc are time consuming especially when im not receiving any compensation Lagoonaville (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft

• Mawlid, Public celebration of Muhammad's birthday.

• Tawassul, Veneration of dead and living saints. This consists of the intervention of an ascending, linked and unbroken chain of holy personages claimed to reach ultimately to Muhammad, who Barelvis believe intercede on their behalf with God.

• Ziyarat Visiting the tombs of Muhammad, his companions and of pious Muslims, an act the Barelvis claim is supported by the Quran, Sunnah and acts of the companions, but which opponents call "shrine-worshipping" and "grave-worshiping" and consider to be un-Islamic.

• Use of devotional music.

• Leaving the beard to grow for men; the movement views a man who trims his beard to less than a fist-length as a sinner, and shaving the beard is considered abominable. Lagoonaville (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Lagoonaville, assalamu alaykum. Sorry to say but your draft looks clumsy. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

What is clumsy about it? Can you provide suggestions to make it better? You are free to make your own draft and present it here as well.Leave the tag btw there's a dispute about content but I am not sure why editors opposed my edits. Lagoonaville (talk) 07:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Article is Disputed template on Barelvi

As I explained, Lagoonaville, there was no major dispute on the Barelvi page until YOU began upsetting an editor consensus. Please stop being stubborn and adversarial. You can't claim there's a neutrality dispute just because you don't like the fact that many other editors disagree with your edits and style of interaction. Try working with them, not against them. I always find the advice of other editors to be highly useful, even when sometimes they edit things I feel strongly about. Don't continue edit warring. You'll get banned if you do. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a dispute and your avoiding it now. I have provided reliable sources and I would like my contribution included in this article. Lagoonaville (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Lagoonville, there is a dispute, but there is no dispute over whether the article is neutral or not. The POV tag is 100% inappropriate, and in a total violation of WP:POINT. If you keep this up, then you'll find yourself back at ANI, staring a topic ban in the face. You are still refusing to give other editors more than a few minutes to respond before lashing out, and that is extremely unhelpful. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You have said many times you dont know anything about the subject and are waiting for other editors. The article is not neutral as specific terms are excluded at the moment. This is really ridciculous and your intention of wanting to edit war is very clear to all. I am not "lashing out" it is you who has edit warred with me and reported me for it. Lagoonaville (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the definition of Intercession be included?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Khanyusufkhalil does not want to reach a consensus with this RfC; instead it was opened to argue with editors. Already blocked per WP:NOTHERE. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 22:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Shouldnt the article include wasila? Khanyusufkhalil (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this seriously what you were referring to when you claimed in your edit summary that consensus has been achieved? You posted a question on the talk page and then start edit warring with multiple established editors?

1. Go actually read Wikipedia:Consensus.
2. Go read Wikipedia:Edit warring to understand why what you were doing is wrong and simply won't be tolerated.
3. Go back into the talk page archive, because the discussions on the consensus version - point by point - are there. If you didn't find it, you aren't looking hard enough. The onus is on you to address the previously mentioned consensus and all the issues that had been brought up, not on editors trying to preserve that consensus against a single newcomer's attempts to simply revert again and again because he refuses to engage in discussion.

Over the years, this article has been one of the biggest targets for POV pushing within the subfield of Islam-related topics. Almost every exchange on here with new users ends up being an entirely fruitless endeavor that produces no valuable contributions and only ends with supporters or detractors (90% supporters) of the article's subject just wanting their own personal subjective opinions reflected in the article. I hope this isn't the case here, but you'll need to work a little harder to understand site policies to make any positive contribution. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I read the talk page and it said consensus was achieved to add Tawassul. User Laku says above. I noted this to Admin [6]. It is not my personal belief. I am not here to do as you have said above. May I ask why you have ignored my arguments? [7] Khanyusufkhalil (talk) 06:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Khanyusufkhalil, you seem intent on trying to assert a one-editor consensus, namely your own, which makes no sense. I've followed your edits and, sorry to say, believe you are being both stubborn and unhelpful. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

That is not true. Do you have any comment on my edit in this article? After reading archive. The policy WP:MOSISLAM was used for all except dhikr, and i corrected it. Khanyusufkhalil (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Khanyusufkhalil:It IS true, you aren't being totally honest and you've done nothing but provide working examples for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and your edits are, once again, an example of how 90% of the new editors who come to this article only end up causing trouble while POV-pushing and eventually leave having contributed nothing positive. Sorry for being so rough but given that you've been reverted by three editors all of whom have pointed out that you're editing against a long established consensus with no actual reasoning, it's difficult to humor you any longer. Read the relevant policies, explain why you think the consensus should be changed or continue getting reverted. The ball is entirely in your court now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I explained my position on your talk page and on this talk page. Various sources provide the explanation for Intercession [8] [9] [10] [11]. Wasilah is an important part of Barelvi practices it should be added into this article. Ignoring my rationale is not discussion. User:GorgeCustersSabre Discuss the reason you are reverting me or stop it please. I have told you above why I made that edit. The policy WP:MOSISLAM says translate the addition. Khanyusufkhalil (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Translating dhikr as "act" makes no sense. Please stop being so stubborn and headstrong. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Dhikr is called a devotional act by academics [12] [13] [14]. Do you want me to include the citations in the article? Khanyusufkhalil (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2015

