Talk:Barelvi movement/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

And why do you think that? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Dil e Muslim, I hope you are well. I think your accusation of bias against MezzoMezzo warrants a detailed explanation, not just an allegation. I find his editing to be responsible, patient and studious. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:33, 23 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)

IP edit warring

I have semi-protected the article to stop the IP from edit warring. IP, if you want to discuss the matter feel free to do so here. You're obviously not a new user, though, so please also identify your other accounts. Please note that I have no opinion about the content itself; it's entirely possible that you're right, and that your version is better...but you can't just try to force it in by edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Man, I left Wikipedia for a few days to spend more time with the family...what the hell happened? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

global security.org

i want to know wether globalsecurity.org is a reliable source or not.as many thing in many articles are associated with this source.Dil e Muslim talk 07:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Dil e Muslim, according to my understanding of Wikipedia guidelines, it is not a reliable source. I also look forward to the opinions of other editors. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• WP:RSN is where you should go for this discussion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Lukeno94. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a discussion open there now; others can chime in, though in my experience RSN is most useful when the two sides ("is RS" vs. "isn't RS") each present a simple explanation, and then we wait for outside opinions. But, it is open to others if someone thinks I or Am Not New has missed something critical. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

discus my last edit

my last was

• Use of word Ya Rasoolallah(O!Messenger of ALLAH:-This word can be used to call him for assistant and show his existance in Present Time.).Imam Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi proved in his fatwa that use of such word is permissible if we believe that person is slave of God,an Intermediate,and cannot even move without help and permission of God.

which was reverted by an editor here by comments.(Undid revision 551975974 by Am Not New (talk) Rv a good-faith insertion of oddly particular (and inadequately referenced) information that is hardly common to all Barelvis)

now i edited it

• Use of word Ya Rasoolallah(O!Messenger of ALLAH).Imam Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi proved in his fatwa that "use of such word is permissible if we believe that person is slave of God,an Intermediate,and cannot even move without help and permission of God."

changes made

• removed lines which could be called extra.
• inserted inverted commas to demonstrate that these are words of Imam Ahem

Raza Khan Barelvi not mine.

• added more refrences.Dil e Muslim talk 20:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that all of those sources appear to be WP:PRIMARY sources. Can you provide a source which explicitly says that this is a common belief among Barelvi, as opposed to the beliefs of a few specific Imams? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

here is one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Am Not New (talk • contribs) 05:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Am Not New, no, this link is unacceptable as a Wikipedia citation for a whole variety of reasons. Citations to reliable, authoritative, and neutral third-party sources would permit the edits you want to make. They are essential. Wikipedia requires them. Two good sets of Wikipedia guidelines that I have found really useful can be found HERE and HERE. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

And Am Not New, why did one of the primary sources you included above regarding a view attributed to Ahmed Reza Khan include a source from Al-Qastallani? He died, literally, about 990 years before Khan was even born, none of this is making any sense. Are you just randomly copy-pasting source names now? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

mr mezzomezzo he is died but his books are here.he is a great imam.he allowed to say YA RASOOL ALLAH.Dil e Muslim talk 18:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

But nothing he says can be used as evidence for what Khan did or did not say, or what he believes, or really, anything about Khan. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

added another video of founder of Dawat-e-Islami.Dil e Muslim talk 17:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see where you added it, but please read WP:RS and WP:IRS. Youtube is generally not considered a reliable source, and for a subject as controversial as this one it absolutely should not be used. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri Barelvi

i have collected some third part sources which say that Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri is sunni hanafi barelvi here.i want to add it to sir tahir ul qadris page and in barelvi article too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Am Not New (talk • contribs) 16:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Then go handle the dispute on the man's own article first, because you obviously don't have much support there. And if your suggestion doesn't fly over there, then by virtue of that it won't fly over here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

RS says he is of barelvi background here [1] [2] ...so it can be added. Baboon43 (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It isn't that simple. Check the discussion on the talk page for the article about Qadri. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

