VanishedUser sdu8asdasd (talk | contribs) |
→now about pakistan movement: more OR |
||
Line 320: | Line 320: | ||
There are many books written on this topic [http://www.scribd.com/doc/30401279/Imam-Ahmad-Raza-Khan-Beralwi-proBritish-A-BASELESS-BLAME-A-Critical-View-of-this-Claim-a-Historical-REALITY-by-Dr-Muhammad-Masood-Ahmed here] is one of them.[[User:Am Not New|<font color="green">Dil</font><font color="pink"> e </font><font color="Blue">Muslim</font>]] [[User talk:Am Not New|<font color="Red">talk</font>]] 18:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC) |
There are many books written on this topic [http://www.scribd.com/doc/30401279/Imam-Ahmad-Raza-Khan-Beralwi-proBritish-A-BASELESS-BLAME-A-Critical-View-of-this-Claim-a-Historical-REALITY-by-Dr-Muhammad-Masood-Ahmed here] is one of them.[[User:Am Not New|<font color="green">Dil</font><font color="pink"> e </font><font color="Blue">Muslim</font>]] [[User talk:Am Not New|<font color="Red">talk</font>]] 18:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC) |
||
*[[WP:TLDR]]... that hurt my head, just looking at the length. [[User:Lukeno94|<font color="Navy">Luke</font><font color="FireBrick">no</font><font color="Green">94</font>]] [[User talk:Lukeno94#top|<i>(tell Luke off here)</i>]] 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC) |
*[[WP:TLDR]]... that hurt my head, just looking at the length. [[User:Lukeno94|<font color="Navy">Luke</font><font color="FireBrick">no</font><font color="Green">94</font>]] [[User talk:Lukeno94#top|<i>(tell Luke off here)</i>]] 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC) |
||
::I read enough of it to know that it's [[WP:OR]]. Am Not New, WIkipedia is not the place for you to publish your original research. You cannot look at historical documents and draw conclusions from them. If you want to do that, please find a book publisher or an academic journal for historians. That book you have at the very end is not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], because it's not published by a neutral, reliable publisher. As I just mentioned to you on another page, you'll need to review [[WP:OR]], as it's one of our most important policies. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 22:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:35, 22 April 2013
![]() | Islam Start‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
|
Guidelines for developing and editing Islam-related Wikipedia articles are at: Wikipedia:MOSISLAM
Biased Non neutral claims
You still have not replied regarding your
- Exceptional Claim that Barelvis ha begun to mix Shias-Please provide exceptional source to prove it.For your kind information Barelvi Scholars have criticized Shia beliefs along with Salafis/wahabis in general as Un Islamic.This is just personal opinion of an editor can't be inserted in this Article.Any one can accept it if it is fact.
- to my point and evidence that Arun Shaurie is Muslim Basher and obviously non neutral.
- Why you are deleting this view to balance the sentence?,Though by and Large Barelvi Movement is considered a moderate and peaceful Movement [1],[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
- In Sectarian violence section-Analyst have linked Mumtaz Qadri to Dawat-e-Islami but it was not confirmed that he was a member of Dawat-e-Islami.There were speculations regarding his linkage not confirmation.So it will be neutral to add his name and supposedly
[8]through this leading source.
- Why you removed this source with out discussion? His funeral was denounced by even Deobandi (in fact the majority of) clerics and religious scholars (from all sects and groups) from mourning Taseer[9].Taseer was against the blasphemy law and termed it a black law.[10]It was suspected that this was the main reason for his assassination.
During the same period of time, a number of Barelvi scholars also condemned the assassination.[11][12] Msoamu (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- For goodness sake Msoamu. Your first reversion is invalid, as it is sourced, your second deletion is invalid, you've provided NO evidence that person is biased. As to the third edit, the section is solely about the sectarian violence, and besides, it was already neutral - as it says they are no worse or better than other sects of Islam. So, I've rolled back your edits. Again. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Lukeno,these questions were asked to MezzoMezzo,initiator of the changes.Your reply that first is sourced second has no evidence third is neutral is clearly not an attempt to not understand the problem.You don't know what is the differences between Shia and Sunni,i would say then.
- Barelvi leaders have key differences with the Shia community and Khaled's personal opinion can't nullify those differences.Adding this sentence,In more recent times, the Barelvi movement as a whole has begun to mix with Shi'ites more often than beforeto give a general impression to readers that Barelvis and Shias are mixed,it is nothing but highly biased non neutral claim.I am saying time and again if equating a movement with its opposition on the basis of a single personal opinion is not biased non neutral than what it is ?If for instance the opinion is not biased then would you like to clear what type of mixing he is talking about Lukeno?If that is fact,can you elaborate and explain it?Can you clear it?Can you provide other valid source to support it?Moreover his claim is about a particular gathering of Tahir ul Qadri, which again can't be a fact about whole Barelvi Movement, which conducts thousands of gatherings on daily basis around the world by various other Scholars.
- Arun Shourie is associated with right wing highly communal Hindu political Party Bharatiya Janata Party which is political wing of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh a fascist organization of India ,involved in massacre of Muslims in various parts including in 2002 Gujarat violence.RSS runs disinformation campaigns against Muslims,Shourie is one of the meber of it.[13]
- Lukeno,when MezzoMezzo added that Barelvis are intolerant and radical with some sources,I have other sources which says they are moderate and peaceful.I am saying my this line that By and Large they are considered peaceful and moderate (with sources)should be in the Article along with MezzoMezzo's version.Msoamu (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Msoamu, you're touting the same claims over and over again without even considering the advice regarding site policy which multiple editors have given you.
- 1. "My" claims regarding Sunni and Shi'a are not only well-sourced, but by a source you have defended as a reliable one in the past.
- 2. Your issue with Shourie is a result of your refusal to understand or acknowledge WP:SYNTHESIS, not to mention the fact that the source you're providing in order to make a synthesis-claim that Shourie is biased doesn't say he's biased; please brush up on your English and learn what "co-opted" means.
- 3. Your attempt to paint the assassin as not definitely being a member of Dawat e Islami is dishonesty on your part; the story which you used to source your claim is from January 2011 and is outdated. Recent reporting has found that he is a proud member of Dawat e Islami, he named himself after the organization's founder and the organization supports the politician's murder.
As for other groups agreeing with the murder of the politician, then what's the point of including it here? This article is about Barelvism and should include relevant material regarding Barelvism. The position of Deobandis in regard to Salmaan Taseer has no relevance to this article and just seems an attempt to defend his assassination.
I'm reverting your latest round of insertions for the reasons stated above. When you're ready to respect Wikipedia policies and guidelines, perhaps your peers will listen to what you have to say. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have since your proposal objected this personal opinion of Barelvi Shia mixing.This is highly exceptional claim and fringe theory as i have said earlier,bring exceptional source to prove this.
- Shourie is biased and a Muslim basher, a BJP activist is certainly non neutral about Indian Muslims,'The World of Fatwas' just to name one. The book was authored by an extremist journalist Arun Shourie whose Muslim enmity is earlier proved as he started crusade in 1981 against Abdul Rahman Antulay, the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra, which caused his eventual resignation.
- Regarding Barelvis being peaceful and moderate which is well sourced, you kept mum.Why can't this point be inserted in the Article.
- Don't attack me personally that I am dishonest.Don't impose your personal understanding on us,The name Qadri is not taken from name of founder of organization Dawat-e-Islami.It is baseless personal opinion of yours.You know it well that Qadri is Sufi silsila which is followed by millions of Muslims in Pakistan.Where Mumtaz Qadri has accepted that he is member of D.I?Your source says ,Mumtaz is said to be associated with ‘Dawat-i-Islami’ and you are then writing him a confirm member.Msoamu (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- You saying something is a fringe theory doesn't make that true; the burden of proof is still on you and no one else.
- Shourie being biased is still an issue of you violating WP:SYNTHESIS. If you edit again based on this point and you don't show some acknowledgement that you have read and understood the policy, I will immediately revert whatever edit you did without discussion. (Your source to prove he is biased, by the way, is a Barelvi fatwa website.)
- The issue of Barelvis being peaceful or not has been resolved. I'm not going to respond to your rejections of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
- The fact that he named himself after the founder of Dawat E Islami is mentioned on the Wikipedia article for the founder of Dawat E Islami, Muhammad Ilyas Qadri. Specifically, this source mentions that as the reason why the group and its founder are now under investigation. Considering that you only edit those articles in addition to this one, I find it hard to belive that you wouldn't be aware of that; the assassin took the name Qadri as a form of hero worship for Muhammad Ilyas Qadri and this is now well-known even in the English-language news media.
- Msoamu, this is becoming somewhat taxing. It's clear that you haven't accepted any of the policies or guidelines multiple users have thrown your way, even if you might have read them. To simply have to point out that you're rehashing the old points every single time you comment is not only a waste of other editors time, it also destroys any good will you may have built up. I'm not insulting you; I'm trying to get through to you that if you want others to take you seriously, you need to undertake a massive change in your editing behavior. And if you do so, you will see a difference in how your edits are received. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- if burden of proof is on me,then Barelvis being Sunni ,is enough to prove that there are huge differences between Shias and Barelvis and they have differrent practices and beliefs,a single personal opinions can't prove their mixing.Barelvis have issued many verdicts against Shias and consider them on deviated path.
- My source has proved that Shourie's work is biased, created to target a community and is non neutral.I am just demanding neutral source in this regard.perhaps you don't have.
