Talk:Barelvi movement/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Continued POV

After five years of watching this article, the extreme amount of subtle POV inserted by some Barelwi editors here and elsewhere is still apparent. Including a full exposition of Barelwi beliefs is fine, but jabs at other Muslim movements and attempts to brand all opposition to Barelwism as coming from radical extremists needs to stop. Some major editing for tone from persuasive to informative needs to be undertaken. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear MezzoMezzo, thanks for your efforts. I respectfully disagree with you on some issues and I am not a Barelvi or a supporter of their practices. Accusations of POV, and edits based on perceptions of POV, can sometimes themselves be POV. I favour the rentention of some of the well-referenced contextual material you don't think should be included. I may be wrong, of course, so I look forward to seeing what other editors think. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, why should material regarding the activities of the Saudi government and the status of Mawlid celebrations in countries where there is no Barelwi movement be included in the article on Barelwis?

As for accusations on POV, check the achive of this talk page. While there are editors who happen to be Barelwi and simply carry out constructive edits on this encyclopedia, this article and those related to it have also been a hotbed of POV-pushing since at least 2006. Just look at the edits I did in the lead; I have actually used Google Books to inspect the sources cited and there was quite a bit of inaccurate information attributed to these sources. There is no mention of Barelwis forming as an reaction to Ahle Hadith in addition to Deobandis, and given the blatant insults heaped on the Ahle Hadith movement by some Barelwi editors in the past it's safe to say that this is probably attempts to emphasize that. Furthermore, the religious slur "Wahhabi" - by which no group on Earth self-identifies - was included with groups to which the Barelwi movement supposedly formed as a reaction. Yet the source doesn't say that; it merely says that Barelwis termed the Deobandis to be Wahhabis.

I am insisting on the POV issue because I have roughly six years experience with this article and this is what I have seen. The constant insults toward other movements isn't new and I suggest that a comprehensive review of the sources given in this article be undertaken in order to ensure that what is written here is actually what academic sources and media have said.

As for the issue of the other sources I removed, then that is of course a separate discussion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Saudi Government has unleashed a covert campaign against barelvis because they dont agree with the saudi form of islam so it should be included..as should mawlid celebrations since barelvis claim to defend traditionalists..attacking the wahabi institution brands you as a barelvi so in that sense they are everywhere..barvelis formed because of the hostile wahabism that gained momentum in the later half of the century its not that hard to see..wahabi is not a religious slur just because they dropped the term doesnt mean it shouldnt be used as a reference see Ghaliyya al-Wahhabiyya.also barelvis themselves dont go around identifying as barelvi..the meaning of the term wahabi is one who follows abdulwahab & there is no doubt debondi, ahlehadiths all follow him...following wiki guidelines salafi should be an acceptable term though Baboon43 (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Can you provide proof of this Saudi conspiracy theory regarding Barelwis? If you can provide verifiable and reliable sources, then of course it should be included in this article. If you can only find sectarian Barelwi websites attacking Saudi Arabia, then I would still oppose including such information.

2. Verifiable, reliale sources about Barelwi defense of Mawlid should absolutely be included, because this article is about Barelwis. General information about Mawlid belongs on the article for Mawlid, not here.

3. Barelwis formed as a reaction to Deobandism, not the Saudi/Wahhabi movement. Deobandis practice some forms of Sufism and are mostly Maturidi in creed and Hanafi in fiqh. The Saudi movement of Ibn Abdul Wahhab opposes all forms of sufism and are completely Athari in creed and Hanbali in fiqh. The two movements have absolutely no relation.

4. Wahhabis never dropped the term because no group ever called themselves that in the first place. This is well-documented on the article for Wahhabism. There is no need for me to disprove your claim on that; we can simply look at that article, similarly we can look at the article for Deobandi to see that it has nothing to do with Saudis or Ibn Abdul Wahhab.

5. Posting the link to one article about Ghaliyya al-Wahhabiyya, which is one stub, with only one reference, to one person who apparently was referred to by other people as Wahhabiya, doesn't even remotely support your point. It also doesn't disprove the verifiable, reliable cited sources in the article for Wahhabism.

6. Barelwi is not a slur used to stigmatize the group; Wahhabi is. The two are not comparable.

7. Ahle Hadith agree with Ibn Abdul Wahhab on some points and strongly disagree with him on others, especially in regard to fiqh and madhhabs.