the source says he is so it doesn't matter what that discussion is about over there. & it seems tahir is part of a breakway group within barelvi called JUP so i guess that might be the slight difference..nevertheless academics point that his group is part of the barelvi movement. [3] Baboon43 (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No Baboon, it does matter, especially in regard to how such a suggested sentence would be worded. Again, please go check the relevant talk page because nothing about Qadri's status can be added here until the conflict regarding his status is settled over on the talk page on the article about the man himself. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Babboon, for most information, you would be correct. And, in fact, you can add information here that states something like "Charles H Kennedy clasified Khan as a Barelvi"....on Khan's page. You may not add it here. This is because the governing rule is WP:BLPCAT. Whenever we want to add a religious or ethnic category to a person's page, or to add a religion to an infobox, or to list the person in another article (like the list here, or on a "List of Barelvi" page), we must follow WP:BLPCAT, and that policy says that 1) you must have a reliable source 2) the person must self-identify as that religion, and 3) the religion/ethnicity must be related to the person's notability. While you've satisfied 1 and 3, you haven't satisfied 2. So, at this point, as I said, you may add information, in prose, to Khan's article, and you must say something like "According to Source X". I hope that makes the policy clear. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The official website of Minhaj ul Quran (qadris organization) labels him a barelvi [4]..also while being interviewed to promote his new book the interviewer introduces him as a braelvi [5]...NY times says he is barelvi [6]. another thing that should be noted is that the political wing of minhaj ul quran is Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan (JUP), which is a barelvi group. stated here [7]..Baboon43 (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Forgive me if I'm being blind and missing something, but has he identified directly as being a Barelvi himself in any of those sources? If he hasn't, then although information about him being believed to be a Barelvi may be added to his article, his name should not be added here, as Qwryxian stated. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

i wouldnt recommend a cat..a simple line of him characterized as barelvi by academics can be added...barelvi is a term invented by their opponents as they call themselves sunnis..by this method we can blank the page..on qadris official website he says barelvi doesnt exist and there's people trying to label sunnis as barelvi..."He warned that efforts were afoot to confine the Sunni school of thought into a sect. He categorically stated that no Brailvi sect ever existed as Hazrat Ahmad Raza Khan Brelvi never referred to any sect by name of Brelvi in any of his books". [8] Baboon43 (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

We're not on about a category, but for him to be included in this article, then he must have self-identified as a Barelvi. I'm not sure what your point was with the above post, and can only guess that you catastrophically misunderstood me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

he can be included somewhere in the article as there is RS as suggested right after "according to". even if it is included in this article it wouldnt conflict self identity as we are careful to say that its an academic thats refering to him as barelvi...it wouldnt make any sense to put it in this article but rather his own article page though unless a proper section is created for possible barelvi members etc. i would remove all the so called barelvi scholars but i dont have the time. Baboon43 (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Barelvi is a term given by opponents.this sector is known by the name ahlesunnat wa jaamat in all over the world.these beliefs were present long before alahazrat Ahmed Raza khan fazil e barelvi.But the others term it as Barelvi.so this is the reason.he use the name Ahlesunnat wa Jamaat instead of barelvi as he said in his lactures.you will ask refrence.in oxford dictionary of religion.this sector is named as ahlesunnah wa jammat.so there is nothing wrong if he is using that name instead of barelvi.his beliefs are same as attested by third parties.i again recommend addition of his sector.because this is also a name of this sector which he is using.Dil e Muslim talk 18:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

yes but unfortunately when you got into a dispute on the other article the old per label policy was revived..you can instead point that his group is affiliated with barelvi as i posted a source that he has political ties with barelvis. to add that here perhaps an affiliate section might be needed not sure though. Baboon43 (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I just want to correct Baboon43, the political wing of Minhaj ul Qur'an is Pakistan Awami Tehreek and Minhaj ul Quran has no links with Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan (JUP). Pakistan Awami Tehreek is not a religious or sectarian political movement. The link from his official website that states that he is a Barelvi is not an official article or text posted from his organisation but it is a copy of the following news article: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/a-new-saviour-arrives-in-pakistan/article4280225.ece Many perceive him to be a Barelvi but he has never self-identified himself as a Barelvi. The New York Times have misreported that he belongs to the Barelvi sect as have some other news articles. The majority of news articles refer to him as a Sufi scholar. Since Tahir-ul-Qadri has never self-claimed or self-identified he cannot be added to any list. Rather you can put something along the lines of "Tahir-ul-Qadri reportedly belongs to the Barelvi sect although he has never identified himself as someone belonging to that sect." and then add the source. Tommyfenton (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

barelvi doesnt technically exist as i have quoted him saying above that they are trying to label sunnis as barelvis for being against extremism and pro sufi. under that classification sufis who dont have wahabi leanings are labeled barelvi by academics..even if tahir has a falling out with JUP (main barelvi body). Baboon43 (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If you have a good reference stating that the organization is Barelvi, add that information. I think that perhaps you're not understanding the purpose of WP:BLPCAT here, as everything you're both saying is exactly why we 'shouldn't label him as Barelvi. The whole reason the policy exists is because real, direct harm can come to people if they are associated to a religion that they do not align themselves with. This can range from direct persecution to indirect mental harm. If Qadri does not consider himself a Barelvi, please be sure that any description of him as a Barelvi is very clearly labelled as a specific source's opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