- Dawat's chief followers adds title Attar which is his silsila,Qadiri is general Sufi silsila,not a name of Ilyas Attar Qadri.When it is not his name ,it can't associated only to him.When you are not relying on my valid source, how can you insist me to rely in this regard on your source which may also be not true.
- I understand your problem MezzoMezzo,Don't overreact and assume good faith.I have full right to object what you propose.Msoamu (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- MezzoMezzo,it was not expected from you that you will start telling lies to support your cause.Your sentence,(Your source to prove he is biased, by the way, is a Barelvi fatwa website)is blatant lie to misled others,you know?The http://www.markazulmaarif.org/easterncresent/ec_January_2012/ecJanuary12cs.asp is a Deobandi site which is just opposite to Barelvi movement and more close to Wahabism.
- How it can be Barelvi site MezzoMezzo?The fact is that Shourie is considered biased by Deobandis also strengthen my points that he is actually baised and non neutral who has written with malafide intentions against Muslim community.Msoamu (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- You're still not getting it, are you Msoamu?
- The sources added are reliable. Go read WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:IRS. Until you start respecting these policies, not only will other editors continue reverting you (notice that the latest person to revert you wasn't me), but I for one and likely others will stop responding to your comments here in detail. More than one editor has told you that your entire line of reasoning is contradictory to site policy and then quoted those policies to you.
- Also, if you continue reverting others while posting useless comments like those above as your justification, you really will be edit warring against consensus and I will personally start another ANI thread against your efforts - assuming someone else doesn't beat me to it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- I requested a WP:3O here, Msoamu, if they disagree with you, please, drop the stick and stop this farce. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Intervention
I've been somewhat following this, and Msoamu just asked me to jump in, so I will. Here are some specific questions:
- Msoamu, please provide a reliable source that states that Shourie is non-neutral. So far you have not. You provided one RS, but it doesn't state he's biased (it just states he's "co-opted", which really means almost nothing, and tells us nothing about whether or not he meets RS); the other "sources" are themselves opinion pieces, and so have no bearing on our discussion here.
- MezzoMezzo, please provide evidence that Shourie's opinion is so important that it meets WP:DUE. Don't forget that being verified in a reliable source, while necessary, is not a sufficient condition for information being included in a WP article. We also need to meet WP:NPOV, as well as need to use editorial discretion to determine which of the million facts we could include are important enough for a very broad summary. Note that in this case the WP:BURDEN falls on you (the person/people wanting to add the info) to show that he's a reliable source of due weight; other editors can't just say "no", but somewhat more burden falls on you.
- Msoamu, you have a number of sources listed above that you claim support the idea that Barelvi are considered to generally be a peaceful movement. First of all, most of those don't seem to meet WP:RS. Second, in the ones that do, I don't see information to support your claim (in fact, I sometimes see the opposite). Please provide here no more than 3 sources, with an exact quotation, that a) meet WP:RS and b) state what you claim. You ought to re-read WP:RS first. Note that this is very important, because I am trying to determine here whether you understand/accept our guidelines and how to evaluate sources.
It is probably the case that one or more of the above have been answered somewhere on this page, and I apologize if I'm making any of your repeat yourselves. I'm trying to cut to the key matters and thus will find it helpful if they can be restated in a simple, coherent summary (so please try to avoid massive walls of text). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, I will provide my reasoning here so it can be scrutinized by others. If it is found to be undue weight, then I will not oppose its removal; I have been in error before. Though, in this case, I feel I am right, hence my defense; this will be a good way to see.
- The line which Msoamu removed because it was sourced by Shourie is the following: "Having formed as a reaction against the reformist Deobandi movement, relations between the two groups have often been strained. Ahmad Raza Khan, the founder of Barelvism, went as far as to declare not only all Deobandis infidels and apostates, but also any non-Deobandis who doubted the apostasy of Deobandis."
- Here's the thing: in theory, we can drop Shourie as the source altogether if it really bothers Msoamu because I know for a fact I could do a twenty or thirty minute search on Google books and find half a dozen other sources for the same thing. This isn't Shourie's opinion; it's a well known fact and I just used Shourie as a source because he was already used as a source in this article, so it was easy.
- I still don't think Shourie should be removed as a source because as a World Bank economist and former editor of two newspapers in India, he knows what he's talking about in terms of South Asia's social climate. However, as a token, we can throw in this source to add a second source to the same statement:
- "Kenneth W. Jones, Socio-Religious Reform Movements in British India, Part 3, , vol. 1, pg. 71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989."
- I took that from the article for Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi, as the text in question is about him. If it's necessary for me to find other sources, then I will put in the time (again, half an hour tops and maybe less) and bring some more.
- In short: Arun Shourie isn't biased as can be seen on his own wikipedia article, but that isn't the point; in fact, I think it's a red herring. Even if we removed him as a source theoretically, I can find more without even altering the text in question. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Qwyrxian for taking time to mediate-
- Arun Shourie-And, as always, selectively twisting and turning the facts to fit his preconceived conclusion, and hoping no one will notice.,Analysis by Non Muslim that his writings are inflammatory in its invectiveWorld of fatwas quoted by MezzoMezzo,Even a Hindu source questioned his integrity Why is it that Arun Shourie completely omits the impact of the Persian and Indian civilisations on Islam? proves him not only controversial but biased in academic terms.
- The Article has already these lines ,Ahmad Raza Khan, and other Barelvi religious figures have issued fatwās of apostasy against the founders of the Deobandi, Shia Islam and the Ahmadiyya Community.[14][15]
- Fatwas(Judicial verdict) was issued by him against founders of these movement but Shourie misquoted him said that it was against all.Which is factually untrue.The paragraph about fatwas is already in the article with these sources,there is no need to repeat it by giving it other meaning.
- Qwyrxian,please also guide me can on the basis of a single personal opinion, a large Movement,be written as mixing up with its opposite movement ?( Sunni Barelvi Movement with Shia Movement.I am requesting exceptional sources for this major baseless claim which is also not clear about mixing? This statementIn more recent times, the Barelvi movement as a whole has begun to mix with Shi'ites more often than before.I think that this is fringe theory and exceptional claim,am i right in this regard?The whole statement is giving an impression to general readers that Barelvis mixed up with Shias.As a matter of fact Barelvi leaders have issued verdicts (fatwas) against Shias and don't mixed up with Shias anywhere.Both have different faith and beliefs and have separate Mosques and Institutes.
I have full respect to Wikipedia guidelines and policies and articles must be edited on the basis of these points.There are just allegations and negative utterances against me to show my genuine objections in bad light.Msoamu (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at point 1 first: Msoamu, only one of those sources you provided even comes close to meeting WP:RS; the one that does, in Outlook India, is praising Shourie and the book. It does indicate some slight problems, but overall says the book is well researched and demonstrated. So, the one and only RS you gave on the subject implies that Shourie's book is a reliable source. I'll look at your next set of links next. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- On point 3, whether or not we can describe the Barelvi as moderate or peaceful, lets look at the sources in order:
- [1] Yes, this does seem to make that point. Not exactly a great source for judging a whole religion, but okay.
- [2] The sentence is "” Since the Barelvis are moderate and against the Taliban, the Deobandis look upon them as the state’s stooges, who as heretics should be put to death anyway, Ali argues." That is, it is Ali's opinion that Barelvi are moderate. However the person in question Mubarak Ali, does appear to be an expert on the subject. Thus, this seems like a Good source.
- [3] Not RS. This is a Master's Thesis. These are never, ever, under any circumstance, reliable sources. Even PhD theses are generally not RS.
- [4] Claims to be a reprint of an article in the UK Times, which is generally RS. Here, they really describe the Sunni Itehad Council as being peaceful/moderate...but I think it's close enough, so this seems 'Good.
- So, we have 3 reasonable sources, and 1 non-useful one. I think that this is probably sufficient to support some sort of summarizing sentence, though I think the one you (Msoamu) have suggested is a bit too strong. However, I leave it up to the involved editors to figure out the exact wording.
- However, along with this, I'd also like to make another strong claim: Msoamu, I don't believe that you can be trusted to put sources directly into the article. 5 out of the 8 sources you provided, in response to my direct question that contained a strong recommendation that you review WP:RS, don't meet that guideline. I do not know why this is occurring, though my best guesses are one of the following: 1) lack of understanding of the guideline. 2) lack of English ability to read sources (though this seems doubtful, since you don't need much ability to notice, for example, that something is a blog post or Master's thesis) or 3) a POV that is so strong on this matter that you are unable to see past it when trying to edit articles about it. As such, I think that given your persistent inability/unwillingness to follow RS, you should strongly consider always recommending sources on talk pages first (on any article) before editing mainspace. I can't compel you to do this...but I can tell you that if you continue to fail WP:RS much longer in mainspace, someone is going to request formal sanctions.
- Finally, on point 2, it seems like the easiest compromise is to use a different source...but I also think that this specific point is one that would be amenable to a very focused dispute resolution. I'll think about it and recommend something later. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Points one and two seem closely related, so since we're waiting for further comment on point two, it seems to me that waiting for that comment before considering either point resolved would be prudent.
- Regarding point three, I think I have a solution that will resolve the issue, as not all of the information has been presented here. This will be a bit long, unfortunately, but I feel it's important to present all the information regarding the point, which Msoamu hasn't done.