8. Salafi is a movement which is similar to Ahle Hadith but still distinct; see both articled for the sources. Both Salafis and Ahle Hadith are strongly opposed to Deobandis, and there is a lot of conflict between the two. Simply being against Barelwis doesn't mean they're all the same.

Look, all I've seen here so far are more conspiracy theories common on Barelwi websites and lots of passive-aggressive generalizing against the opponents of the Barelwi movement. Like I said, after almost six years, just a lot of attempts to turn this article into a persuasive case convincing readers that the Barelwi movement is correct and all others are incorrect. That is not the purpose of an encyclopedic article. An encyclopedia doesn't persuade; it merely informs. If someone can either find reliable and verifiable sources for any of the claims above, or give me a reasonable explanation as to why the material I removed should be included, then of course we must go with that because it enhances the encyclopedia's informative nature. If all that is found consists of more conspiracy theories and gross generalizations about non-Barelwis, then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear MezzoMezzo, thanks for posing this set of questions for fellow editors. Editors may in time be able to answer all or some of them. Like you, I always believe that the best solution is for any editors who might disagree to stay in a friendly dialogue. After all, we all want accurate, neutral and well referenced articles. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter if deobandis practice some form of sufism..the deobandi movement backs wahabism and has close ties with it..here's some rs "The founding father of Deobandi movement were very much influenced by the Wahabi movement which originated from Najd in 17th Centrury. Shah Ismail Dehalvi translated the Kitab Ut Tawheed written by Muhammed Ibnul Wahab Najdi into Urdu which he called Taqwiyat Ul Imaan. Deobandi movement is compromise between the Sufi, and Wahabi teachings on the issues of aqeedah they have completely sided with the Wahabis opposing the traditional Barelwis"-Global Encyclopaedia of Education-p.62

"With financial support from Saudi Arabia, Deobandi madrasas were part of this vast proliferation in religious education","-The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia"-p.191

"Deobandi contemporary, Shaikh-ul-Hadis Muhammad Zakariya Kandhalvi, had famously declared, I am more staunch Wahabi than any of you".-Urban Terrorism: Myths and Realities.p.67

i can easily find more sources so your whole "deobandi has nothing to do with wahabism" argument has been debunked..and i can also find similar RS on ahle hadith wahabi connection. all these groups threfore fall under the wahabi category regardless of what you think Baboon43 (talk)

Baboon, thank you for revealing yourself as another Barelwi editor attempting to push his POV.

What is this Global Encyclopaedia of Education? I can't seem to find any references to it. The specific mistakes in grammar, punctuation and spelling does seem to indicate that it was written by someone from the Indian subcontinent. Remember to review the policies on verifiability and reliability.

The second reference shows Saudi funding for the Deobandi movement. The Saudi government has also funded the Muslim Brotherhood, status quo Salafists, Salfist Jihadists and even Sufis at varying times. Funding coming from within the country doesn't prove what you're trying to say.

As for the third reference, then it's obviously hubris, typical of the debates between Deobandis, Ahle Hadis and Barelwis in the subcontinent; Kandhalvi's negative views of Salafists, Ahle Hadis and so forth also testify to that.

Even despite what I've said above, you haven't debunked a thing, Baboon. You gave me three quotes. Three quotes. I feel that needs to be stated again, three quotes. Have you even checked the sources given on the Deobandi, Salafi, Ahl al-Hadith and Wahhabi articles? The only reason I'm even stating this is to leave it on the record for anyone else to see.

Your POV pushing is NOT supported by reliable and verifiable sources all taken together as attested to by what is found on these other pages.

Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox for you to make a wholesale rejection of the conclusions reached by mainstream scholarship in favor of the subjective, polemical views of any movement, be it Barelwi, Deobandi, Salafi, etc.

Of course, the specific questions regarding the edits we have made to his article are still open, and I am still waiting for further discussion regarding my own edits - there could always be issues which I failed to realize regarding that. Please be objective and understand that this website is not a battle ground for you to first convince other editors that your own personal views are right, and then edit articles as needed in order to convince readers of that same view. Wikipedia is a place for engaging in discussion and presenting the information as supported by reliable sources in order for readers to gain knowledge of a subject; any conclusions the readers draw is totally up to them and none of our (the editors') business. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

i have no doubt your a deobandi follower based on you turning this discussion personal..dont accuse me of POV because I'm able to provide RS to debunk your ridiculous assumptions..The Global Encyclopaedia of Education is as RS as it gets..[1]

if you don't believe me take it to the RS board….saudi government has funded the muslim brotherhood because they are a wahabi group as well…find me a source that says the saudis funded barelvis I'm waiting...