im explaining his stance religiously not regarding content inputs.anyways brd is more effective then going on talk page and asking if he/she can insert the following. the source says his group is politically connected to JUP so unless there's a source dismissing that then i dont see why it cant be used. these are suggestions for Am Not New as i dont intend to edit the article at this time. Baboon43 (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Baboon43, what specifically, exactly, are you suggesting be added? It's possible that we actually agree, but I can't tell because you're not proposing a specific edit. I know that what Am Not New wants (which is to add a category, and to add him in a "List of" section) is not allowed per policy. But maybe you're suggesting something more refined. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

we provided enough sources I want to ask tommy fenton.what souces you provided to prove him non barelvi.you are just reverting and speaking.Dil e Muslim talk 07:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You have not provided a source that meets WP:BLPCAT. The fact that you don't seem to care what our policies are is of absolutely no consequence to me...but you'll have to abide by them as long as you edit here. I've repeated several times exactly what we can and cannot say if we don't have a self-declaration. If you want to suggest an edit that meets those rules, do so. Otherwise, the matter is pretty much finished. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

another news source discribing him as barelvi Dil e Muslim talk 18:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

well i was hoping a compromise can be achieved by stating some academics describe him as barelvi & his group has political ties with barelvis..that can be added on his article page. Baboon43 (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead - new edits

Returning the final round of edits which I had originally instated, I have now modified the lead to better reflect what is already available in reliable sources both in the article itself and the article for Ahmed Raza Khan.

First, I mention that Bareilly is the hometown of the movement's founder, not merely a leader. Msoamu fought hard against this with his sockpuppet account Shabiha both here and on the article for that founder. He lost over there when other concerned editors noticed that I brought, I think it was eight separate reliable sources all referring to the man as the founder. Four of them are already included below, and I have included four in the lead in case Msoamu or anyone else tries to dispute this fact again. The movement has several main leaders, but its founder should be denoted as such due to his significance to the movement. For the life of me, I can't imagine why there's such a problem with mentioning this.

I also returned the fact that Barelvism formed specifically as a reaction to Deobandism; the sources already present in the lead mention this very clearly, and I could bring many more if other editors find that necessary. Again, I don't know why Msoamu opposed mentioning this so much - it's in reliable sources, and a quick glance at any Barelvi websites will show that most of their polemical discussion focuses on Deobandis.

I hope that this is found acceptable to my fellow editors. Obviously, all editors are free to contribute and make their own changes, so the case is by no means closed on this article. I, however, have finished pretty much all the original edits for which I spent hours researching and which various sockpuppet accounts removed in bad faith. So, I will likely relegate my own status here to merely monitoring POV-pushing, much like most of the other concerned editors. I do hope, however, that we can at least form a new consensus for the time being. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed Faizan 07:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear MezzoMezzo, I am once again grateful for your efforts and explanation. I agree with your approach. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

on your second point i believe Msoamu is trying to say that because deobandi is mentioned in every paragraph its clogging up the article. Baboon43 (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It's mentioned wherever the reliable sources mention it. This shouldn't come as a surprise considering that Barelvism is a reaction to Deobandism. Similarly, Ash'arism formed as a reaction to the Mu'tazila and hence references to the Mu'tazila are all over that article too. That's not an actual reason per WP:OTHERSTUFF; I am merely drawing an analogy. The actual reason is WP:RS, and the lack of violation of WP:UNDUE. A movement formed as a reaction to another movement will have frequent mention of the latter movement in it's (the former movement's) own article frequently, that shouldn't come as a surprise. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Free Hand to Personal POV

To all admin ,I am really sorry for my other accounts.In future and in present I will not use any thing like that.The absence created by my Ban seems to have given someone a chance to edit this highly Important Article from his own Point of view.While I was mistakenly associated with other user I.D ,Mezzmezzo seems to be very much interested in editing each and every thing in this Article. In many points one side of the story is inserted and he went on editing with out any oppose. In some cases like this-

• Ahmed Raza is Founder,this is opinion not fact.This is already written and insisted by you but to make it more biased and to prove it a newsect you trying to add it in lead section.
• It is again Wahabi /Deobandi POV that movement developed as reaction to Deobandi reformist attempts-mentioned in the Article already so why adding in lead section.Means that this Article should be shown from Deobandi/Salafi/Wahabi POV . Don't my fellow editors see that each heading has Deobandism/Ahle Hadis mentioned?