- Msoamu is presenting information regarding Barelvis being peaceful in an attempt to remove the references to many analysts not considering them peaceful; essentially, he is saying that some sources are better than others and that he wants some sources removed. Please allow me to show the sentence in question:
- "Analysts have claimed that the Barelvi movement is as affected by intolerance and radicalism as other Islamic movements in the region,[44][10][45][46][47][48] despite contrary perceptions in intellectual circles.[49]"
- Both the fact that some consider Barelvis peaceful and some don't is already included within this article. I note that analysts hold that the movement isn't entirely peaceful because of the sources themselves. The sources who mention that the Barelvi movement isn't entirely peaceful are:
- Eurasia Review, courtesy of the South Asia Analysis Group
- The Jamestown Foundation courtesy of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
- Time (magazine)
- All of that is in addition to normal periodical sources including The Hindu, The Washington Post and The Guardian. For the opinion that intellectual circles have traditionally held the Barelvis to be a peaceful movement, then I wrote the sentence in what way because the sources include periodicals but no professional political analysts. Those sources are:
- Viewpoint Online
- The Times of India
- The Globe and Mail
- Mail & Guardian
- This is in addition to the sources Msoamu provided; one is already provided in my version above, one is not RS, while two are RS but only one speaks about the Barelvi movement as a whole. The other one only speaks about the Sunni Ittehad Council which already has its own article where the source could be worked in; I say worked in because the Council itself has conflicting opinions from analysts, with both the American and Pakistani governments now distancing themselves from the Council due to its terrorist ties. Because the source mentions the Council rather than the whole Barelvi movement, and the Council's nature as peaceful or not is itself under dispute from security agencies, I would argue that it can't be used here.
- So where is this solution I was talking about? It's simple. The sentence is already here in the article:
- "Analysts have claimed that the Barelvi movement is as affected by intolerance and radicalism as other Islamic movements in the region, despite contrary perceptions in intellectual circles."
- If we take the one acceptable source Msoamu provided which isn't already in the article, we won't need to change anything; we can just use it as another source for the second half of the sentence. This is the simplest way to incorporate one more source into the article without giving undue weight to the opinion, as the question of the Barelvi movement's nature as being peaceful or not has been demonstrated here to be one of discussion.
- I think this is a good solution to point three. Obviously, I need to hear what others say about that first. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thats all right Qwyrxian,I am with your suggestions.In reply to MezzoMezzo's objection,I would say that When the wording intolerant and radicalism can be written which is a minor view about a large Movement,then basic image of Barelvis which is moderate and peaceful should be here to present a Neutral view point. Qwyrxian,in this Article,from Times online ,it was written earlier that in U.K Barelvis are considered a moderate force.Here I would like to make clear that Barelvis are spread in many countries beside forming a majority in Pakistan they are huge majority of Indian Muslims, similarly in Bangladesh,South Africa,Sri Lanka,United States of America,in parts of Europe.They are all Sufi oriented and distance themselves from existing terrorist ideologies of Wahabism/Salafism.Even in Pakistan they are struggling to save composite culture and peace.They have lost their leaders while opposing Taliban and Al Qaeda and their suicide Bombing.Terrorist ideologies captured their institutions and killed their Scholars in Pakistan but there is not a single Barelvi organisation which is in the terrorist list of the Pakistani Govt.Even we don't find these harsh wording in the articles of various other movements which are running terrorist organizations around the globe.Msoamu (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- I understand that that is your opinion, Msoamu, and it may even be "true", but it has nothing to do with the discussion here. However, I also don't think that MezzoMezzo's version is neutral either; first, MezzoMezzo's version doesn't explicate what the opposing viewpoint is (merely that they don't share the "as effected by intolerance as other groups"). Plus, leading the way it does, it really makes it sounds like "Yeah, most people think Barelvi are just more of the same, even though a few people don't". I assume that's not what you're trying to say, MezzoMezzo, but that's how it comes off. A more neutral statement would say something like "Analysts and journalists have produced conflicting opinions about the underlying nature of the Barelvi movement, which some describing the group as moderate and peaceful,(refs) while others describe it as being effected by intolerance and radicalism in ways similar to other Islamic movements in the region.(refs)" That last part is clunky, but my main point is that absent clear evidence that one position is more strongly held than another one, using a neutral lead in before explicating both positions will serve WP:NPOV better. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- How's this sound? "Analysts and journalists have produced conflicting opinions about the nature of the Barelvi movement. Some have stated it being moderate and peaceful - for example source 1 says this,(ref), source 2 says this,(ref) and source 3 says this.(ref). However, others have disagreed, stating that intolerance and radicalism is prevalent - for example, source 4 says this,(ref), source 5 says this,(ref) and source 6 says this.(ref)" Obviously, you replace source n with the source data, and this with what they say, but how does it seem as a basic structure? If you've got 3 points either way, then it will clearly pass WP:NPOV, and having 3 points for each reduces reference clutter, and also looks good (that rule of 3 English thingy). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- I understand that that is your opinion, Msoamu, and it may even be "true", but it has nothing to do with the discussion here. However, I also don't think that MezzoMezzo's version is neutral either; first, MezzoMezzo's version doesn't explicate what the opposing viewpoint is (merely that they don't share the "as effected by intolerance as other groups"). Plus, leading the way it does, it really makes it sounds like "Yeah, most people think Barelvi are just more of the same, even though a few people don't". I assume that's not what you're trying to say, MezzoMezzo, but that's how it comes off. A more neutral statement would say something like "Analysts and journalists have produced conflicting opinions about the underlying nature of the Barelvi movement, which some describing the group as moderate and peaceful,(refs) while others describe it as being effected by intolerance and radicalism in ways similar to other Islamic movements in the region.(refs)" That last part is clunky, but my main point is that absent clear evidence that one position is more strongly held than another one, using a neutral lead in before explicating both positions will serve WP:NPOV better. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thats all right Qwyrxian,I am with your suggestions.In reply to MezzoMezzo's objection,I would say that When the wording intolerant and radicalism can be written which is a minor view about a large Movement,then basic image of Barelvis which is moderate and peaceful should be here to present a Neutral view point. Qwyrxian,in this Article,from Times online ,it was written earlier that in U.K Barelvis are considered a moderate force.Here I would like to make clear that Barelvis are spread in many countries beside forming a majority in Pakistan they are huge majority of Indian Muslims, similarly in Bangladesh,South Africa,Sri Lanka,United States of America,in parts of Europe.They are all Sufi oriented and distance themselves from existing terrorist ideologies of Wahabism/Salafism.Even in Pakistan they are struggling to save composite culture and peace.They have lost their leaders while opposing Taliban and Al Qaeda and their suicide Bombing.Terrorist ideologies captured their institutions and killed their Scholars in Pakistan but there is not a single Barelvi organisation which is in the terrorist list of the Pakistani Govt.Even we don't find these harsh wording in the articles of various other movements which are running terrorist organizations around the globe.Msoamu (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think this is a good solution to point three. Obviously, I need to hear what others say about that first. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I see what you both mean about neutralizing the leadin with plainer language. But Lukeno, wouldn't the suggestion above expand the leadin even more? I'm not saying it's clunky, but do we want it to be longer? Also, were we to cut the sources to three points for each side, how will we choose which ones to keep? MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- You don't need a "lead", as such, in a section. Personally, I think this whole bit actually needs moving elsewhere in the article, possibly into beliefs and practices, but I'm not sure. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- There are several other options. It could go to beliefs, though it could also go to presence because it's describing the movement's actions and attitudes; it could also just go under the relations with other movements because it's about how the movement relates to other ones; it could go under opposition because it relates to the movement's opposition to other movements. But before we figure that out, would you still prefer your version with three explanatory points or Qwerxian's more general version? Your suggestion seemed weird to me but there might be a good reasoning behind it. As long as we get this point resolved, we're good to move on. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- What's weird about my suggestion? :) I wrote my section as Qwyrxian's was, as he admits, clunky (also, effected is the wrong word: affected would be correct, but that's a minor point) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps weird is too pejorative. To cut to the chase, I'm not opposed to either suggestion. I guess I just liked his more initially, but that's not a vot against your suggestion either. I'm with either one as long as we can move on and finish with this; I have a lot of other articles which need attention once I'm done with this, and I'm sure you do too, and Qweryxian is always swamped. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- So what's the plan, guys? I still have three more proposed edits before I'm finished with attempts to improve this article - to "Practices," "Presence" and then finally the lead to summarize everything more accurately. Then after that, I have a growing Wikipedia to-do list as I am sure everyone else does. Qwerxian, have you given points one and two some thought? Everybody, are we ready to close out point three with a new suggested version? MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm still trying to stay closer to a mediator than an editor. I think that Msoamu has failed to establish that Shourie is non-neutral. However, given that there are concerns, it may be safer to either say "According to Shourie, a (description of the position that lends his opinion authority), blah blah", or to replace Shourie with another source. Which you choose to do is up to you. As to the other phrasing, again, I leave that up to involved editors, except to note that neither the current version nor Msoamu's suggestion seem to be NPOV to me. One thing that you may want to think is that it's not good to let perfect be the enemy of goood (i.e., improving it, even if the final result isn't perfect, is probably a good plan). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Both suggestions are very much neutral,I think Qwyrxian should change the wordings as he is acting as mediator.Msoamu (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- If Qerxiyan is acting as a mediator, then it would actually be better for others to make the changes, which seemed to be the implication here. I have replaced Shourie as a source here while still noting that Shourie is a good source, as some of my final proposals include him. I have also implemented Qerxian's suggestion as doing so was easier in terms of keeping the formatting of the refs; let it be known that I have no serious objections to Lukeno's suggestion and if he or anyone else looks at the article's current state and really feels it would be a better direction, then I have no problem with that either. With all that being said, can we consider this episode to be concluded? We're nearing the end of this whole ordeal here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Please MezzoMezzo trim down the sources of intolerance and radicalism also.There are many controversial points which you have proposed MezzoMezzo and they are being opposed due to many genuine reasons.One sided and biased personal opinions should not be on the Article.First the source Shourie was controversial and second as I have said time and again that the lines are repeated in these words,Having formed as a reaction against the reformist Deobandi movement(Non neutral,Barelvi Movement is also reformist),relations between the two groups have often been strained.(Repeated) Ahmad Raza Khan, the founder of Barelvism,went as far as to declare not only (not all deobandis but founders of all these movements )all Deobandis infidels and apostates, but also any non-Deobandis who doubted the apostasy of Deobandis.This line is factually incorrect and the point which it is trying to make is already in the Article in these words with RS,The movement's founder, Ahmad Raza Khan, and other Barelvi religious figures have issued fatwās of apostasy(infidelity) against the founders of the Deobandi, Shia Islam and the Ahmadiyya Community.There is no need to repeat this point and write factually incorrect sentence.Msoamu (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- If Qerxiyan is acting as a mediator, then it would actually be better for others to make the changes, which seemed to be the implication here. I have replaced Shourie as a source here while still noting that Shourie is a good source, as some of my final proposals include him. I have also implemented Qerxian's suggestion as doing so was easier in terms of keeping the formatting of the refs; let it be known that I have no serious objections to Lukeno's suggestion and if he or anyone else looks at the article's current state and really feels it would be a better direction, then I have no problem with that either. With all that being said, can we consider this episode to be concluded? We're nearing the end of this whole ordeal here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Both suggestions are very much neutral,I think Qwyrxian should change the wordings as he is acting as mediator.Msoamu (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm still trying to stay closer to a mediator than an editor. I think that Msoamu has failed to establish that Shourie is non-neutral. However, given that there are concerns, it may be safer to either say "According to Shourie, a (description of the position that lends his opinion authority), blah blah", or to replace Shourie with another source. Which you choose to do is up to you. As to the other phrasing, again, I leave that up to involved editors, except to note that neither the current version nor Msoamu's suggestion seem to be NPOV to me. One thing that you may want to think is that it's not good to let perfect be the enemy of goood (i.e., improving it, even if the final result isn't perfect, is probably a good plan). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- So what's the plan, guys? I still have three more proposed edits before I'm finished with attempts to improve this article - to "Practices," "Presence" and then finally the lead to summarize everything more accurately. Then after that, I have a growing Wikipedia to-do list as I am sure everyone else does. Qwerxian, have you given points one and two some thought? Everybody, are we ready to close out point three with a new suggested version? MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- There are several other options. It could go to beliefs, though it could also go to presence because it's describing the movement's actions and attitudes; it could also just go under the relations with other movements because it's about how the movement relates to other ones; it could go under opposition because it relates to the movement's opposition to other movements. But before we figure that out, would you still prefer your version with three explanatory points or Qwerxian's more general version? Your suggestion seemed weird to me but there might be a good reasoning behind it. As long as we get this point resolved, we're good to move on. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Msoamu, my edits are supported by the sources, and what you're repeating here is the same old stuff which, as has been explained to you more than once, isn't resting upon actual policy. Unless someone else echoes these concerns, not only will I leave the edits as they are but I also won't spend time replying again, to the same inaccurate claims. In the meantime, if there isn't any legitimate, policy-based opposition, can we consider this section closed? Like I mentioned before, I would like to wrap this up, finish out the remaining proposed edits and move on to other articles. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- While the sourcing and neutrality issues have been dealt with already, I do have to say that Msoamu seems to have a point on the repetition. I don't see why the following two sentences need to both appear in the article, especially since they're only 3 paragraphs away from each other:
Ahmad Raza Khan, the founder of Barelvism, went as far as to declare not only all Deobandis infidels and apostates, but also any non-Deobandis who doubted the apostasy of Deobandis
The movement's founder, Ahmad Raza Khan, and other Barelvi religious figures have issued fatwās of apostasy against the founders of the Deobandi, Shia Islam and the Ahmadiyya Community.
- It would be better, just from a quality-of-prose standpoint, to not repeat like that. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, I removed the second sentence since the first was already sourced and the second was not. Having now resolved the sourcing, neutrality and repitition issues here, could we safely say that we're ready to move on? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- MezzoMezzo you removed a well explained point to keep your own which I have said many times is factually wrong.Verdict was against founders of Deobandi,Shia,Ahmadi,Wahabi movements not against each and every person.I am unable to understand why you are insisting again on a point which is neither factually correct nor is complete.Ahmad Raza Khan issued fatwa or verdicts against founders.This line is also written in Ahmed Raza Khan along with your contradicting point.Qwyrxian,the removed line in opposition section was a good explanation against various movements that the verdict was issued against founders of Deobandi,Shia,Ahmadiyya,Wahabi movement.
The movement's founder, Ahmad Raza Khan, and other Barelvi religious figures have issued fatwās of apostasy against the founders of the Deobandi, Shia Islam and the Ahmadiyya Community.
It was sourced and the sources are already in the Article.I am now providing more sources to this existing point.[17][6] [7][8].All of the websites of Barelvi Movement explicitly confirms this including all researches on him.So removing a clear and valid point to present a doubtful picture is unacceptable.This is clearly bad intention on his part.Msoamu (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- So by removing an unsourced sentence and leaving in a sourced sentence, I am displaying a bad intention? Are you really sure about that statement?
- Anyway, you've provided a scribd document and something from Raza.org, both of which appear to be Muslim polemical sites. The other two links you've provided appear to be linking to only one book rather than two, and it mentions one specific fatwa from 1906 which does specifically target Deobandi leaders. The other source (which is already in the article) mentions the general declarations against all members of the Deobandi movement as well. The two sources don't contradict one another, and even if they did I don't think you understand how to deal with differing views in sources; you seem to think it's an issue of "my source is truer than yours" (which is a non-issue anyway since there isn't a real conflict).
- So we have what appears to be two polemical works which I suspect don't meet up to the standards of RS, and another source which doesn't contradict what is already in the article. Msoamu, even after cutting through the personal remarks I really don't think there's any reason to remove the SOURCED sentence already in the article and replace it with the previously unsourced sentence which now has one RS to support only some of what was originally in the sentence anyway. Perhaps others can bring better justification for hearing your concerns because right now, I have failed to find such justification. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Raza.org is good source for Barelvi Fatwas and their beliefs, It is a Barelvi site.Scribd document is actually original Fatwa(Verdict) which clearly and specifically says Fatwa is against founders of Deobandi movement not against all. Can you change the fact by citing Non verifiable source? See Wikipedia:Creating controversial content.Msoamu (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have seen Wikipedia:Creating controversial content. It doesn't apply, and I'm not in the mood to rehash the same baseless arguments again and again. Msoamu, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Everyone else, I feel things have been wrapped up but would prefer to wait for positive confirmation from other editors before moving on - there is always the chance that perhaps something did slip past me but will be noticed by others. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Respected mediator,Qwyrxian,I hope you must have read my concerns in my above comments.I have given Verdict of Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi in question confirmed by RS here ,[Gregory C. Doxlowski. Devotional Islam and Politics in British India: Ahmad Riza Khan Barelwi and His Movement, 1870-1920. The Journal of the American Oriental Society, Oct-Dec, 1999] by Barelvi source and confirmation of this verdict.The verdict was issued against founders, How can we twist the facts?The source of MezzoMezzo may or may not be reliable but authors is not well informed.He has done a clear mistake here and we can't insist on ill informed sources.So my point supported by RS should be in the Article and MezzoMezzo's factually wrong and controversial point should be removed.Msoamu (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have seen Wikipedia:Creating controversial content. It doesn't apply, and I'm not in the mood to rehash the same baseless arguments again and again. Msoamu, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Everyone else, I feel things have been wrapped up but would prefer to wait for positive confirmation from other editors before moving on - there is always the chance that perhaps something did slip past me but will be noticed by others. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Even if I accepted the use a primary source over a secondary source, your own source proves you wrong: "whoever doubts their Kufr or tries to avoid calling them as Kafirs, they themselves become Kafir,"; "that Gulam Ahmed Qadyani and Qassim Nanotwi and Rashid Ahmed Gangohi and Khalil Ahmed Ambethwi and Ashraf Ali Thanvi and those who are with them". So, it appears that you are again in error about what the source says. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Then this MezzoMezzo's suggestion is wrong dear, Ahmad Raza Khan, the founder of Barelvism, went as far as to declare not only all Deobandis (All Deobandi founders were declared infidels not all deobandis)infidels and apostates, but also any non-Deobandis who doubted the apostasy of Deobandis.Fatwas were not limited to Deobandis,Qadiyanis but were also issued against Shia,Ahle hadith.It would be more clear to write a similar to earlier written line in the Article.In 1896, Ahmad Raza Khan had written a fatwa in which he characterized a number of contemporary movements from Sayyid Ahmad Khan's modernist Aligarh movement, to the Ahl-e Hadith, Deoband, and the Nadwa, not to mention the Shi'a as having "wrong" or "bad" beliefs (bad-mazhab) and being "lost" (gumrah).These people were misleading ordinary Muslims, he said.He, in his Fatwa Husam al-Haramain,he declared founders of Deobandi movement,Shia,Ahle Hadith,Qadiyani group Kafir i.e he issued verdict of (Kufr)infidelity against Gulam Ahmed Qadyani and Qassim Nanotwi and Rashid Ahmed Gangohi and Khalil Ahmed Ambethwi and Ashraf Ali Thanvi and also declared that Who ever doubted the apostasy of these will become apostate.[18] ,[19],[20] [21] [22].For the Ahl-e Sunnat, this effort was crowned with success when twenty 'ulama from Makkah and thirteen from Medina certified Husam al-Haramain, giving it their support. They belonged to three different law schools, namely, the Hanafi,Shafi'i,and Maliki.[23] This is true position.First he issued verdict against the founders of these movements then he declared and cautioned not to doubt their Kufr.Msoamu (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- First Proposal- </ref>The movement is primarily centered in South Asian countries of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka,where it is a majority force[24][25] and has spread to Europe, the United States of America, North America, Africa, and in parts of Asia through their organizations World Islamic Mission and Dawat-e-Islami.[26] [27][28]
- Second Proposal-Who is considered Re-newer Mujaddid of the fourteenth Islamic century[29]
- Third- Many prominent Europeans and Arabic Sunni Sufi Scholars have supported this movement in its stand against Wahabism and DeobandiMovement.Many are regular visitors of their mosque and to various events such as Dhikr and Mawlid famous Islamic author Gibril Haddad defended Sunni Barelvi faith and criticized Deobandi for Wahabi influence on it.[30]
Ali Gomaa grand Mufti of Egypt,[31],Saudi scholar Dr Umar Abdulla Kamil [32] Habib Ali al-Jifri[33] is regular visitor of Sunni Barelvi Institutions in India.Habib Umar bin Hafiz [34]Muhammad bin Yahya al-Ninowy[35],Sayed Sabahuddin Rifaai of Baghdad,Iraq takes part in Sunni Barelvi Practices in various countries.[36]
- I will be much obliged if I am told the problems in these paras as I have tried to add neutral and third party sources.You tube may be concern but in exceptional cases it may be used I think.Msoamu (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Msoamu, the onus is on you to explain why these paragraphs should be in the article, not for everyone else to explain why they shouldn't. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's been about four days since any response. While Msoamu is formulating justification for these, would anybody (other than him, really) take issue with me continuing my proposed edits? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- Go ahead, MezzoMezzo. You have been patient and fair. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- MezzoMezzo,I need not to formulate justification for neutral points.This para is even consented by you,Many prominent Europeans and Arabic Sunni Sufi Scholars have supported this movement in its stand against Wahabism and DeobandiMovement.Many are regular visitors of their mosque and to various events such as Dhikr and Mawlid famous Islamic author Gibril Haddad defended Sunni Barelvi faith and criticized Deobandi for Wahabi influence on it.[37]
- Go ahead, MezzoMezzo. You have been patient and fair. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's been about four days since any response. While Msoamu is formulating justification for these, would anybody (other than him, really) take issue with me continuing my proposed edits? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- Msoamu, the onus is on you to explain why these paragraphs should be in the article, not for everyone else to explain why they shouldn't. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- I will be much obliged if I am told the problems in these paras as I have tried to add neutral and third party sources.You tube may be concern but in exceptional cases it may be used I think.Msoamu (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Ali Gomaa grand Mufti of Egypt,[38],Saudi scholar Dr Umar Abdulla Kamil [39] Habib Ali al-Jifri is regular visitor of Sunni Barelvi Institutions in India.Habib Umar bin Hafiz Muhammad bin Yahya al-Ninowy,Sayed Sabahuddin Rifaai of Baghdad,Iraq takes part in Sunni Barelvi Practices in various countries.[40].Here the issue is of sources,content is fine.I am removing you tube as source and will add more source soon.George,it would be better if do some effort to improve this page rather just praising with out knowing your patient and fair friend.His all proposals are non neutral one sided,partial and minor views ,Don't you see the changes brought by the efforts of respected mediator to maintain this page neutral?Msoamu (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- Dear friend Msoamu, I have relatively little interest in the Barelvi-Deobandi debate, not being either a Barelvi or a Deobandi (although I am Muslim). Yet I am very interested in the neutrality and reliability of this page, like all Wikipedia pages, and so I watch how various editors go about the process of shaping the page. I do not criticise you for your perspective, nor do I criticise MezzoMezzo for his. Lately I have commented very rarely because both you and he seemed to be in a healthy dialogue lately, with each of you explaining proposed edits, etc. That is the right thing to do. I am sorry I do not seem more supportive. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Msoamu, but you really do need to formulate justifications for your edits. Enough concerns have been raised regarding your neutrality, familiarity with site policies and quality of composition to put the onus on you. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Dear friend Msoamu, I have relatively little interest in the Barelvi-Deobandi debate, not being either a Barelvi or a Deobandi (although I am Muslim). Yet I am very interested in the neutrality and reliability of this page, like all Wikipedia pages, and so I watch how various editors go about the process of shaping the page. I do not criticise you for your perspective, nor do I criticise MezzoMezzo for his. Lately I have commented very rarely because both you and he seemed to be in a healthy dialogue lately, with each of you explaining proposed edits, etc. That is the right thing to do. I am sorry I do not seem more supportive. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
References
- ^ http://www.viewpointonline.net/sunni-ittehad-council-barelvi-activism-against-terrorism.html
- ^ http://www.questia.com/library/1P2-32548705/in-pakistan-militant-attacks-on-sufi-shrines-on-the http://books.google.co.in/books?id=GbgoBGFSMRQC&pg=PA252&dq=ahmed+raza+khan+barelvi+established+madrasas&hl=en&sa=X&ei=avs-UeBehrKsB8HpgeAC&sqi=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ahmed%20raza%20khan%20barelvi%20established%20madrasas&f=false
- ^ http://books.google.co.in/books?id=-78yjVybQfkC&pg=PA180&lpg=PA180&dq=peaceful+and+moderate+barelvi&source=bl&ots=EK2eyFdY5u&sig=qScUFTyzy00SrqqLqtvES7Pi5Ww&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RzM_UZCgFYqNrgfa7IGwBA&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAzge] [http://afpakwar.com/blog/archives/2858
- ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/12/pakistan-moderate-salman-taseer-mumtaz-qadri
- ^ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/pakistans-sufis-end-their-silence/article1387679/
- ^ http://mg.co.za/article/2009-05-13-pakistan-clerics-speak-out-against-taliban
- ^ https://www.google.co.in/search?pg=PA95&dq=pakistan+movement+diverse++barelvi&hl=en&q=pakistan%20movement%20diverse%20%20barelvi&sa=N&tab=pw#q=peaceful+and+moderate+barelvi&hl=en&ei=RzM_UZCgFYqNrgfa7IGwBA&start=40&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43287494,d.bmk&fp=e979ae3c6dffdf1&biw=1366&bih=611
- ^ http://dawn.com/2011/01/05/assassin-linked-with-dawat-i-islami/
- ^ http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-01-06/pakistan/28353255_1_mumtaz-qadri-salman-taseer-offer-prayers
- ^ Wright, Tom (5 JANUARY 2011). "Leading Pakistani Politician Killed". Wall Street Journal.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ The Assertion of Barelvi Extremism. Current Trends.
- ^ Taseer no blasphmer, claim Barelvi ulema. The Nation, October 14, 2011.
- ^ http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/analysis_disinformation-campaigns-to-divide-indians-will-fail_1567520
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
riaz
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Ashok K. Behuria, Sects Within Sect: The Case of Deobandi–Barelvi Encounter in Pakistan. Strategic Analysis, vol. 32, no. 1. Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, January 2008.
- ^ Gregory C. Doxlowski. Devotional Islam and Politics in British India: Ahmad Riza Khan Barelwi and His Movement, 1870-1920. The Journal of the American Oriental Society, Oct-Dec, 1999
- ^ Gregory C. Doxlowski. Devotional Islam and Politics in British India: Ahmad Riza Khan Barelwi and His Movement, 1870-1920. The Journal of the American Oriental Society, Oct-Dec, 1999
- ^ http://books.google.co.in/books?id=jENEFvzvrp4C&pg=PA43&dq=fatwa+against+deobandi+shia++by+ahmad+raza+khan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OWdaUayLKcvIrQeLuYDACw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=fatwa%20against%20deobandi%20shia%20%20by%20ahmad%20raza%20khan&f=false
- ^ Gregory C. Doxlowski. Devotional Islam and Politics in British India: Ahmad Riza Khan Barelwi and His Movement, 1870-1920. The Journal of the American Oriental Society, Oct-Dec, 1999
- ^ http://www.raza.org.za/deviant_sects_and_scholars_fatawa_against_shias.html Barelvi source
- ^ http://sufimanzil.org/fatwa/akeedahfatwas/arabic-fatwa-against-deobandis
- ^ http://www.archive.org/stream/AhmedRizaKhanBarelwi_inThePathOfTheProphet_ushaSanyal/Ahmad-riza-khan-barelwi-In-the-path-of-the-prophet_djvu.txt
- ^ http://www.archive.org/stream/AhmedRizaKhanBarelwi_inThePathOfTheProphet_ushaSanyal/Ahmad-riza-khan-barelwi-In-the-path-of-the-prophet_djvu.txt
- ^ Sandeep Unnithan and Uday Mahurkar (31 July 2008). "The radical sweep". India Today. Retrieved 2009-09-30.
- ^ "Pakistan plays Sufi card against jihadis | World War 4 Report". Ww4report.com. Retrieved 2009-09-30.