"Deoband adopted Shah Waliullah as its spiritual head and was greatly influenced by the teachings of Ibn Taymiyyah which also inspired Abdul Wahhab, the founder of Wahhabism current in Saudi Arabia"-Historical Dictionary of Afghanistan-p.109

"Sources agree that Saudi Arabia is the biggest source of official and private funding to Islamist and jihadi organizations in Pakistan. Some of the Deobandi organizations were the biggest recipients of Saudi money until a few years ago, before the Ahle hadith organizations became eligible with their growing size. The only sect without any foreign financial support is the biggest sect of Pakistan, the Ahle Sunnat or the Barelvis as they are commonly known. They get little support, if any from the foreign sources."-The Jihad Factory: Pakistan's Islamic Revolution in the making-p.282 Baboon43 (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a Deobandi, a Salafi, Barelwi, Ahle Hadis or member of any group or movement, so you don't need to speculate about that. As for POV, then it has nothing to do with the information you're providing so much as how you're going about it. You've made it clear that you're against these other groups; I'm not against anybody, I'm just against POV, which I am seeing here.

Regarding the Deobandi issue, then this is so ridiculous that I won't even respond to it. Any attempts by you to insert this into articles will be reverted. If you have a problem with that, you can take it to the talk page for the relevant articles and work it out with all parties concerned there, but I can tell you that, based on experience with Wikipedia, you will find similar reactions to mine if you continue this behavior. I will tell you what I have told many of my fellow editors before: if you take Wikipedia as a battle ground, you will always lose, no matter what. That's because Wikipedia isn't a battle ground to begin with. If you take Wikipedia as a shared space to listen to the ideas of others and work toward compromises based on reliable sources and the teamwork of your fellow editors, you will find your editing here pleasant and productive. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

POV pushers always start by accusing others of POV anyways threatening to revert my input isn't a good start..this is not your article and you can't claim it for ownership..it also doesn't matter if you have been an active wikipeadian guarding this page for centuries..which group do i hate? just because i brought RS sources dont twist the discussion around and accuse me of hate and such..next time do some research instead of misleading editors on this talk page with the things you wrote above..i would like for you to go read wiki own, wiki hounding and uncivil behaviour. Baboon43 (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to go down this route, then we can do that.

Your commenta bear no relevance to this article in particular. They are relevant to articles such as wahhabism and deobandi, though.

Given both your extremely rude behavior and the fact that you have been involved in multiple instances of edit warring and even had your account been blocked twice, I will now be watching the relevant articles as there is now sufficient evidence of aggressive POV pushing on your part. You or anyone else tries to contradict established scholarly and editorial consensus on these articles, their edits will be reverted. I can tell you from experience that I won't be the only one taking such protective action, either. If you would like to take this to the next level of mediation then that is your right as an editor and in fact I think it might be the best course of action. A word of advice: toning down the aggression and rudeness as displayed in your edit summaries might help you avoid similar results to your previous conflicts. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

covert POV pushing is blocking criticism to groups and your doing just that..regardless of your claims to be non group affiliated..its quite obvious you hate this group and its members..im not a barelvi but I'm on wikipedia for NPOV..i can edit this article if i want and if you plan a revert war then there will be consequences. Baboon43 (talk)

Dear friends, I hope the editors who have contributed to this discussion will de-escalate the obvious passion and heat being generated, particularly those aspect that seem to be becoming personal. I have no axe to grind. I am neither a Barelvi nor an opponent of Barelvis. I have no particular vantage point myself. I do not agree with every single edit made on this page by MezzoMezzo, who has reverted some of my own edits and strongly disagreed with me above, but I do not believe his or her edits are as strident and partisan as has been claimed. Indeed, I think that MezzoMezzo does what all editors should do when they made an edit: explain briefly what they have done and why. I think MezzoMezzo is trying hard in good faith to create balance. That in itself is very challenging on this page particularly given the nature of the Barelvi / Deobandi antagonism. But at least MezzoMezzo is trying to be impartial (in my view). I recommend that all involved editors (incl. me) continue to edit the page in good faith without threats of edit wars. An editor consensus will doubtless continue to emerge and strengthen the page. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC).