Is it a comparison Article? or a neutral Article? Why one single person that too with history of making Sufi oriented pages in bad light,trying to mention the opposition movements like Deobandism/Ahle Hadith/Wahabism each and every where in this Article?

• He removed many things from belief section added his OR and POV that Barelvis venerate Dead.This is pathetic on his part.Now Whole Article seems to be written from critics point of view.Msoamu (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Msoamu, are you unable to see that multiple editors - including some whom have not been in the dispute - agree that MezzoMezzo's edit is neutral? You still don't provide any reliable sources for your opinion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Dear Msoamu, I agree with Lukeno94 that you see conspiracies that do not exist. You may not agree with MezzoMezzo's edits, but to accuse him of POV violations / bias every day is really inappropriate. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

i get whats wrong with it but can you provide what you think should be put in place for each of your points or are you saying it should be removed. Baboon43 (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with it. These are the words of multiple experts on the subject published in reliable sources. The only problem is formed by Msoamu's competence issue per Wikipedia:Competence#Bias-based. He needs to work on that first before trying to express himself, because it's clear here that the issue is Msoamu's personal opinion vs. the testimony of half a dozen reliable sources. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Beliefs and practices - new edits

I have taken the liberty of reinstituting the edits which I had made some months ago to the "beliefs and practices" section but which were reverted by Msoamu and his army of sockpuppet accounts. I feel it has been long enough and I would now like to explain my rationale behind these edits.

The first change which I have made is to the lead for the overall section. This involves changing the claim that Barelvis base their beliefs on such-and-such to that Barelvis claim to base their beliefs on such sources, just as other sects do as well. The Barelvis are like other subdivisions of Sunni in that the group's status is controversial; thus, what they claim about themselves should not be presented as objective fact, just as is true for Deobandis, Salafis, Ahle Hadith and so forth. Additionally, I have removed the reference to Ash'arism; from what I recall, Msoamu - who was really the only opposition my edits received - could not produce reliable sources stating that any Barelvi scholars follow other than Maturidi theology (which I have added instead of aqidah, which native English speakers won't understand). Similarly, Msoamu was not able to find any instances of a Barelvi following any school of jurisprudence (fiqh in Arabic, also changed) other than Hanafi. As I also established, no Barelvi scholars are documented to have followed the Naqshbandi Sufi order, so that has been removed as well.

The second change is removing the Arabic terminologies from the section about Barelvi beliefs regarding Muhammad. Since this is in accordance with WP:MOSISLAM, I don't expect it to be controversial.

The third change I have made is to remove anything from the "practices" subsection which is sourced by a primary source. As we have seen with Msoamu and Am Not New, the propensity to utilize primary sources is typically to promote a certain viewpoint; often, this viewpoint isn't even less negative or more positive than what is already written in the article, though sometimes it is. While primary sources can be allowed under strict conditions, the controversial nature of this article is proof enough that those conditions do not exist in this case and likely will not any time soon.

The fourth change is the issue of veneration of the dead. Now, the given reliable source (globalsecurity is not reliable as has been established on the appropriate noticeboard and hence has been removed) does not delve into Barelvi beliefs on the issue on the page given in the source. It's a reliable source but I read page 149 and didn't find what is being cited. I have left it out of good faith because the source is reliable and perhaps what I read recently was a different addition. Regardless, about sources. Almost all sources mention that Barelvis see their practices at graves/shrines as praying to God through the dead in addition to venerating those shrines as special places due to the piety of the saints who occupy them. Every reliable source also mentions that the opponents of Barelvis view this as polytheistic and that Barelvis are - as quoted by many of these sources - "tomb worshippers." Such language obviously isn't appropriate, but neither is the current version where it is simply phrased as seeking intercession; in both cases, a certain view would be presented. Instead of letting the subsection become an ideological battleground, it's better to just sidestep the issue and relate the practice to what is very obvious upon scrutiny of the veneration of the dead article: a common human spirutal behavior which is evident across numerous cultures which had no contact with one another at the times in which they developed said spiritual behavior. Note that this isn't claiming that Barelvi practices are the same as what people of other religions do; it's simply an issue of terminology. It's the most neutral way to phrase it, and the Arabic phrase currently used is obviously inappropriate per WP:MOSISLAM. The issue of saying that the Sufi saints ultimately intercede on behalf of the individual with God is also a clear violation of WP:NPOV as it presents religious belief with fact; that is a huge, glaring issue that absolutely cannot remain.