You had it only as "act". Made no sense. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Does it not look weird repeating devotional twice in one line? Khanyusufkhalil (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Khanyusufkhalil: It has already been explained to you that your "rationale" fails to address the previously established consensus and you have not only refused to discuss the matter but also appear to have not even read the previous discussion, and on top of all that you still engaged in edit warring recently. This is all in spite of the fact that you now hoave three established editors explaining things to you rationally and the only response we receive comes in the form of snooty edit summaries or the same repeated comments here that make you appear to have ignored the past discussions on this topic which have been mentioned to you several times. You have not addressed the issue at hand, you have not discussed the previously established consensus and what's wrong with it, and you have not edited in a sincere, constructive manner. If you continue going on this way, I can guarantee that things will not end up well for you. Please go back and actually read the discussion in the archives regarding the veneration of the dead issue and then address the points brought up and explain why things should be changed. And do that before you start edit warring again, please. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

User:MezzoMezzo I read the archives. Regarding veneration of the dead article I understand your rationale but the Islamic wording should also be included. Listen mate I have realible sources per wikipedia guidelines. If you can give a suggestion about how I should include wasila in the article. feel free to do so. Note Barelvi also venerate the living therefore veneration of the dead article only supports half the fact. I have proposal to include wasila under the word intercede. Khanyusufkhalil (talk)

No, sir, I am not going to give you any suggestions and I am going to undo your edit again. You have NOT explained a thing here on this talk page. You claim you have sources, but you have not addressed anyone's concerns and until you do so, you will continue to be reverted. The sooner you understand that, the sooner you will be able to contribute to the article positively. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The statement above shows me clear signs of being uncooperative. I suggest you not remove sourced content if your not willing to come up with a compromise. I am beginning to think you dont want to resolve the matter. Clearly you are filibustering. The edit summary is to be used to note the issue with the content. The latest edit summary upon your reversion is amusing to say the least. Its clear in this talk page of your disregard for my sources. Khanyusufkhalil (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Please Khanyusufkhalil try to read and understand what other editors are trying to tell you. Salam and regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No response to this [15] Its been several weeks. Khanyusufkhalil (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You believe that you had no response? Your rationale is not working. Fundarise (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Well why is it not working? Khanyusufkhalil (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Khanyusufkhalil, not once have you actually given a justification for your edit. "Reliable sources say so" is meaningless without actually explaining anything. At this point, I can't see you getting any consensus, simply because you're basically refusing to work with us in order to actually resolve the issue. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OR

Upon examining some of the cites, I discovered they did not actually support the statements they allegedly were cites for. Not having a useful tag, I tagged it OR. Ogress _smash! 19:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: while your enthusiasm is admirable, I checked the citations you removed and found that they DO support the statements they were allegedly cited for. Additionally, you appear to have ignored the long, twisted mess that is this article's history. If you go back to the talk archives, you will find that almost every line of the article - and I'm not exaggerating here - was decided upon based on consensus after long, laborious research and discussion.

The reason for that is because this article and all articles related to Barelvism were plagued by POV pushing sockpuppets from multiple unrelated users for a period of seven years. The current version of the article was decided upon before those users were banned, even in spite of their protests.

Of course consensus can change, but you need to provide reasons why. So far, your main contentions appear to have been inaccurate - while there is no ebook version of Riaz's book, for example, it can easily be searched to find the issues in question. Since you're editing against consensus, the onus is on you to explain why it should change. Please sift through the talk page archives here and explain what exactly each problem is so we can fix it, as your initiative was great but you don't seem to have the proper context for this constantly beseiged article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, I'm looking at the live talk page and while there was squabbling, I'm not normally going to wade into seven years of discussions to figure out if it's okay if I edit a page.

That being said, I understand there is a strong consensus issue you are worried about, so I'll just leave this page. Ogress _smash! 07:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: I'm sorry, my above comment came out wrong. It wasn't well worded or thought out and perhaps it gave the impression that you will be needlessly fought over attempts to improve the article. That wasn't my intent though maybe the way I wrote the above gave the wrong impression.

Your attempts were in good faith. Would you be open to looking at the suggested changes again and instead of asking you to sift into a seven year old conflict, those of us who have seen the article evolve just try to bring up what was relevant before and see if consensus should be changed? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Reg the SAAG paper removal

This author's papers have been inserted in multiple articles since April, this being one, the author is a computer engineer, who self-publishes through the South Asia Analysis Group, this particular ref was added on July 2, and reverted twice but reverted back in by an IP. —SpacemanSpiff 04:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear User:SpacemanSpiff, I hope you are well. Please can you provide evidence of this? Thank you and regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't care about this if especially given that you were the one that actually did the initial revert of inserting this paper, but the author's website is here and spamming his papers across multiple articles. —SpacemanSpiff 17:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Revision by GorgeCustersSabre

user:GorgeCustersSabre, This is in regards to your recent revision here [16]. The source indicated for the point does not state that.