This is the point I've been trying to make. Everyone is free to edit, but noone is free to push certain points of view. Me pointing out scholarly consensus that Deobandis and Ahle Hadis are two separate movements in South Asia who are actually hostile to one another (it goes without saying that Salafis, which are a movement in Arab countries and not South Asia, are obviously different from both) doesn't mean that I hate a third group. That is, my comments on the difference between Deobandi and Ahle Hadis has no relation to another group other than those two.

Now, my own edits haven't been discussed for at least a week. Maybe my edits were not in the best interest of the article, so let's focus on that discussion instead of politics. If there is opposition to how I edited, then of course that needs to be reviewed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Page protection

A quick view of the page's history will show the recent spurts of vandalism both on the part of suppoters and detractors of the Barelvi movement. This page needs to be protected, at least until the vandals can be discouraged and stopped! MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Edits by Mezzo Mezzo

This Wahabi or Salafi editor has history of edit wars on this Page.This mezzo mezzo has tried hundreds of times to vandalize this page and he is now acting as an actor appealing others to not vandalize his so called edits through which he has tried to show this Moderate movement in Bad light from various angles. This user has received many warnings in the past and has just returned to do similar things according to his will. The biased edits have totally changed the page character for general readers.Ask him what urgency he had to edit it in this certain manner? He has edited this Article according to his agenda.This is the one who considers Barelvi Sunnis as herectics. Many times he has also tried to vanadalize Ahle Sunnah pages like Mawlid.Even once he suggested most of the Barelvi Articles for speedy deletion.This Wahabi cant change the Article in this manner. I appeal and invite neutral authors to come forward and Save this Page from Online Salafi Jehadist like mezzo mezzo.Msoamu (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Msoamu, I am not an online Salafi Jehadist. I am what you asked for: a neutral editor. I am not a Barelvi, but I am not opposed to Barelvis. I want a neutral article; nothing more. Yet you reverted my edits. Why? Please study all my own edits to this pages, going back a couple of years I think. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I know you are neither Barelvi nor Wahabi editor.Dear I request to help keep this Page prior to Vandalism of mezzo mezzo.He has several times done it in the past.The things which he does not like tries to change it according to his agenda.There was total consensus on this Article and No edit War or dispute.Lets keep that consensus version.Msoamu (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I have not looked at his edits but observing his discussion with me its quite obvious he has issues with barelvis as he quickly accused me of being one & also he seems to think im a "racist" for pointing out that saudi arabia and wahabism are connected..based on my discussions with wahabis any criticism of saudi arabia is therefore according to them "anti arab" Baboon43 (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussions regarding both the personal attacks on myself and the controversy over this article should be brought to the attention of moderators. This is beyond ridiculous. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

first you start pov discussions then personally attack me and now you claim i personally attacked you..i dont know whats more ridiculous Baboon43 (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stop personal attacks and edit wars.we should make this article more neutral and clear by adding third party sources. I have checked the edits of Mezzo Mezzo those are fine and well referenced if you have any objections you can discuss those here instead of reverting wars. I have made contribution on this page very few times but i am a regular visitor of barelvi, Deobandi and Shia pages as my family is mixture of all these. And I myself don't follow any of these. Sandhu 07:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqibsandhu (talk • contribs)

I opened a discussion at WP:ANI. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

As the new edits have totally changed the page character as it was in consensus version and it is not urgency to let them them in to to ,i m removing these edits to reduce POV.Msoamu (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There was no consensus version; that's not some magic word you can repeat to get your way. Please review Wikipedia:Consensus; the fact that the majority of editors here seem to disagree with what you're doing disproves any such claims. As for POV, then all of the sources are verifiable and reliable, unless you can bring proofs otherwise for each one of them. Otherwise, there actually seems to be a consensus building against what you're pushing here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As the page history is itself witness to it and I hope others will support me on this that Page was totally on consensus version.The absence of some active editors on this page created chance for opposition Camp to insert their own POV. What mezzo mezzo has tried is just to post some negative points about this movement nothing more.The matter through which he has tried to prove that this movement supported British Govt is totally baseless and highly objectionable.Hundreds of PhDs have been done on this movement by various scholars around the world and it has not been written any where.Just to pic and choose specific and favourite conspiracy theories will not work here.Msoamu (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Lets see double standard of some one who tries to become objective and Neutral here and does Just Opposite at other Places.