The last change is the beard issue. In short: Msoamu, again the main opposition, agreed with my point, but his bad English and combative nature prevented him from seeing that. I'm not saying bad as an insult, but having once taught English as a second language at a large, public university in Asia for a period of four years, I can objectively say someone's English skills are bad without it being personal. He attempted to counter my edit by providing a primary source - again, unacceptable - which Msoamu claimed portrayed Barelvi belief regarding a man's beard in a less negative way. The thing is, it was the same thing; the primary source which Msoamu provided which was a fatwa by the movement's founder referred to men who shave a being fasiq. My version mentions that Barelvis view men who trim the beard as sinners and who shave as committing an abominable act. Fasiq comes from the Arabic work fisq, which is how you refer to bankers who embezzle millions of dollars or drunkards and gamblers. If anything, my version is actually a lot less harsh, and it is actually supported by a reliable source. For all Msoamu's clamoring about Arun Shourie, no bias or lack of reliability on Shourie's part was ever proven. The fact that a primary source confirms what is in that one only strengthens the case which I am making.

I apologize for the frequent mention of other users, but because almost all of the opposition came to a small group of sockpuppet accounts I feel the need to respond. So far, the improvements I have been making to this article have been well-received and I don't think it's disingenuous to make mention of that. I await responses to the latest edit from others concerned with this article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that Special:Contributions/119.154.11.196 reverted the recent edits via this diff, stating in the edit summary: "rv to last revision by Qwyrxian............POV push.against senctions.effort to make page non neutral." I don't think it would be assuming bad faith to state that, after everything multiple users have witnessed here, the language matches the common method of writing used by the sockpuppet accounts which were recently banned after an SPI. Suffice to say that while it's possible my edits are not entirely correct - I am human and I err - the reality is that these accounts and the person behind them never brought any policy-based opposition and this instance hasn't been any different. If this happens again, I will simply revert again, though if there are real, actual, policy-based reasons against my edit then by all means they should be discussed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear MezzoMezzo, the Beliefs and Practices section is now stronger with your edits. I suspect that we might soon see a wave of new attacks, but I hope not. Thank you for a very thorough explanation. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The last change on Barelvi article is a clear violation of WP:POV.Your accusation and changes not supported by a single source and is just Conspiracy of your mind.The changes of a large amount of text to a sensitive topic like beliefs removal of a large amount of contents against sources, an effort to make it lessinformative show this movement in bad light.you are relating this movement to other terms is clear violation of nutral point of view.*YOU CANNOT CHANGE TEXT ACCORDING TO YOUR WILL.*

You changed the word asking awliya for help to vernation of dead.Barelvi believe in wasila (intermediation) not in vernation of dead which is a completly different term.Your effort to change text asking awliya for help to vernation of dead is a violation of WP:POV and against sources.you removed a lot of text as well.the word that Barelvi base thier beliefs on quran and sunnah is complety nutral.the removal that contents is only only to show this movement in bad way and represent wahabi mindset.The change the wording of sentences in beliefs (a very very senitive topic).i am sorry to say that your wording is not nutral,making contents less informative and of course against sources. You removed a lot of data as primary sources.Am Not New's contents was supported by sources(wether it is primary or whatever) your accusation is not even supported by a single source.you have not done anything to refute them.you cannot remove them without reason.You further changes to bound barelvis by only hanafi school of law warrent sources.

and Now don,t believe that some users have gone and you will change this topic according to your will.it shows a clear violation WP:POV.You will find many more there.194.44.108.164 (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Are you Msoamu or Am Not New? Because you must be one of those users, as you can't tell that Am Not New added some rubbish (neutrality didn't come into it; it was just garbage) and that MezzoMezzo has added pro-Barelvi views/information as well as those that aren't so pro-Barelvi. That's the whole point of NPOV - to have a balanced article, which this is close to. You don't provide a single source to support your stance, which is ironic, given the entire stance of your text. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, Lukeno94, it seems this is Msoamu or Am Not New. The appalling spelling and the antagonistic and accusatory tone are the same. What a rant! Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting how a very different IP then made the reversion, using exactly the same language and such as the above IP. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for a month, and will extend that longer if the problem resolves. IPs, I'm certain you are either Msoamu or CGUS or whichever or those recent socks we've been dealing with. You have to understand: blocked means blocked. It does not mean that you can edit as an IP. And I'm sure that if I wanted to I could track down which of the blocked editors you are, but there shouldn't be any reason I have to bother. You cannot edit. If you want to edit, make an unblock request with your main account, acknowledging what was wrong with your previous behavior and how you intend to edit differently in the future. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Qwyrxian,I was neither Dil-e-Muslim nor I was any I.P.I did not use any IP for editing after my Ban.I am sorry for my acts and will not do so in future.I don't have right to say sorry for this mega fault but again Im sorry specially to You.Msoamu (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