This source should clarify the true belief of the Sunnis of the Barelvi movement. As it states: "However, it is often at this point, that those who oppose this view believe from some erroneous conviction that they hold, that we claim the Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant him peace] was not human!! This is indeed strange and a gross accusation. For those who claim that he was not a human, have clearly ventured out of the bounds of Islam, and have entered into Kuffr. The belief of Ahl As-Sunnah Wa’l Jamma is that the Noble Prophet Muhammad [May Allah bless him and grant him peace] is Noor and human - as we shall now seek to demonstrate."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtremedood (talk • contribs) 18:25, 20 August 2015

• • Dear Xtremedood, yes, that's fair enough. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Intercede

Why does the article need a wikilink for intercede? It is a commonly understood English verb. I am not sure that the proposed link (Tawassul) is appropriate - it is both too narrow and too wide. It is too narrow in that, for example, Roman Catholics also ask dead people to intercede with God on their behalf. The link is also too wide, in that Tawassul mainly covers asking the living to intercede.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Amended 07:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey bud I hope this doesnt have anything to do with my comments over at Salafi Movement, if you are indeed stalking me now. You failed to warn the other user as well. Sakimonks personal views have really irritated me over these couple weeks. On the subject- Tawassul is what they call their practice (both living and dead. The subjects article should represent the groups position [17] . Its self explanatory. Lets not forget the source in the article mentions the wording. Misdemenor (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I am "stalking" the article on Barelvi - the process is a Wikipedia feature called a "watch list". (See Help:Watchlist). This feature might help you work out if people are watching pages, or watching you.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for that. Did you get any of my points regarding the edit? Misdemenor (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with Toddy1 that a translation is unnecessary and that the proposed link (Tawassul) is not quite right. Leave it without a trans. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The translation for Visting, Tomb, Birthday is necessary? Omitting the term will result in soapboxing and censorship unless editors feel all wikilinks should be removed. Its perfectly fine you dont believe its Tawassul but the group as well as academics label it such. Misdemenor (talk) 08:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Ehsan Elahi Zaheer's book

The article cites a website for a summary of Ehsan Elahi Zaheer's book Barelawis – History and Beliefs. An editor has turned this into a quotation (though punctuated differently from the original). But it is a quotation from the website, not Zaheer. I think this should be paraphrased, and have a proper reference to the book - though I have not seen the book.

Unless we can verify that the book says what the website says it says, I think we should use a form of words such as "It is said that Ehsan Elahi Zaheer's book criticises....".

The website also recommends for following book as exposing what it calls "the corrupted beliefs and actions of the Barelwis": The Book of Unity or Oneness of Allah compiled by Muhammad Iqbaal Kailani. These books are probably not entirely favourable to the Barelvi religion.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ahya and its publications are not RS. Bikaz seems to be in a hurry to ad unreliable and non neutral sources to many pages. Neutrality and Reliability are core policies of Wikipedia. ScholarM (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Bikaz seems to be trying to push an agenda. His sources are also partisan. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It is very hard to have much confidence in POV-pushing websites (especially one that spells book titles and author's names differently than the English language editions of the books). Ahya gives a summary of Ehsan Elahi Zaheer's 1985 book Bareilawis – History and Beliefs. But how accurate that summary is, I do not know. One of us would have to read the book to find out. There is an English language edition translated by Dr Adbullah and published by Idara Tarjuman Al-Sunnah, in Lahore. Muhammad Iqbal Kailani's 1998 book The Book of Unity or Oneness of Allah is also available in English; a translation by Khaja Abdul Muqtader was published by Darussalam in Riyadh. Anyone using these sources should be made to provide page numbers to the English language editions for citations.

There is no objection to using biased sources in Wikipedia. The policy is that articles need to be written from a neutral point view. Wikipedia:Verifiability says that "Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view."-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Toddy1, you are quite right. A biased source isn't always a problem. But when a person with a bias uses a source with a bias, he or she ordinarily tries to pass it off as a neutral source. That's frustrating. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree that User Bikaz seems to be pushing an agenda - Alipied (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Creed of Sunni Barelvis

To talk about creed/doctrine of Ahle Sunnat in South Asia who are called Barelvi locally one should check the Books of their own. Ehsan Elahi Zaheer was a Critic of Sunnis because he himself was a Wahhabi preacher, so he actually wrote with aggression but not truth at all. He had to paint a black picture of Sufi Sunnis (Barelvis) so he wrote many of the Creeds with what we don't have anything to do. Me myself is a Sunni(Barelvi) here from Pakistan. I wish to see my creed according to explanation of prominent Sunni Scholars like "Shah Abdul-Haqq Dehlavi", Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi, Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi, Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi and his father. My stance is that when something is written about creed of Athari, Zahiri & Wahhabi or Khwariji people on Wikipedia(s), it is written with the references of their own sources, but why our (Barelvis's) creed is written here with the references of our critics? We have rights to be looked like we are! Why other people paint a black picture of us with references of Wahhabi's websites' links and their books? One can consult the thesis of PhD by Usha Sanyal to check the creed of Ahle-Sunnat Barelvi in South Asia. Title of the thesis is "Devotional Islam and Politics in British India: Ahmad Riza Khan Barelwi and His Movement, 1870-1920". In fact Barelvis are the majority of mainstream Ahl-al-Sunnah in South Asia Who are Hanafis by their Madhhab, Maturidis by their creed and Sufis by their practices. They Believe that four Madhhabs of Ahl-al-Sunnah are Sunnis by default. Most of them are followers of Qadiri of Sufism but there are Chishti, Naqshbandi and Soharwardi too in a large number. Barelvis respect all of four Madhhabs of Fiqh and four chains of Sufism. They think that Ash'aris are also true Sunnis. So their beliefs are simply the same beliefs which the majority of the Muslims (Ahl-al-Sunnah around the glob) have. In 19th century here in British India Wahhabis emerged so when Ahl-al-Sunnah Especially Khairabadi and Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi refuted them, in its reply Wahhabis of many groups designed propaganda against Sunnis and wrote home-made beliefs and related these unknown beliefs to Sunnis (Barelvis). ABDUL RAZZAQ QADRI (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Aside from your personal religious views, do you have any sort of overarching point relating to the article itself? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether the Barelvis opposed the Indian independence movement