There is a Article named Wahabi.I have in the past and in present tried to put info related to its current activities and its real face of Terrorism with neutral references but to surprise of many the advocate of objectivity and neutrality don't allow me to do this.He has left this comment and removed my referenced content unjustifiable.He has said that ,you have NOT added reliable sources, you're just using this as a soapbox for your own views. There is no heading related to Terrorism and Wahabism there and I have tried to make it.A simple Google search will produce thousands of neutral and verifiable results proving Wahabi terrorism relationship.Only a Wahabi will deny that and Only a Terrorist will deny that Wahabis are not terrorist. What mezzomezzo has really done on this Page? Has he not tried to add his personal views and non reliable information on Barelvi Page ? This is the real Problem with him.He is removing Wahabi relationship with Terrorism and trying to show this movement as extremist and supporter of British Govt. What an irony is this ? Msoamu (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

can you provide one diff at a time on his changes and why you disagree with it..mezzo has made lots of changes so if u can point out edits that would be good because i doubt editors will go through all at once. if any is regarding his wahabi edits then do it on the Talk:Wahhabi page Baboon43 (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You can just take this [[2]] for example.He does not want others to Know that Wahabis is just about spreading terrorism nothing else nothing less.He always removed verifiable content.Msoamu (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the talk page for Barelvi, not Wahhabi. As for my sources, then all of them are reliable and verifiable. Msoamu, you have expressed disagreement with what the sources say, but those are the sources. You haven't explained why they can't be used; you're just talking about me personally.

Baboon43 is the only user who agrees with you; everyone else concerned with this article is supportive of what I've done. We have a new consensus, and if you would like to change that then discuss the reliability and verifiability of the SOURCES, not whether or not you agree with their content. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

As for the personal comments about me, then you've been warned about that before. If you don't stop, I will be forced to reopen the case. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Msoamu wrong talk page & Mezzo he has the right to comment regarding his disagreement of the said RS. seeing that he had accused u of POV above..as far as RS goes there could be issues of academic bias as i stated on the other talk page..also talk pages occasionally heat up and there's no rush to escalate matters to ANI before attempting to resolve the matter on your own. Baboon43 (talk)

I did attempt to solve it. That didn't work with either of you. In your case (Baboon43), the ANI has wound up helping you and I to actually work and discuss together, and it's given good results. In the case of Msoamu, then he's gone from hurling insults to just going off the topic and editing without discussion, as seen by the instances of more editors who weren't previously involved reverting his edits.

If the sources in question have issues, then let's discuss them. "The sources are POV" isn't a discussion; they fall into the rules for reliablr and verifiable sources, so if there are some hidden reasons as to why they could be unacceptable then that needs to be explained. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The edits of MezzoMezzo seems to be supported by him only,I have reverted to Consensus version.Those edits don't have merits except false and baseless allegations. Shabiha 13:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

My edits have the support of User:Saqibsandhu and also User:GorgeCustersSabre. I also suggest actually reading WP:Consensus. Per the dispute here, there is NO consensus version of this article anymore. What I have inserted all consists of reliable and verifiable sources from known publishers and/or periodicals. I'm expecting actual reasons as to why such sources would be disputed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello dear friends, I am in no way trying to take a side in the debate over the Barelvi movement. I am not a Barelvi, but I am also not opposed to the Barelvis. What I am opposed to, on the other hand, is the highly personal nature of the attacks on editors on this talk page. It may be best if we all continue to edit the page according to what we believe the sources say, without further personal attacks. Let's provide evidence to support our changes, and let's explain our changes. Let's refrain from needing to say that editor X is this or that or that his motives must be this or that. And please let's be patient: even if we edit backwards and forward for a time, a consensus will hopefully re-emerge. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we all can agree to that. Msoamu has been blocked temporarily, though I trust he will return once his account is reactivated. The page has been protected so perhaps we can hammer things out here first.

What I would like to know is why all my edits were deleted. They were on a range of topics and were drawn from a range of sources. The entire history section was deleted, for example, yet most articles on religious movements have sections here on Wikipedia. It was never explained to me what was wrong; it was just deleted wholesale. This appeared more like intentional disruption than protecting the article.