how is "seeking intercession" not appropriate?..i don't believe linking to the article "veneration of the dead" is appropriate seeing that article page has yet to even have an islamic section..why also remove arabic phrases? sticking to wikipedia guidelines its per label policy not POV..basically your saying that stating barelvi beliefs is not following NPOV guidelines. Arabic terms auliya and ziyarat must be re-included in the article. Baboon43 (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding veneration of the dead, then my rationale is above. Whether there is yet an Islamic section isn't relevant to this section here in this article per WP:OTHERSTUFF. I uphold the translation of Arabic terms into English per Wikipedia:MOSISLAM#Translation. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

there's nothing wrong with adding brackets for arabic terms. this is needed for informational purposes Baboon43 (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You make a very good point. You've pulled me onto the fence, though perhaps feedback from more than just the two of us would form a definite consensus. As far as I know, WP:MOSISLAM states that translation takes precedence but there's nothing prohibiting the inclusion of original Arabic terms. Are there any objections to including this? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

veneration??

the line doesnt make it clear that its veneration towards saints not any dead person. Baboon43 (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Common-sense applies here, Baboon43. The meaning is clear. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

More rationale is provided in the "Beliefs and practices - new edits " section here on this talk page as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

change it to veneration of graves or deceased saints. Baboon43 (talk)

That actually sounds like it could be clearer...I take it the concern is that a reader might leave the article thinking that Barelvis venerate just any Joe Schmoe rather than those who were known for piety during life, right? I think you could be on to something, though from my understanding - you might have more insight than I - the Barelvis don't venerate the grave itself. Would it work if we phrase it as "veneration of the dead, specifically those who lead pious/righteous lives"? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

yes not only for accuracy but to prevent angry pro barelvi ip's from edit-warring because they misunderstood the wording. Baboon43 (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes the suggested wording is excellent.George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright...I guess I'll go change it now. Let's see if this can stem the tide of angry IPs, at least against the subsection in question. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait, Gorge already did it. Good call. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Fatwa against Terrorism - deleted section

I have taken the liberty of moving the valid material from the aforementioned section down to the "Opposition to the Taliban" subsection, for a few reasons. The first and most obvious reason is WP:UNDUE; the section was inserted by a sockpuppet of a user who had a drawer full of them, so we can conclude that Wikipedia:Assume good faith doesn't apply here. Based on the statements of that user (Trust on ALLAH), his socks, and another user who attacked this article with socks, it seems that they felt this article was slanted against the movement in a negative way. Community consensus as shown on multiple ANI threads, however, was that those editors and their socks were edit warring to slant the article for the movement in a positive way. The entire section seems an attempt to advertise the message: "Hey, Western world! We're totally against terrorism unlike the Muslim movements we oppose! See look we have a fatwa against terrorism!"

And it's obviously undue weight, because there are already sections here for the Barelvi movement and its relation to the Taliban and other Muslim movements. There is no reason at all to give this specific viewpoint of some of the movement's leaders more weight than their other viewpoints.

Alright, second problem: it mentions that Abul Irfan Mian Firangi Mahali is a Sunni scholar who issued a fatwa against Zakir Naik for Naik's support of OBL. Here's the thing, though...after searching all morning, I can not find any evidence that Mahali is a Barelvi. In fact, the only mention of him at all is this fatwa against Naik in which he is referred to as Sunni. The unfortunate problem with Child star grown up, Am Not New, Shabiha et al. is that they deny the fact that rival Sunni movements are Sunni; by saying that Salafis, Deobandis, Ahle Hadith etc. aren't Sunni, or by saying that Barelvi is a synonym for Sunni, they are surreptitiously implying that all non-Barelvis are unorthodox heretics. In more honest movements, Msoamu actually proclaimed that openly with his sock account Shabiha. Thus the fact that Mahali is mentioned as a Sunni and from India doesn't necessitate his being a Barelvi. With that in mind, I am taking the liberty of removing all references to him in this article. Perhaps it can be inserted in the Zakir Naik article, if it isn't already there.