Version of 29 March 2015	Version of 21:06, 14 April 2017	Version of 04:09, 14 April 2017 by Saudmujadidi
Unlike most other Muslim movements in the region, the Barelvis opposed the Indian independence movement due to its leadership under Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, who was a Hindu and not a Muslim. On the other hand, Khan and his movement, being among the foremost campaigners for Sufism, were largely responsible for pulling Muslims into conflict with Hindus and were primary supporters of the Pakistan Movement. The Barelvis were joined in this by all major Islamic movements in the South Asia, including Shi'ites and Ismailis, except the Deobandis, the Barelvis' main rivals.	Unlike most other Muslim movements in the region, the Barelvis opposed the Indian independence movement due to its leadership under Mahatma Gandhi. On the other hand, Khan and his movement were largely responsible for staying out of political issues.	Unlike most other Muslim movements in the region, the Barelvis actively participated in the Indian independence movement . Although they opposed the Khilfat Movement due to its leadership under Mahatma Gandhi[18] On the other hand, Khan and his movement were largely responsible for staying out of political issues.

There has been an editing dispute over the whether the Barelvis opposed the Indian independence movement. I thought that it might be useful to compare versions. The reason for looking at a version from two years ago is that sometimes articles degrade with time as people chop and change them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Saudmujadidi: Do you have any comments on this?-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Note that the source labelled "War of 1857" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help) has a URL that leads to a 75 page document: "Who is Alahazrat?", by Abu Hasan, pub Ridawi Press, October 2013. It seems irrelevant to the statement it was cited for.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The source "Politics of Ahmed Raza". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help) really does support the statement it is cited for. The source says: "Imam Ahmad Raza's Politics was very simple & based upon Islamic thoughts. He opposed Hijra movement, Jehad movement, Khilafat movement and Non-cooperation movement because they were launched by Gandhi & Hindus & not for welfare of Muslims & in the Sympathy of usmani Sultanate of Turkey. Infact the Hindus liberating India from Briish Govt, wanted to rule over the country forming it as "Ram Rajya" & making Muslims as their subjects and slaves." The website Markaz News is a questionable source.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The source R. Upadhyay, Barelvis and Deobandhis: "Birds of the Same Feather" is a useful source, but I would not want to rely on it alone. It says that during the period of the Khilafat movement (1919–22), the Hindu leader Ghandi wanted to meet Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi, but Ahmed Raza said that he was not interested in worldly affairs (i.e. politics). It also says that Ahmed Raza "was also responsible for bringing the Indian Muslims into conflict with the Hindus by providing the theoretical basis for asserting a separate national identity in support of two-nation theory." That sounds like an interest in politics.

R. Upadhyay's article also says: "A fact not to be missed is that except Deobandis, all the other Islamic sects in Indian sub-continent like Barelvis, Shias, Ismilis and Ahmadias joined the Muslim League and strongly supported Pakistan movement." What European people understand by the "Indian independence movement" is the 20th Century movement that ended up giving India to the Nehru dynasty. I think it would be fair to say that anyone who opposed co-operation with Ghandi and supported the Pakistan movement was opposed to the "Indian independence movement".-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Toddy1, thanks for looking into this. While Saudmujadidi's edit was nowhere close to policy-compliant, I also have serious concerns about the earlier version. Markaz News is just a personal pro-Barelvi website, with no hint of reliability. The case of Upadhyay's article less clear-cut. It's advertised as a think-tank analysis, but I don't see concrete evidence of "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" either for the author or for "analysis" pieces in general published on this website. It seems to be basically a polemical opinion column. I see confirmation in RSs that Ahmad Riza Khan in his later years opposed cooperation with the Khilafat Movement and Gandhi, and stayed out of politics ([19] [20]). It is a big leap to go from there to asserting that the Barelvi movement as a whole opposed the Indian independence movement or didn't participate in politics. According to The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, "During Aḥmad Riz̤āʾs lifetime, the Barelwī movement centered on a small core of followers personally loyal to him. [...] Since Aḥmad Riz̤āʾs death in 1921, “Barelwī” leaders - [list] - have led the movement in varying directions in terms of the leading political issues of twentieth-century British India, most importantly that of partition in 1947." Those reliably sourced facts may be mentioned in the article on Ahmad Riza, but I think those dubious and contentious generalizations about Barelvis are OR and should be removed. Eperoton (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Of the sources in the 2015 version that are not in either of the 2017 versions above:

• Yasser Latif Hamdani, Nationalist Mythologies And Nuances Of History. Pak Tea House, 22 May 2010. Does not obviously support the statements that it is cited for.
• Jaffrelot, Christophe, A History of Pakistan and Its Origins, pp. 224–225 has a clear statement "Unlike the Deobandi, the Barelwi were unequivocal supporters of the Movement for Pakistan. After Partition in 1948, they formed their own representative association in Pakistan, the Jamiyyat-u Ulam-i Pakistan (JUP).... Like the Deobandi and the Ahl-i Hadith, Barelwi ulemas fight for sharia law to be applied throughout the country."