- ^ http://books.google.co.in/books?id=VerhMgEACAAJ&dq=world+islamic+mission&hl=en&sa=X&ei=N0pdUbPIMYbkrAe54IDYDw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA
- ^ Leeds Road district Mosque (Bradford, Bradford): "Dawat-e-Islami Faizan-e-Madinah" - UK Mosque Searcher
- ^ Thomas K. Gugler: Jihad, Da´wa and Hijra: Islamic Missionary Movements in Europe
- ^ http://www.archive.org/stream/AhmedRizaKhanBarelwi_inThePathOfTheProphet_ushaSanyal/Ahmad-riza-khan-barelwi-In-the-path-of-the-prophet_djvu.txt
- ^ http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e30.html
- ^ http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/article1076971.ece
- ^ http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/article1076971.ece
- ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1hn6EwOjik
- ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PPayCzaqUY
- ^ http://www.islamieducation.com/en/index.php?option=com_seyret&task=searchvideos&Itemid=82&searchkey=bin
- ^ http://www.ali-gomaa.com/?page=news&news_details=63
- ^ http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e30.html
- ^ http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/article1076971.ece
- ^ http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/article1076971.ece
- ^ http://www.ali-gomaa.com/?page=news&news_details=63
Presence - new version
I have reinstated my previous edits from March to the "Presence" section, as discussion on the other sections seems to have either been resolved or rendered inactive, and at least one editor has commented that the edits should continue. I have done a number of things with the presence section:
- I have added The Washington Post as a source alongside The Heritage Foundation regarding the presence of Barelvis in Pakistan's population. No actual content change has been instated there; I simply added another source to support the same fact.
- Very significantly, I have amended the text associated with the Daily Times (Pakistan) source. It is an interview with journalist Khaled Ahmed, who states his opinion that the switchover from Barelvi to Deobandi interpretations at British mosques has been a negative thing. Ahmed is a prominent journalist, but the bottom line is that he is not a subject matter expert nor did he conduct any sort of a survey or sociological/poltical case study into the long term effects of said switchover. He merely stated his opinion that Deobandis are more radical then Barelvis, and this needs to be presented as his opinion and nothing more - not as objective fact.
- For balance, I also site the South Asia Analyst Group afterward to mention that not all commentators share Ahmed's viewpoint; in fact, as I feel the sources show, most professional political analysts don't see Barelvis or Deobandis as movements as being necessarily more or less violent than one another. Again, I ensured with the wording that this is presented as the opinion of such analysts and not objective fact.
I feel that these edits are important because before, the presence section represented the mere opinion that the Barelvi movement is less violent than the Deobandi movement as objective fact rather than the opinion of people such as Ahmed. In the same sense, the article absolutely shouldn't present the other opinion as objective fact either. Rather, what should be expressed to the reader is that both claims are disputed and the usage of violence for political means within the Barelvi movement is a contentious issue. This way, each reader will be able to draw their own conclusions rather than have Wikipedia editors - consciously or subconsciously - make that decision for them and only present a certain viewpoint. I hope that other editors find this most recent change to be an improvement, though I welcome good faith, policy-based feedback which results in overall improvements to the quality and clarity of the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- The points of Moderate/Intolerance have been discussed and inserted already.Your above views are personal POV to once again show movement in negative light.I removed your repetition.Msoamu (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Msoamu, you're again accusing me of pushing POV? And how does this show the movement in a negative light, if I indeed showed that both opinions are merely opinions?
- You also insinuated that the opinion of political analysts is irrelevant with your edit summary here, yet you left the opinion of Khaled Ahmed untouched. The opinion of political analysts is important to contrast it with the opinion of one journalist, which has been in this article for a long time, and which you left in - seemingly insuating that a journalist's opinion is relevant, but the opinion of political analysts' is not? Am I missing something?
- And why did you remove the other movements from the etymology section here? You know - and don't claim you don't, I know you know - that Ahle Sunnat wa al-Jama'at is the Arabic/Urdu long form of "Sunni," and I know that you know that non-Barelvis - pretty much the entire Sunni Muslim world - find it offensive that Barelvis claim to be the only true Sunni Muslims and that all other groups (Deobandi, Salafi, Ahle Hadith, Murabitun, Muslim Brotherhood, etc.) are not true Sunnis. The claim of Barelvis that they are Ahle Sunnat is offensive to all other Muslims, and that claim shouldn't be presented without giving readers the full picture - that the rest of the Muslim world outside of Pakistan doesn't concede sole ownership of that term to Barelvis.
- And why did you remove Khaled Ahmed's comments about Shi'a and Barelvis mixing here? You apparently think Ahmed is such a reliable source that his opinion can be presented as objective fact, except when it comes to Shi'a? If he is such a reliable source, then why do you allow his opinion in one place and not another? A second source isn't needed, and your strong POV renders your claim that the mixing with Shi'a thing is itself an exceptional claim is hard to take seriously. I will also add that your insistance on removing the point about Shi'a while leaving Ahmed's clearly anti-Deobandi opinion above does smack of anti-Shi'a POV. I can't read your mind to know if that truly is the case, but it does appear that way.
- You also made an interesting mess of the refs here. I explained earlier that I collapsed those refs to ease up on over-referencing, and that I could not do so for the refs about the opposing view because all of those refs were cited at other points in the article - collapsing them would be impossible. If you feel neither should be collapsed then perhaps you have a point, but you should make it here on the talk page first. You have been reverted enough times and enough users have expressed concern about editing against consensus on your part that you should really discuss things on the talk page first.
- About this edit, then some of those sources look alright but again your composition is rather poor, and you mention the Barelvi scholar in the first paragraph as being Sunni yet you specify that Zakir Naik is Salafi - it again seems to be an implication on your part that Salafis are not a strand of Sunni Islam just like Barelvis, but are some kind of heretical group - which would count as POV. Again, I'm saying it seems that way - I'm not sure of your intentions but enough of us here have expressed misgivings about those intentions that you should really discuss such edits here first.
- As for this, then it is a clear instance of POV pushing. The Barelvis are and always have been a controversial movement, just like the Wahhabis, whom you seem to imply I belong to in your edit summary there - I hope that isn't the case and I am just imagining things. Anyway since you mentioend it, the Wahhabi article for example makes clear that the Wahhabis also claim to follow the Qur'an and Sunnah but that this is disputed by other movements - as it should be. I see no reason why Barelvis should get a pass and that the article on that movement should present their claims as objective fact. Readers should be aware that all of these modern Muslim religious movements are contentious and controversial, and the readers should be left to decide for themselves (or to even not take a position if they like). It is not up to us to make those judgment calls for them.
- Beyond this, Msoamu, I do have a problem with your pattern of editing as well. You just disappeared from the talk page for five days, yet only three and a half hours after my edits you then make some really major changes to the article. Originally it seemed that perhaps you're just busy outside, but I find it disappointing that you only seem to show up to complain about my edits; there have been very few edits on your part doing anything other than this, the one insertion of poorly written text above being an example. Again, I can't read your mind and know your intentions but having seen this behavior both several years ago and since this January, one gets the distinct impression that you are monitoring this page but only seem to log in and edit when I do, and for the purpose. In fact I'm looking at your contribs just for today and you only edited both this page and a deletion discussion in which I was involved (making what seems like a really prejudiced, offensive statement about Hindus by the way - you should really go amend that). Maybe I'm just being paranoid after having nothing but decidedly negative interactions with you, but I wish you would log in for more than simply swooping in shortly after I make edits and reverting them.
- Again, if there is some real life reason than I'm mistaken and obliged to apologize, but this is behavior which has been demonstrated over a long period of time and it is perplexing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Interestingly, Khaled Ahmed - whose comments as a source have provided interesting discussion on this article to say the least - opines in this article with the following: "Within Sunni Islam, the Deobandis and the Barelvis are not found anywhere outside India and Pakistan. The creation of these two sects was one of the masterstrokes of the Raj in its divide-and-rule policy." Again, it's just his opinion and not some sort of a historical study, though given that his voice is granted weight in other areas, would the above comment also warrant such weight in the related articles? I'm not sure myself. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Fatwa against terrorist
i added some information about this topic.if anyone have any problem he can discus here.Dil e Muslim talk 17:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- You've been reverted by two different users. That's a strong sign that your edits are viewed as somewhat questionable, and that the onus should be on you to explain and defend those edits.
- I also have to say that I am somewhat concerned that there could be a sock and/or meatpuppet issue here. First, User:Msoamu inserted the fatwa section with this edit here. Then, the IP address 119.154.12.124 added the same exact word-for-word paragraph with this edit here with one exception: it also included the paragraph which User:Am Not New included in this edit here.
- Now you - the person who wrote the above comments - wrote those comments in this edit with the 119.154.12.124 IP, then copy-pasted your IP address and a link to your contribs with this edit and then finally deleted the IP address sign and signed as Am Not New with this edit.