I also clarified some sources. One was an interview with Khaled Ahmed, for example, where he states his views on the takeover of Barelvi mosques in the UK. He is a respected journalist but the source was an editorial piece; thus, I felt it needed to be stated in the article that this was Ahmed's view and not some piece of objective research. Yet this was reverted; why?

These are just some examples. I'll ask an open question for all those concerned, shall we go down the list of sources I used and accompanying edits and inspect them one by one? I'm ready for that but I want to make sure I'm not doing this alone. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear MezzoMezzo, you are right. Removing your edits without explanation was wrong and it prevented the rest of us seeing how best to intervene. Let's hope that in future, if others disagree with your edits (or mine or anyone else's) they will provide an explanation. Thanks for your hard work. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Mosques

I've deleted the who section of mosques due to some of the mosques put in. Although some mosques listed are run by 'Barelwis', other mosques listed on here such as Salahuddin Mosque in Toronto is the exact opposite of a 'Barelwi' mosque. Seeing mosques like that which are very obviously NOT Barelwi leads me to believe that the mosques also on the list that I don't know of could also possible be not 'Barelwi'. If anyone would like to put up a list of Barelwi mosques, please make sure the mosques are actually run by Barelwis. 70.40.185.230 (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Shuddhi Movement

Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat through its organization All India Jamaat Raza-e-Mustafa led a movement against Shuddhi movement of non Muslims in Pre-Independence India.Shuddhi movement which sought to re-convert the nominally converted Muslims back into the Hindu fold,specially in the areas ofMathura, Aligarh , Rajputana, Punjab and Agra of United Province was challenged by Jamaat Raza prominent organization of undivided India of Sunni Muslims worked to stop conversion of Muslims into Hindu fold under the leadership of Maulana Hamid Raza and later Maulana Mustafa Raza Khan. Shabiha (talk) 07:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting an addition to the article, making a point, or what exactly...? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I am suggesting this should be in the Article. Shabiha (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the same as the case you made above. Gorge Custer's Sabre, Luken and myself have all expressed the view that it doesn't belong here. Consensus obviously doesn't work merely by majority, but if you want to win hearts and minds then you should try to bring something new to the table rather than the same points that already didn't convince your peers. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Can any one really find out why this para is not suitable ? Shabiha (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Multiple users already did. The burden of proof now lies upon you to provide compelling reasons why everyone else should change their minds, rather than just more-or-less copy pasting your suggestion which was already rejected above. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent Suggestions

First the suggestions of mezzo mezzo should be discussed which created disputes.He is trying to change the Whole Article according to his personal views.Undisputed and main body of Articles are neutral.One can't insert his personal views into Wikipedia like this.Article should not be rewritten from the critics point of view. Shabiha (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

1. We are discussing the disputes. That's why I opened up subheadings above.

2. I am trying to change the article according to my personal views? Please refrain from such comments per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. We're all here to discuss the content.

3. Who said the main body of the article is neutral and undisputed? If that were true, none of us would be here having this discussion, would we?

4. The article isn't being rewritten, I was making adjustments and additions. Please don't mischaracterize my edits.

5. Why are you accusing me of being a critic? Nothing that I have inserted is without valid sourcing; these are other people's statements, not mine. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

1.We are discussing your particular points which you tried to insert in the Article before the page was protected.

2.First those edits should be discussed and we may come to other points one by one.There is no hurry to re write the whole Article See Wikipedia:Be neutral in form, Wikipedia:Cherrypicking

3.If it would not have been Neutral then surely other editors who are keeping an eye on this Article would have suggested or edited it.There was no POV-check Tag on the Article by neutral editors.

4.Valid source does not always meant Neutral source See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

I suggest you to read the Wikipedia guidelines carefully before making an attempt to rewrite the whole Article See Wikipedia:UNDUEWikipedia:Tendentious editing ,Wikipedia:Neutral point of view , Shabiha (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I've read those guidelines, Shabiha. There's no need to be passive aggressive based on some recent discussions of mine which you have observed.

Now, I know that we're discussing these particular points. This raised the issue: why did you create this subsection here on the talk page? Was it solely to personally attack me as you did above and falsely claim that I rewrote the entire article?