Surely it would be better to use the above quotation from A History of Pakistan and Its Origins than the current text.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, a summary of those statements would be a good addition. Eperoton (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Barelvi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12343&Itemid=1&issueid=67&limit=1&limitstart=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131102091018/http://www.pvtr.org/pdf/RegionalAnalysis/SouthAsia/Madrassa%20_IDSS%20_%20_FINAL_.pdf to http://www.pvtr.org/pdf/RegionalAnalysis/SouthAsia/Madrassa%20_IDSS%20_%20_FINAL_.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091231050408/http://www.jang.com.pk/important_events/karachi_blast_11apr06/english%2013%20april.htm to http://www.jang.com.pk/important_events/karachi_blast_11apr06/english%2013%20april.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

need better wording

The sentences of the formation of the Barelvi movement are very confusing. They need to be edited to be less pushing of the Barelvi position on issues and to be reformated to be readable in English.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Barelvi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130131043928/http://m.outlookindia.com/story.aspx?sid=4&aid=281563 to http://m.outlookindia.com/story.aspx?sid=4&aid=281563
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130109120559/http://www.currenttrends.org/research/detail/the-assertion-of-barelvi-extremism to http://www.currenttrends.org/research/detail/the-assertion-of-barelvi-extremism
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081106202723/http://www.sunni.org.uk/ to http://www.sunni.org.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

"Beliefs regarding Muhammad" -- restore Urdu/Arabic technical terms?

At various points in the history of the article, the section "Beliefs regarding Muhammad" included the technical terms in Urdu for these traits, such as "ghaib", "hazir o nazir", etc. I submit that including these terms is useful since they are set technical terms for theological concepts, and for people like me who don't necessarily speak Arabic or Urdu, they're still informative since we can recognize some of the vocab terms.

Does anyone support or reject finding properly-sourced theological terms for these attributes of Mohammed? I checked GoogleBooks and easily find reputable sources for these terms. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

influenced by the Wahhabi movement in Arabia

I have deleted the following:

, which was influenced by the Wahhabi movement in Arabia

It is not supported by the source that is cited for it.

Roy, Oliver; Sfeir, Antoine (2007). The Columbia World Dictionary of Islamism. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help), page 92: "...as distinct from the reformist construction of Deoband."

Page 92 of the source says "Deoband is not far removed from Salafi and Wahhabi practice". That is not the same as saying that it was influenced by them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Characterization of Barelvi's Sufism

Hello, Syndronez. Reflecting different views on the subject is what we want to do. Thanks for finding additional sources. There are a couple of issues with your edits, however:

1) The assertion that Barelvis are often called Sufi is a generalization that what sourced by the The Columbia World Dictionary of Islamism. The quantifier needs to be sourced. To make this generalization ourselves based on any number of individual sources that call them Sufi would be WP:OR.

2) The same goes for the assertion of why that are called Sufi.

3) This is not really a criticism. It's a statement clarifying how the Sufism of Barelvis relates to the classical philosophical and literary Sufism that Western readers tend to be better familiar with.

I agree that we don't need to have this statement in the lead. I've moved the refs to their proper places and created a new section. Eperoton (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Persecution

The section attacks the whole Deobandi school of Islamic thought. I feel it should be modified or removed if modifications don't work. A group of people claiming to follow certain school of thought can't be used as an excuse to blame the whole school of thought. Darul Uloom Deoband has published its fatawa against terrorism, everything from there denounces the claims made in persecution section of this article. Please consider its removal or modification. Thanks Aafiii (^talk) 14:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it mentions "radical Deobandi groups", not the "whole Deobandi school of thought". I have further added "in Pakistan" because all the named groups are in Pakistan.