- It technically has no bearing on the edits themselves, but I do think it might warrant some explanation. Given that one of these accounts is called "An Not New," one is lead to believe that this could be some sort of a fresh start issue. It would also be preferable to know just exactly who I (and other editors) are talking to and is making what edits. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- MezzoMezzo: The above account IS "Am Not New", but their signature doesn't make it obvious unless you click it or hover over it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 06:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I see it now. Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but the fact that two accounts and one IP seemed to all be reinserting the same edits (the status of the edits is a separate issue which they should still explain) seemed to be a cause for concern, especially with the name of one account being "Am Not New." MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with your evaluation that Am Not New and the IP are the same, but I'm not sure what the second account is supposed to be? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I can't say for sure. I was suspicious though, because in the edits I posted above, Am Not New/the IP address were inserting the same exact paragraph Msoamu had earlier tried to insert in one of the six edits you reverted, word-for-word. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Take it to WP:SPI if you want it checked out. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it is clear that the IP is the same person, but that could just be caused by forgetting to log in. If you think it's Msoamu, then, yes, just open an SPI with the diffs showing the edits are identical. Note that it's not a foolproof approach; it is possible that another person simply preferred Msoamu's version....though there are other ways to check. I've not investigated enough to have an opinion on the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I can't say for sure. I was suspicious though, because in the edits I posted above, Am Not New/the IP address were inserting the same exact paragraph Msoamu had earlier tried to insert in one of the six edits you reverted, word-for-word. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes this is my ip i forgot to login.i edited and added Talks.then i logged in and again added my signature in Talk.and added more information in article by logging in.Dil e Muslim talk 16:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I've never run an SPI myself before. Though the user's name is "AM Not New" and that does make me uneasy, perhaps assuming good faith and being direct will help. Am Not New/Dil e Muslim, are you the same person as Msoamu? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Although the timestamps of the edits would allow for socking, I think the standard of English is fairly different, but I might be wrong. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes I get the same feeling, I think my spider sense tends to tingle as inappropriate times due to what I've seen on this and related articles in terms of POV pushing from various sides. Which is part of why I want to finish out all the remaining edits and move on to my to-do list. If AM Not New insists that he isn't Msoamu, then I can take that at face value and avoid biting the newbie. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry i replied down here.here.Dear MezzoMezzo my edits are my personal edits.i am not msamu.and heading of fatwa against terrorist is my heading.i added it first.see history.Dil e Muslim talk 15:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- You don't have to be sorry to me, I'm your peer as an editor and was just asking. Don't let this spoil your time here, either. Let's move on - regarding your edits. I can only speak for myself, but the main reason for reverting the fatwa insertion initially was that it seemed unexplained at a time when a number of new changes were already under discussion. Could you state in two or three sentences what specifically the section would add to this article? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Full protection
For 1 week, at least. I am in no way endorsing the current version, merely stopping the edit warring. Figure it out. Because the issues here are fairly complex, I recommend the dispute resolution noticeboard; just be sure to keep the discussion there focused on content, not contributors, because they only handle content disputes. If someone, however, thinks they have a case of behavioral problems, bring it to WP:ANI, though make sure you have a solid case of diffs. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
above ip
here you questioned me. Yes this is my ip i forgot to login.i edited and added Talks then again tried to add my singature but ip adress apeared instead signature.then i logged in and again added my signature in Talk.and added more information in article by logging in.Dil e Muslim talk 17:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
BTW you should write it in my talk page for confirmtion.Dil e Muslim talk 16:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
my signature is discribing my religion.and it is linked to my user name.what is wrong in that.Dil e Muslim talk 16:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
And first of all i added the heading Fatwa against terrorist origionally. which was reverted by someone.i could not revert back becoz i was busy in other article.then msamo again added it and again reverted by someone else.then i again added.moral.i have to add this heading coz i added it origionally.Dil e Muslim talk 17:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Dear Dil e Muslim, please don't get down. Sometimes mix-ups happen and sometimes it does indeed appear as though someone is using a sockpuppet when he or she is not. Fellow editors just want to maintain the neutrality of the page. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear George Custer's Sabre (talk).Sorry.i am a new editor.Dil e Muslim talk 15:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
History section
Dear Qwyrxian and other neutral editors, Total history section proposed by Mezzomezzo is Undue, highly biased ,full of minor views and opinions presented as facts in history.They also include exceptional claims.He has not provided any other R.sources for many of my previous objections.MezzoMezzo's heading was not deleted does not meant it is neutral and fine.Mezzo must reply my objections.
- Why he has written most of Upadhayay's opinions as fact in history section?
- What were so called failed attempts of Ahmed Raza Khan?
- Pakistan movement Article negates your lies and opinions about this movement.Not even a single Barelwi leader was involved in Pakistan movement.
- Conflict with Non Muslims can't be proved from reliable sources.Even you can't give a single example of conflict of hindus with barelwis.These lies are unbearable and highly biased claims of anti Muslim author.
- Barelwis did not receive fund from any Govt in the whole history of this movement.MezzoMezzo has tried to show that this movement received foreign funding in their movement.This is baseless and not verifiable.Individuals sending their personal charity can't be treated as Foreign funding.He is un-necessary confusing readers because its opposing movement Salafism or Wahabism is totally alive on foreign fundings to destroy local cultures.
- Barelwis mixing with Shia belief is one such exceptional claim.Whole heading is biased and full of lies and factually incorrect points.
- I have restructured the presence section and no reasonable person would have problem with that.As new sub heading will be more clear and will look easy to understand.More information may be added into these sub headings.Why Lukeno is removing I am unable to understand.Msoamu (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I've blocked Msoamu for 1 week for continued edit warring after the full protection expired. Everyone else should be on notice that any edit warring, of any type, will result in more blocks being handed out. Use dispute resolution. If someone else is edit warring, as at WP:EWNB or WP:ANI for a block (you can ask me directly, but my WP time is scarce and you'll get a faster response out of a noticeboard). But this has to stop. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Msoamu, this section was not only resolved and now has consensus over it, but the appropriate discussion section here on the talk page was even archived due to it being resolved for so long ago. I don't know why you're bringing this up again. It has been suggested at least twice here on this talk page as well as on a few user talk pages that at this point, our main option would be dispute resolution.
- Considering that the consensus (as described by others, not by me) seems to be on the version which I had written, I don't feel the need for dispute resolution myself. Msoamu, if you would like dispute resolution then I will be happy to help you go that route but keep in mind that quite a bit of the onus will be on you. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- It also goes without saying that while I feel the onus for dispute resolution mostly lies on Msoamu, I am still restoring the material he recently removed. In every instance, the material consisted of direct paraphrases from the sources I had brought - which, as I mentioned above, already underwent discussion and no legitimate, policy-based opposition was brought. I feel this is restoring the sourced, neutral version before Msoamu's edit warring, rather than a continuation of said edit war on my part (which I have a feeling Msoamu might claim, hence my preemptive message here). MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- can you clarify your first point on upadhayay? what are his opinions that are in the history section..the second point about raza's failed attempts can be removed if the attempts are not explained. Baboon43 (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- His point on Upadhayay is that the source provided via the South Asia Analysis Group only constitutes his own opinion, whereas the sources which agree with Msoamu's POV are not opinions but facts. This is a tactic which he has tried before; push the few sources which conform to his view and flatly deny the validity of the multitude of sources which indicate otherwise. Regarding the failed attempts, then it's sourced by a book put out by Rutgers University Press but again, since this clashes with Msoamu's view it particularly bothers him. It's clearly mentioned in one source and if it bothers him that much, I can easily spend some time researching and find more sources stating the same. Perhaps that would resolve the issue. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- since he is blocked the discussion can continue when he returns. Baboon43 (talk) 06:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- It will have to wait, yes. We really need to see something substantial, though. Every point which Msoamu brings up above has already been brought up before, and each time he was told - by more than just me - that his arguments are not based on relevant policies. I added some more reliable sources now, not that I am compelled to do so - the edits already stood under scrutiny of the community and nobody other than Msoamu raised issue with them, and the history section in particular lied dormant so long that the discussion has now been archived. I'm really not sure why he even opened this section - he can't possibly believe that more or less copy pasting the same arguments which were shot down by a new consensus before would somenow be accepted now for no reason. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- since he is blocked the discussion can continue when he returns. Baboon43 (talk) 06:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- His point on Upadhayay is that the source provided via the South Asia Analysis Group only constitutes his own opinion, whereas the sources which agree with Msoamu's POV are not opinions but facts. This is a tactic which he has tried before; push the few sources which conform to his view and flatly deny the validity of the multitude of sources which indicate otherwise. Regarding the failed attempts, then it's sourced by a book put out by Rutgers University Press but again, since this clashes with Msoamu's view it particularly bothers him. It's clearly mentioned in one source and if it bothers him that much, I can easily spend some time researching and find more sources stating the same. Perhaps that would resolve the issue. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- can you clarify your first point on upadhayay? what are his opinions that are in the history section..the second point about raza's failed attempts can be removed if the attempts are not explained. Baboon43 (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- It also goes without saying that while I feel the onus for dispute resolution mostly lies on Msoamu, I am still restoring the material he recently removed. In every instance, the material consisted of direct paraphrases from the sources I had brought - which, as I mentioned above, already underwent discussion and no legitimate, policy-based opposition was brought. I feel this is restoring the sourced, neutral version before Msoamu's edit warring, rather than a continuation of said edit war on my part (which I have a feeling Msoamu might claim, hence my preemptive message here). MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
i think history section is completly baised and trying to show negitive prospective of this movement.Dil e Muslim talk 17:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
now about pakistan movement
Ahmad Raza Khan was a major advocate for a seperate muslim state even before the actual Pakistan movement started.
There was a paper entitled "Imam Ahmed Raza Khan Barailvee: A Versatile Personality" which was presented at the 'Imam Ahmed Raza Conference, held at the Taj Mahal Hotel, Karachi on September 14, 1990 under the auspices of the Idara-i-Tahqeeqat-e-Imam Ahmed Raza, Karachi, which was much applauded by the audience and achieved appreciation. This essay was also published in some newspapers. Later on Idara-i-Nomania, Lahore has also published it n the book let form and then the Idara-i- Tahqeeqat-e-Imam Ahmad Raza, Karachi, had the opportunity to publish its English translation. Its Urdu text was published in January 1991 whereas Arabic translation was also done.