There are subheadings in the above "content dispute" section to discuss the disputed edits. You can reply point by point there. I will ask again: please refrain from personally attacking other editors and making accusations. This entire section you've opened here is uncalled for. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear friends, I cannot agree with Shabiha that MezzoMezzo is "trying to change the Whole Article according to his personal views." He tries hard to verify all his points with reliable evidence, he tries hard to maintain a neutral tone and he tries hard to explain his edits one-by-one. I do not agree with some of his particular edits, but I cannot conclude that he is a biased editor with an ulterior motive. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear friends,opening of too much sub headings and recent suggestions is uncalled for.We are yet to discuss earlier points as told by Shabiha.MezzoMezzo Assume good faith while editing ,Don't edit to just prove a Point.Msoamu (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It was not my intent to rush things; the subheadings are open, and I am patient. We can simply leave them on the table until each one is ready. As for assume good faith, then what do you mean? And what are you talking about when you accuse me of editing to prove a point? Please be specific. So far, this section of the talk page seems designed solely to attack me personally. Perhaps you could explain to me what other purpose there might be. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Ironically, it seems as if you, Shabiha, are trying to change the article to your own personal views. If you want your edits up, back it up with sources. 64.111.86.242 (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Who are you ,seeing you first time and u have not edited a single Page except writing this comment Mr.64.111.86.242??? Kindly read Wikipedia policies before jumping in lengthy and old discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msoamu (talk • contribs) 14:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Shabiha, why have you flared all this up again? I'd sorted out the issues between Msoamu and MezzoMezzo, and now you're threatening to undo all the work I've done. MezzoMezzo has outlined every single proposed change on the talk page, so he's hardly trying to alter it to his POV without discussing anything. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Content dispute

• In order to ease the tension surrounding this article, I suggest we discuss the disputed content in this section. Please refrain from making remarks about bias towards other editors: that will only complicate the process and won't allow myself or others to help get this straightened out. Also, nothing will be set in stone until after Msoamu returns from his block, otherwise that will only make things worse. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

While we're waiting for Msoamu, I have an open question to the concerned editors. When we speak of discussing the disputed content, how shall we do it? Should we section off each issue with bullet points, or with lower level section headings under this "Content dispute" section? I for one am in favor of the latter, as it can make the discussion easier to read. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• The latter would make more sense to me. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see the point in having a picture of those mosques .. some of them are CERTAINLY not Barelwi.70.40.185.230 (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Good start. I do see the point in having a couple of pictures of Barelvi mosques, but I suggest we have a reliable source (or reasonably reliable) one that shows they are directly linked to the Barelvi. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Shuddhi Movement was the main landmark movement in pre independence India by Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat leaders called by others as Barelvi.I request George Sabri to please improve the puntuations etc if it is not writtem well but the section is really very important as you have said that, Despite having an adequate reference, this clumsily written and barely punctuated section is only indiirect related to the main article. Shabiha 11:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Do you have a reliable source for your first sentence Shabiha? Also, can you directly point out bits you do not feel are written correctly? Lukeno94 (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Shabiha, I hope you are well. Yes, I will be glad to help with punctuation and English expression. But I do think you will need to link your proposed section to the main body of the article far more strongly. How is this relevant? Why is this important? Once you have done that, I will be glad to help. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about this Shuddhi movement. But if it seems to be a main pre-independence movement, would it be possible to create a separate article for it and use the source in question there? MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The Shuddhi movement was the most significant movement of Pre-Independence Undivided India. Arya Samaj leaders of Hindu community converted thousands of Muslims into Hindu folds.To counter this movement Jamaat Raza e Mustafa main organization of Ahle Sunnah wal Jamaah or now Barelvi Sunni worked all over North India ,very successfully.

The son of Imam Ahmed Raza Khan,Mustafa Raza Khan and Hamid Raza Khan were at the forefront to counter it. Reliable sources which have covered it.Urdu Papers and famous weekly magazine of that time,

• Dabdaba-e-Sikandri,Hafta Roza Published from Rampur United Province or Uttar Pradesh 1922-23 various editions and

• Aligarh Institute Gazette 1922-23,All Editions, Published at Aligarh Muslim University , Aligarh.