You can of course add any positive information you can find to counterbalance the persecution charge (but only if it pertains to Barelvis). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Criticism of Barelvi

Please add criticism of Barelvi movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiacc97 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wikiacc97: You'll need to suggest some specific criticisms of the movement and provide reliable sources that discuss them. Further, we generally integrate criticisms into the article, rather than create a separate section for criticisms. —C.Fred (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Allegedly notable scholars

Muhammad fazal karim should be shifted to early scholars because he had died in 2013 Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

There does not seem any value in separating the list of allegedly notable scholars into early scholars and present scholars. So-called "early scholars" include people who died in 2018. I think that the list of so-called notable scholars should have dates and death/occultation after them. Citations for their being Barelvi would be an improvement. I believe that the citations should have the correct article titles. Toddy1 (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I have removed Muhammad Ilyas Qadri (Dawat-e-Islami) with its citation to: "Dawateislami - Islamic Website of an Islamic Organization". dawateislami.net. Retrieved 30 January 2019.. I have checked both the current version of this page and archived versions for 21 January 2019[21], 27 January 2019[22], and 1 February 2019[23] and there is nothing mentioning Qadri in Latin script. So it seems like a bogus citation. Toddy1 (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I have now restored him, under his full name with a citation that supports the statement that he is Barelvi. Toddy1 (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Asjad Raza Khan into Barelvi#Notable scholars

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus is that two totally separate articles are needed. Toddy1 (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

No Notability to keep as a separate article. Authordom (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Strong Disagree - Barelvi is the name of the movement, Ahmad Raza Khan is the name of a prominent person. Two totally separate articles are needed. Syndr0nes (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose merge: (Simply passing this page on an unrelated matter). Per keep result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asjad Raza Khan without going further. Can I also note this is one of a number of mergers I have seen recently where the merge section is absent or incorrectly specified in the merge page templates which means people are not correctly pointed at the discussion. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. As said so well above, “Barelvi is the name of the movement, Ahmad Raza Khan is the name of a prominent person. Two totally separate articles are needed.” George Custer's Sabre (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Percentage cited in the lede

An editor posted an estimate of 75% for the portion of Indian Muslims who are Barelvi.[24] I think the source of this figure is a source used by the article on the Deobandi:

US Mission in India (2 February 2010), Indian Islam: Deobandi-Barelvi tension changing mainstream Islam in India, Wikileaks

The citation say:

• "Over 85 percent of Indian Muslims are Sunni." (paragraph 4)
• "The Barelvi school, which proudly promotes the Sufi ideal of pluralism, considers itself "mainstream" Islam in India due to its large following of over 75 percent of Sunni Muslims." (paragraph 5)

If multiply the percentage of Indian Muslims who are Sunni by the percentage of Sunnis who are Barelvii (0.85 x 0.75 = 0.6375), it would support a claim of 64% for the portion of Indian Muslims who are Barelvi.

According to the automatic warning you get when you post citations to Wikileaks: "Wikipedia consensus is that WikiLeaks is generally unreliable", so maybe we should not be linking to that source at all. I think the best thing to do is to is the delete the 75%. We have a nice reliable source for "more than two-thirds" in the body of the article, and we do not need to have percentages in the lede. Toddy1 (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Map

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liverpoolpics (talk • contribs) 14:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Liverpoolpics: What should the map show? Why is one needed?-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Mujaddid

@Toddy1: I think the line was correct, which you have deleted, sources are claiming it Majun e Baqi (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

What you are talking about is this:

• Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi (1856–1921) – founder of Barelvi movement, known as Mujaddid

First issue. The source says "To his followers Khan was as a mujaddid (reformer)..." Note the lack of capitalisation of "mujaddid", and the presence of the word "a" before it. i.e. the source is saying that his followers regarded him as a reformer. It does not say that they called him Mujaddid (reformer). But "known as Mujaddid" would mean that people used "Mujaddid" as a name for him. This is not supported by the source.

Second issue. The text in question is in a list of notable "Barelvi scholars" (it is not intended to be a comprehensive list). In my opinion it is useful to mention years of birth and death and to have a few words telling the user why they might want to click on the link. But it does not need to mention everything about him. If you can find (for example) a citation that he liked cats, that could be mentioned in the article, but we do not need it mentioned in this list, unless, you feel that that is the defining characteristic of him.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Toddy1: basically I am not an experienced editor like you, so might be lacking many minute details of editing, I agreed with your first issue, you are welcome to write in that form, second issue I saw some rough details of other scholars in that list, so added some words, coming to consesus with you , you are welcome to write the text in proper grammatical form, I will be grateful to learn more about editing wikipedia from you in future, lots of loveMajun e Baqi (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Only later was the term 'Barelvi' used - check to see what the citations support

The article had a statement:

• Only later was the term 'Barelvi' used.

This was changed by Effendi Arabi (sometimes as an IP editor) to the following (but keeping the same citations):

• The movement was also against Wahhabism and Qadiani Ahmadiyya.

So let us see what the citations actually support regarding this.

• The first citation (page 92) does not support either text.
• The second citation (page 123) not support either text, though it does say: "The teachings of the Barelvis, formally known as Ahl-e-Sunnat wal Jamaat, were advanced by Imam Ahmad Reza Khan of Bareilly in 1906, as an alternative to the austere path followed by the Deobandis."

This is probably an example of edit decay caused by editors who insert their own beliefs next to citations.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Ahmad Raza Khan never used the term 'Barelvi' - check to see what the citations support

The article had a statement:

• Ahmad Raza Khan and his supporters never used the term 'Barelvi' to identify themselves or their movement, as they saw themselves as Sunni Muslims defending traditional Sunni beliefs from deviations.

This was changed by Effendi Arabi (sometimes as an IP editor) to the following (but keeping the same citation):

• Ahmad Raza Khan never used the term 'Barelvi' to identify himself or his movement, because he started this movement to defend the traditional Sunni beliefs from deviations and also spread Hanafi jurisprudence and Sufism.