Lastly, there is the statement of the Barelvi sheikh Naeemi with two sources and two statements - one from Al Jazeera and one from the Daily Times. While the wording which Am Not New doesn't reflect this, both articles and Naeemi's comments contained therein focused solely on the Taliban. We already have a subsection in this article for Barelvite relations with the Taliban, so why isn't this there? With all of this in mind, I will undertake the suggested edits and wait to see community response. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

we can't conclude what motives users had just because they used sock puppets..barelvis indeed are less radical then most of their opponents especially the deobandi."The Barelvis have not been significantly associated with terrorism in India, and have been systematically targeted by Deobandi terrorist groups in Pakistan".-world almanac of islamism

something else to keep in mind is that barelvi claims largest suni movement in south east asia..anyone against wahabism and has some sort of sufi leaning is labeled a barelvi….barelvism represents the sunni-sufi establishment that was considered orthodox for a long time & is much older then the reformist ideologies that sprung up few years later..academics have bundled non reformists as barelvis in that sense..therefore barelvi can be seen as synonym to sunni of ottoman era..& if those users you mentioned above are barelvis then I'm sure their belief would characterize opponents such as deobandi and ahle hadiths as unbelievers. Baboon43 (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right, sockpuppetry alone isn't enough. What is enough, though, is repeated edit warring via sockpuppetry and the dishonesty Am Not New/Trust of ALLAH displayed throughout all the SPIs. We can absolutely see the demonstrated motives through that.

As for the other info, then I would have to largely disagree based on the sources in the articles involved. According to many analysts, Barelvis aren't less violent than other groups, though the matter is controversial. As for labeling anyone against Wahhabism with some kind of Sufism being labeled Barelvi, then that isn't true; Deobandis are against Wahhabism as well, and belong to Sufi orders. Additionally, many Indian Sufis aren't members of either movement, thus we can't say that an Indain Sufi is automatically part of a movement by default...were that the case, there would be no need to signify them as distinct movements. So how can Barelvism be older than the movements which started later if Barelvism itself is only about a hundred years old? No academics have ever bundled all non-reformist as Barelvis that I have seen in the hours I spent researching the edits on this article; they all recognize it as a movement with a definite origin, hence its name. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

world almanac is as reliable as you can get…I'm aware there's a few extremist barelvi groups that have popped up but terrorism is caused by deobandis at the most…deobandis claim to be against wahabism but their actions prove otherwise..deobandis accept funding from wahabis in exchange for allowing wahabism to flourish in that region..therefore you can say they are guilty by association..if thats not enough their leader was influenced by ibn taymiyah unlike barelvis..barelvi as the ideology is much older but the movement is new..the movement was put in place so that the reformist groups don't gain influence in the region..academics have indeed bundled everyone together that is why they are listed as the largest group in south east asia..the muslim world is largely sufi oriented and madhab followers. Baboon43 (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Baboon, you've made a number of highly contentious assertions here which I know don't portray an accurate picture of the diversity of nuance of the Muslim world as it stands today. Going past that and your rather bigoted comment that Deobandis are "guilty by association," I will simply point out that none of the reliable sources given in these articles support what you're saying. Given that Wikipedia is not a forum for you and me or anyone else to chat about our opinions, I have to ask: what is your goal? What is your suggestion regarding this article and what is your proposal? If you don't have one, regarding the topic of discussion, then what's the point? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

the point is its my duty to respond to your false rambling on this talk page as you seem to not care about reliable sources thats not how wikipedia works..as usual you resort to personal attacks on talk pages..i really dont care if your anti barelvi but dont make your edits into POV. Baboon43 (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Community consensus has agreed that my edits have relied almost entirely on reliable sources; I made no objections to any and all suggested changes (except for those by the warring socks, of course).

2. I did not resort to a personal attack. You associated two completely different religious movements in a negative way and have implied that they are inherently violent. That's bigoted. My saying that isn't a personal attack; it's an obvious fact.

3. If you're accusing me of POV pushing, then you should either bring evidence of this - in which case it should be brought to the appropriate noticeboard - or you should take back your statement.

I'm done using the kiddie gloves with you. I know that Msoamu and you were exchanging emails via his sockpuppet Shabiha account, and I know that both he and Am Not New contacted you here on Wikipedia for help with the ANI threads. If you want to accuse me of things then do it the right way, and if you're not going to prove what you're saying then you should take back your statement and drop the subject. If you don't, then I have no issue with taking this to an appropriate noticeboard myself - you've been abrasive here and elsewhere with me and several other editors and it isn't right. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

you just dismissed my RS for yours thats POV..I'm advising you not to push POV as clearly seen just in this discussion you have done so...exchanging emails with Msoamu? can you prove that? please provide a diff before you throw accusations..for the 2nd time you plan to run to ANI for personally attacking me..halt the ignorance its getting out of control. Baboon43 (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That isn't POV; we have overwhelming evidence pointing to the opposite of what it is you're trying to push (assuming that the source says what you claim it says in context). As for emails, then Msoamu's sockpuppet Shabiha shot you an email as mentioned here on your talk page; and now, after he gets busted and can no longer engage in what the community has recognized as his extreme POV pushing, you're here instigating an argument on the talk page and making clearly false accusations of POV on my part. If I'm supposed to understand this in a different way then you or someone else needs to tell me, because it certainly looks bad at this point. As personally attacking you, it has never happened at all and I would challenge you to find one example of me making similar comments to what you have here, accusing me of "ignorance" simply for disagreeing with you being one example. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