"A number of cyclopedic personalities have passed in the Indo-Pak sub-continent, but when an impartial critic takes the stock of all the profiles, he finds no other omnigenous person hut that of Imam Ahmad Raza's (rahmatullah alai) versatile and compendious personality" (reference: Imam Ahmed Raza Khan Barailvee: A Versatile Personality, (Urdu) Karachi, 1991, P.4)
Books and treatises, written by A'la Hazrat Imam Ahmed Raza (rahmatullah alai), are nearly one thousand in number. The impact of his personality and work upon his followers is so immense that any other contemporary metaphysician could not attract his followers. In the beginning of the Khilafat Movement, the Ali Brother visited him to seek his signature on the Fatwa, regarding the non-cooperation movement. Imam Ahmad Raza (rahmatullah alai) said: "Mawlana there is a difference between your and my politics. You are a supporter of the Hindu Muslim Unity, but I am an opponent. When the Imam Sahab felt that the Ali Brothers have become dejected, he said, Mawlana I am not against the political freedom of the Muslims, but I oppose the Hindu Muslim Unity".
For this opposition, the great reason was that the supporters of the (Hindu-Muslim) Unity, with their arguments good or bad, had flown away so far that a religious scholar (alim-e-deen) could not support this unity.Maulana Ahmad Raza Khan Barailvee (rahmatullah alai) raised objections on some writings and actions of Mawlana Abdul Ban Farangi Mahali, who has himself fairly confused in these words; "I commit many a sins, knowingly or unknowingly, hut I am ashamed of them. Verbally, practically and in writing, I committed such matters for which 1 never thought that those were sins. But Mawlana Ahmed Raza Khan maintain them as a divergence or betrayal from Islam and hence accountability is unavoidable, and as there is no decision or example left by the forerunners so I recant and affirm my full confidence in the decision and thinking of Mawlana Ahmed Raza Khan.( reference: Ma'arif-e-Raza, Karachi, Vol 1986, P.83)
"First of all this point should be understood that Imam Ahmed Raza was not a politician, he was a Statesman; he was not a political leader, he was a farsighted guide. Politicians and Political leaders tend to work under people's pressure and aspiration, while the statesmen and sagacious guides by virtue of their insight and sagacity determine the direction of the circumstances." (refence: ibid P.24)
It was the foresight and sagacity that at a time when Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Dr. Iqbal had been talking of the composite nationalism, Imam Ahmad Raza (rahmatullah alai) expedited the Two- Nation Theory. At the earlier stage, the Muslim political leaders did not follow its importance, but later on the sagacious politicians came to this side. So then Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Dr. Iqbal also tended towards the Two-Nation Theory and adopted it so much so that they made it their thinking and political base and programme.
Talking about this historical back ground, the presenter at the 'Imam Ahmad Raza Conference, held at the Taj Mahal Hotel, Karachi on September 14, 1990 stated, "Imam Ahmad Raza raised the voice against the composite nationalism at a time when Iqbal and the Quid-e-Azam were the captives of her tress inclined to catch people in her Knots." One can adjudge that Imam Ahmad Raza was the leader and these two noble persons were the followers in respect of the Two- Nation Theory. The Pakistan Movement would have never been encouraged and promoted, if Imam Ahmad Raza did not make aware Muslims of the Hindu tactics, many years before the Pakistan Movement". (reference: ibid page 25)
Once the late Dr. Ishtiaque Hussein Qureshi inquired: "On what grounds can you say that Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Dr. Iqbal were inspired by Imam Ahmad Raza with reference to the Two-Nation Theory ?" The answer was the same that when the composite nationalism was under discussion throughout India, Imam Ahmad Raza had been explaining the Two-nation Theory which was much talked about ii the far and wide of the subcontinent. Hence it is an apparent thing that both of them were inspired by Imam Ahmad Raza which does not require any proof and evidence. Above all, they were among the contemporareans of Imam Ahmad Raza.
Imam Ahmed Raza believed in the consciousness and moderation, particularly when we had to confront a clever, crafty and strong enemy (i.e. the Hindus). It is regrettable that the consciousness of the nation shifts away from the hands of the statesmen into the hands of the politicians in the days of the political fuss and noise. Then they do whatever they like. Talking about Imam Ahmed Raza's statesmanship, the presenter at the Imam Ahmad Raza Conference stated:
"In such a state of affairs, not showing any concern over the opposition and accusations, staying at the cult of moderation, and adhering with the politics of statesmanship and sagacity with a view to promote the Two-Nation Theory, was the task of a man, having iron-like nerve, such as Imam Ahmad Raza demonstrated. Now those who say that his measures were based on friendliness with the English rulers, so such a view can be spoken by a person who does not known of Imam Ahmed Raza at all, or he might know the reality, but he would not want to accept the truth even after knowing it" (reference ibid page 27)
More All Sunni Ulma' and Mashaikh supported Pakistan movement; they used the platform of All-Inida-Sunni-Conference.
Ala Hazrat's elder Hujjat-ul-Islam Maulana Hamid Raza Khan was elected as president of the All-India-Sunni-Conference but he offered that chair to another great Sunni scholar Hazrat Pir Jamaat Ali Shah Sahib, Ala Hazrat's younger son Hazour Mufti-e-Azam-e-Hind casted their 1st vote in the favor of a Muslim-League member in Braili Sharif (1946)to support Pakistan movement and the people were calling him Mufti-e-Azam-e-Pakistan on that occasion.
Khalif-e-Ala Hazrat Hazour Muhadith-e-Azam-e-Hind (Father of Hazrat Hashami Mian & Sheikh-ul-Islam Madani Mian)delivered a great speech in favor of Pakistan in All-India-Sunni-Conference-Bannaras, and Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah wrote a letter of appreciation to him for his tireless efforts for Pakistan movement. Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah also wrote another letter to Sheikh-ul-Islam Khwaja Qamar-ul-Din Peer Siyal sahib.
To know the efforts of family of Ala Hazrat and other Sunni Ulma' & Mashaikh, read the books about Pakistan movement like, Tahreek-e-Pakistan main Sunni Ulma' ka Kirdar ...etc
Of course Sunni Ulma' and Mashiekh ordered their followers to support Pakistan movement even Hazour Muhadith-e-Azam-e-Hind once said "if Mr. Jinnah take a U-turn, we'll make Pakistan".
Learning/knowing English wasn't obligatory on Ala Hazrat radi Allahu anhu and he didn't study in any British or non-British school.
Btw, Ala Hazrat's ancestors didn't came from Persia but Qandhar (Afghanistan), 1st they settled in Lahore (Sheesh Mahal in Lahore was their property) but later they moved to Rohail-Khand, then Braili Sharif.
Further Khalifa -e- Aala Hazrat,Sadr al-Shari'ah Maulana Amjad Ali was basically and mentally tuned as a religious scholar, but he was also at home and conversant with the politics of the day (which was raging throughout the length and breadth of the sub-continent). And whenever and wherever necessity chose, he defended and extolled the Islamic nation, even as a political entity with sound reasoning and in political parlance. His murshid-e-tariqat (mystic leader), Imam Ahmed Rida Bareilly was a staunch supporter of the "Two Nation Theory", which was based on the fundamental issue that the nations of idol worshippers (but parast) and idol breaker (but shikan), cannot be joined into a single nation. This was the basic foundation of the demand for Pakistan.
Hazrat Sadr al-Shari'ah was a true believer of the Muslim nationhood as a separate entity, and so was Sadr al-Afadhil Sayyid Na'eemuddin Muradabadi , and many of our great and eminent scholars, and he spread no endeavours for the cause of Muslim entity. He preached this theory with full force of his command on the 14th of Rajab 1339, corresponding 24th March 1921, Jami'ah al-'Ulema al-Hind (which consisted mostly of the Nationalist Muslims) held their convention, at Bareilly in which Maulana Abu al-Kalam Azad and other leaders participated.
The leaders of the Jamiat had come fully prepared, and confident that they will outwit and defeat the opponents of Muslim-Hindu unity. Maulana Amjad Ali, being the president of the Academic branch of Jam'ah al-Raza-e-Mustafa accepted the challenge and presented to the leaders of the Jami'ah 'Ulema-e-Hind a comprehensive questionnaire based on 70 questions related to the so-called Hindu-Muslim unity, and demanded their reply to the said-questionnaire. But the pro-Hindu "Ulema" of the Jami'ah 'Ulema-e-Hind failed to send even one reply to the questions posed, in spite of repeated reminders which were sent to them.
The great learned scholar, Maulana Sayyid Na'im al-Din al-Muradabadi, expressed the under-noted opinion of the said questionnaire in a letter addressed to Imam Ahmed Rida Khan:
"Our Master! Your blessings abound
After presenting my greeting of salaam, I beg to submit that after taking the leave of yours, I reached my residence and studied the comprehensive questionnaire. Really these questions are based on "Divine Dispensation". Surely these questions do not provide the opponents any room for a convincing reply (and definitely they are defenceless at the moment) At the time of departure, Maulana Abu al-Kalam Azad said at the Bareilly-Ry Station: "All the various objections raised in the questionnaire are real and correct. Why should people commit errors, which cannot be (adequately) replied and defended. Such errors (falsehoods) provide the other party an opportunity to seize upon it"
There are many books written on this topic here is one of them.Dil e Muslim talk 18:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- WP:TLDR... that hurt my head, just looking at the length. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I read enough of it to know that it's WP:OR. Am Not New, WIkipedia is not the place for you to publish your original research. You cannot look at historical documents and draw conclusions from them. If you want to do that, please find a book publisher or an academic journal for historians. That book you have at the very end is not a reliable source, because it's not published by a neutral, reliable publisher. As I just mentioned to you on another page, you'll need to review WP:OR, as it's one of our most important policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)