Page 49 of the citation says: "However, 'Barelwi' was not the term that they used for self-identification. They regarded themselves as being true Sunnis in opposition to all deviations by Deobandis and other reform-minded Muslims". it also says that "they drew on Hanafi jurisprudence" and that they were "more in line with the medieval Sufi tradition" than the Deobandis.

The citation does not support the causal links stated in both versions. It would be better to rewrite using what the source actually says, or to find source that support whichever version of the text is preferred.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Use of hororifics

An editor has repeatedly changed:

• The movement emphasizes personal devotion to God and the Muslim prophet Muhammad

to:

• The movement emphasizes personal devotion to Allah and the Muslim prophet Muhammad Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam

MOS:ALLAH says: '"Allah" should be replaced with its translation, "God", unless used as part of an English-language quote.'

MOS:SAWW says: 'There are several honorifics for Muhammad that should generally not be used in articles. ... SAW, SAWW, saws or the fuller version ṣallā 'llahu ʿalayhi (wa-ʾālihi) wa-sallam, variants of PBUH, sometimes used after "Muhammad" — recommended action is to remove.'

-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Although Barelvi is the commonly used term - check to see what the citations support

The article had a statement:

• Although Barelvi is the commonly used term, the followers of the movement often prefer to be known by the title of Ahle Sunnat wa Jama'at (Urdu: اہل سنت وجماعت) or as Sunnis, a reference to their perception as forming an international majority movement.

This was changed by Effendi Arabi (sometimes as an IP editor) to the following (but keeping the same citation):

• Although Barelvi is the commonly used term, the followers of the movement were mainly known by the title of Ahle Sunnat wa Jama'at (Urdu: اہل سنت وجماعت) or Sunnis.

Page 203 of the citation says: "often prefer to be known by the more Islamic title of Ahl-i Sunnat wa al-Jamaat (the People of the Sunna and Authentic Community). The name implies their self-perception of being part of an international majority movement within Sunni Islam grounded within the ongoing tradition."

Clearly the citation better supports the first version.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The majority of Muslims in India and Pakistan are Barelvis - check to see what the citations say

The article had a statement:

• The majority of Muslims in India and Pakistan are Barelvis.

This was changed by Effendi Arabi (sometimes as an IP editor) to the following (but keeping the same citation):

• The majority of Muslims in India Pakistan Bangladesh ( Indian Subcontinent) are Barelvis.

The first citation says "Barelvi school to which over two-thirds of India's 15 crore Muslims subscribe"

The second citation says "The Barelvis were founded by Ahmed Raza Khan of Bareilli (1856-1921). Most Paki­stanis adhere to this school of thought"

The third citation on page 3 says "Some 60% of Pakistanis are 'Barelvis'".

So the citations support the first version, but do not support the second version.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Term Barelvi and Ahle sunnat

For the term Ahle sunnat, these two sources are enough. 1. https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-94-024-1267-3_1951 Aḥmad Raẓā Khān Barelvi (1856–1921) was a Sunni scholar in north India who wrote extensively in defense of the Prophet Muhammad and became the leader of a movement called “Ahl-i Sunnat wa Jamàat” or “Barelvi.

2. Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jamaah https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095357101?rskey=Ih6KLH&result=3 ScholarM (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

First of all, only two sources are most definitely not enough considering the level of dispute over the term. We need to give a general reading of published research and media coverage - not simply reverting to Usha Sanyel only. I want to first take a look at the two links you posted, then at what the rest of the literature said, and then compare the two versions. Finally, we must comment on why the term ‘Ahlus Sunnah’ is so contentious in this context.

The two sources you posted here make the following comments:

“and became the leader of a movement called “Ahl-i Sunnat wa Jamàat” or “Barelvi.”

And

“People of the Prophet's Way and the Community. Also known as Barelvis and Barelwis.”

These two sources use both terms, which first of all disproves your claim that Barelvi is a pejorative term. That’s just silly; all of scholarship and media uses that term primarily, as we can see secondly. Let’s take a look:

The Illustrated History of the Muslim World only uses the term Barelvi

Globalisation, Religion, and Development only uses the term Barelvi

Tremors of Violence: Muslim Survivors of Ethnic Strife in Western India only uses the term Barelvi

The India Express only uses the term Barelvi

The Economist only uses the term Barelvi

So we can see that not only is ‘Barelvi’ not a slur, but also it’s the more common term. That in and of itself doesn’t explicitly discount Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamah, but it does demonstrate what the more common terminology is. But let’s compare the two different versions of the article, based on my restoration of the original consensus version vs. your most recent edit. I’m primarily addressing the etymology section, as the lead in an article like this ought to be left for last - and, bit by bit, we need to get community effort to review the article systemically given the extension of the dispute. My version said:

”The name derives from the north Indian town of Bareilly, the hometown of its founder and main leader Ahmed Raza Khan (1856–1921). Although Barelvi is the commonly used term, the followers of the movement often prefer to be known by the title of Ahle Sunnat wa Jama'at (Urdu: اہل سنت وجماعت‎) or as Sunnis, a reference to their perception as forming an international majority movement.”