deobandis are responsible for consistent terrorist acts against barelvis as my source points out clearly..you can head to the almanac if you don't believe me and check it out your self [9]...if you claim that source is a lie then your pushing POV its that simple….i wasn't aware you can send emails on here because i don't check my mail at all…i thought that was a talk back template so i ignored it…correct me if I'm wrong but i started responding to your talk page rants before i met Msoamu…sorry but i can't sit and read the misinformation you have written on these talk pages and not reply…i didn't accuse you of ignorance because you disagreed with me but because you don't view your attacks on others as personal attacks get it? Baboon43 (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm simply going to ignore the strawmen you're throwing up here and request of you very directly:

1. Please explain with diffs and in specific terms when and how I pushed my own POV on this or any other articles.

2. Please show with diffs where I attacked other editors.

3. Please show with diffs where I spread misinformation at any place at any time.

You've already reiterated here and acknowledged that you accused me of ignorance, in addition to your numerous personal attacks on me and others. Understand this: we're going to ANI. That's a foregone conclusion, once either you open the thread or, if not, when I do once I get back from doing work stuff. The requests above are simply to make things a bit clearer beforehand. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

you refuse to acknowledge that deobandis are responsible for most of the terrorism in south east asia even when i provide RS so thats POV pushing..let me give you another source to make it more clear "While the Barelvis were vocal in condemning the suicide bombings, calling it un-islamic the Deobandi scholars remained equivocal. The religious decrees issued by the Barelvis, however, had no impact as most of the terrorist outfits in Pakistan follow the Deobandi school of thought". -Pakistan: Terrorism Ground Zero-p.246 [10]..im not going to explain anything since it will clog up this talk page and since you have made up your mind to take it to ani its better to discuss that there. Baboon43 (talk)

Dear Baboon43, I am pleased MezzoMezzo has decided to take this to ANI. I would have done so myself. I am very surprised by your antagonistic engagement and accusations of bias and misrepresentations. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

ill make a note of your consistent tag teaming at ANI as well. Baboon43 (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Baboon43, see, you attack, attack, attack. I do not always agree with every single one of MezzoMezzo's edits, but I simply cannot see him as a disruptive, biased or dishonest editor. He's actually a very good editor in my view. By the way, I do not know him, or his background. I have no idea who he is (or whether he is a he or a she!). Please try to calm down. You can't go around accusing everyone who disagrees with your edits of bias and malice. I am just trying to keep Wikipedia neutral, accurate and informative. I certainly have no bias in terms of Barelvis and Deobandis. I am neither (and yes I am Muslim). My regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit warring as of August 2014

User:MohaddesTop, recently there has been a dispute on this article. I'm tagging you here so you can see it on talk and respond here.
Recently, you made some edits which were bold but were also contentious. Given the history of intense POV pushing on this article, I reverted your edits as they included the deletion of sourced content as well as the insertion of contentious undiscussed claims. You reverted my revert, copy pasting the same exact edit summary you used when reverting me on the Ashraf Ali Thanwi article. You were then reverted by User:GorgeCustersSabre, who asked you to take it to the talk page. You did not do so, choosing to instead edit war with no reasons given in the edit summaries either.
During this time, I warned you on your talk page twice about the pitfalls of such behavior, as did User:Jim1138 here.
Please take a look at the above talk page. The three articles at which you are edit warring (this, the Thanvi article and Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi) are all related to the Barelvi-Deobandi conflict. There has been a ton of sockpuppetry and POV pushing at these contentious articles since at least 2008. As a newcomer, it's understandable that you didn't know that but after seeing the archives of this talk page, it should be clear that major discussions need to be discussed first. Please take the time to explain what your disagreement is with your fellow editors; that way, we can just solve said problems here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear User:MohaddesTop, I cannot agree more with MezzoMezzo: your edits have become disruptive and frustrating. No-one is trying to censor you. You are welcome to make whatever assertions you want regarding the Barelvi movement, so long as provide reliable, authoritative, and neutral third-party sources and you try to work with other editors on the talk page (i.e., here) to resolve potentially contentious issues. Two good sets of Wikipedia guidelines that I have found really useful can be found HERE and HERE. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)