Your version says:

”According to Usha Sanyal, an expert on 'Ahl-i Sunnat Movement', the Ahl-i Sunnat refer to themselves as ‘Sunnis’ in their literature and prefer to be known by the title of Ahle Sunnat wa Jama'at”

I left out the citations since those can be seen in the diffs, and I only included the disputed portion of the etymology section. As we can see, your version lays all of the responsibility to define the movement’s name on a single researcher, and one whose views on the movement’s name constitutes a minority view among scholarship and media as demonstrated above; the actual etymology is shoved into the last sentence. My version takes the word Barelvi - the most common term - and explains the actual etymology of that word. It’s more beneficial to the reader and also grants a broader view of what reliable sources say on the topic rather than one minority view.

A bigger issue here, however, is the intention behind Barelvis using the term ‘Ahlus Sunnah,’ and that intention isn’t a moderate or balanced one. As both of our versions of the section say:

”This terminology is used to lay exclusive claim to be the only legitimate form of Sunni Islam in South Asia, in opposition to the Deobandi, Ahl-i Hadith and Wahabi followers.”

As we can see, some members of the Barelvi movement use this term specifically as an exclusionary term. That certainly does need to be noted because it’s a fact, but Wikipedia absolutely can’t allow that exclusionary bias between religious sects to be represented as objective truth; it’s a very clear violation of WP:BALANCE and WP:RNPOV. This becomes even more imperative when we can read at Sunni_Islam#Ahl_as-Sunna_wa-l-jama that the term predates the Barelvi movement by many centuries, and thus, per a neutral POV, Wikipedia shouldn’t present Barelvi claims to being the ‘true’ Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamah’ as objective fact.

With that in mind, I’m going to restore to the previous version of etymology since mine clarifies both terms, gives some weight to the Barelvi preference for what they’re called, and gives most of the weight to the more common view that the movement’s name is ‘Barelvi’ and the term ‘Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah’ is an exclusionary claim. I’ll also ensure not to lose any sources in the previous versions and incorporate all of those. I hope that the community at large finds this acceptable. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Rephrasing

I am rephrasing the para to include the actual name of the movement as well as the term used by some people. The understanding of the scholars of this movement is that they are continuing worldwide Sunni/Ahle Sunnat Wal Jama'ah movement in south Asia. They don't uses Barelvi term in their journals/Magazines/Speeches or in public discourse. The public attached with the scholars also knows this fact and refer to themselves as Sunnis only. So use of the Barelvi term by some media persons and opposition groups can't take away the right of more than 200 million Muslims to call themselves as Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat or Sunnis. The movement must be known by the title it identifies with itself and not by the title which started as 'slur' of Opposition groups. ScholarM (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

According to Oxford Reference, Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jamaah or Barelvi is movement developed on the basis of writings of Imam Ahmed Raza Khan Qadri. Professor Usha Sanyal, an expert on 'Ahl-i Sunnat Movement', referred the movement as Ahl-i Sunnat. She wrote that the movement refer to themselves as ‘Sunnis’ in their literature and prefer to be known by the title of Ahle Sunnat wa Jama'at a reference to their perception as forming an international majority movement, although Barelvi is the term used by section of media. Main leaders of Ahle Sunnat movement Imam Ahmad Raza Khan and other scholars never used the term 'Barelvi' to identify themselves or their movement; they saw themselves as Sunni Muslims defending traditional Sunni beliefs from deviations. Only later was the term 'Barelvi' was used by the section of media and by opposition groups on the basis of the hometown Bareilly of its main leader Imam Ahmed Raza Khan Qadri (1856–1921).

No, this is still a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Specifically, it’s a violation of the section wikipedia:POVNAMING:

” If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased.”

The “rights of 200 million Muslims” aren’t being violated by using the common name, especially since we’ve already established that Barelvi isn’t a slur. What is being violated are all the other Sunni Muslim groups like Deobandis, Ahle Hadith, and even many progressive Muslim groups who are also Sunnis. If we look at the Wikipedia:Article titles policy, specifically under wikipedia:POVNAME:

” When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria).”

And we’ve already established that the majority of English sources use the term “Barelvi” while only a few use both terms “Barelvi” and “Ahlus Sunnah.” In addition, if we check under wikipedia:QUALIFIER:

” It is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article, as that title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles.”

This is especially relevant here since all Sunni groups, even Jihadists and Wahhabis, claim to be Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah. For Wikipedia to pick a side, especially when reliable sources don’t refer to Barelvis as Ahlus Sunnah in the majority of cases, is a major violation of NPOV. The version you’ve suggested is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NC; not a simple difference in interpretation, but an outright violation. Combined with the evidence I posted above, there is no way to tolerate the current version of the etymology section. It’s a disservice to the readers and doesn’t reflect published work per Wikipedia:Reliable sources; it only reflects a sectarian bias. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

user:Youbat, please respond to my points about site policy and reflection of reliable sources here on the talk page. You’ve reverted my edits twice now, and neither time did you respond to my comments here on this page. I feel that my edit is justified based on reliable sources, but if you disagree, then please explain why here before simply reverting and writing an antagonistic edit summary. I’ve written comments here which are undeniably comprehensive, even if you don’t agree with my conclusions; you should review Wikipedia:Edit warring before using that term again. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

References