• Ahmed Raza Khan's Barelvi's lieutenants arraigned themselves against Arya Samaji threat of extermination hurled at the weaker sections of the Muslim community. Infact the Arya Samaji and other factions of Hindu revivalism compelled even the sleepy sections of Muslims to rally round the slogan of preserving their religious and cultural identity.

Recently prominent Scholar Allama Yaseen Akhtar Misbahi of Publishing House Darul Qalam,Delhi has authored various chapters on the role of Jamaat-e-Raza-e-Mustafa in countering Shuddhi Tehreek(Movement)the book titled ,Ulema Ahle Sunnat ki Baseeart-o-Qayadat published by Majlis-e-Fikr-e-Raza,Ludhiana,Punjab in the Year 2012.

This is the text

• Challenged Shuddhi Movement

In Pre-Independence India,Shuddhi movement which sought to re-convert the nominally converted Muslims back into the Hindu fold,specially in the areas of Mathura, Aligarh , Rajputana, Punjab and Agra of United Province.All India Jamaat Raza-e-Mustafa,a prominent organization of undivided India of Sunni Muslims worked to stop conversion of Muslims into Hindu fold.Under the leadership of Maulana Hamid Raza and later Maulana Mustafa Raza Khan various preaching teams were formed which camped in the affected villages and hold debates with workers of Shuddhi movement..Subsequently theShuddhi movement became controversial and antagonized the Muslims populace to no end Shabiha (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears there is already an article for this movement on Wikipedia. Wouldn't it be easier and less time consuming to just borrow a sentence or two with sources from there and then link to that article? MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• That would be my suggestion. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I also agree that this would be better than having a distinct section. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

References

History section

One concern of mine is the removal of the history section which I wrote. That was never explained, yet as far as I know the sources were all reliable ones. I will repost the section here for discussion:

The Barelvi movement was founded by Ahmad Reza Khan who, after two failed attempts at establishing Islamic schools, finally succeeded in 1904 with the Manzar-e-Islam. Though very much linked to Pakistan today, the movement's foundation predated Pakistan's nationhood; the movement was, essentially, founded as a defense of traditional Islam as understood and practiced in India. Defense of these beliefs sometimes brought the Barelvis into conflict with other movements and creeds. Unlike most other Muslim movements in the region, the Barelvis opposed the Indian independence movement due to its leadership under Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, who was not a Muslim. On the other hand, Khan and his movement, being among the foremost campaigners for Sufism, were largely responsible for pulling Muslims into conflict with Hindus and were primary supporters of the Pakistan Movement. The Barelvis were joined in this by all major Islamic movements in the Indian subcontinent - including Shi'ites, Ismailis and Ahmadiyya - except the Deobandis, the Barelvis main rivals.

Historically, relations between the movement and Britain have been better than those of other Islamic movements with the country. The majority of Pakistani and Kashmiri immigrants to the United Kingdom are still descended from Barelvi-majority villages, and the Barelvi movement in Pakistan has received funding from the country, in part as a reaction to rival movements also receiving funding from abroad. Still, according to Western analysts the foreign funding the Barelvi movement receives from abroad is minor, thus being the likely reason why Barelvi jihadist groups have been unable to get involved in Islamist and sectarian politics. Having been supportive of the creation of the republic of Pakistan, the Barelvi movement has traditionally held a strong following in the country as well.

As a reaction to the anti-Islam film Innocence of Muslims, a conglomerate of forty Barelvi parties called for a boycott of Western goods, while at the same time condemning violence which had taken place in protest against the film.

The sources are either already used in the article elsewhere, or they're from sources like the Eurasia Review and Express Tribune. These seemed to be reliable sources to me; am I correct in thinking that the opposition was not to the sources, but to the way I phrased the section? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear MezzoMezzo, it was well written and adequately referenced. Its tone was neutral. I'm thus also puzzled by its removal. I see no reason why you should not add it again. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hold on there is no hurry,lets discuss one by one.

The Barelvi movement was founded by Ahmad Reza Khan? This line is already in main section that he was main leader of the movement.So no need to repeat it.

who, after two failed attempts at establishing Islamic schools, finally succeeded in 1904 with theManzar-e-Islam.

There were no such failed attempts to establish Manzar e Islam.Can You clear it ?

Though very much linked to Pakistan today,..... It is obvious link to Pakistan,Bangladesh as major Population is always with this movement ? Please clear.

the movement was, essentially, founded as a defense of traditional Islam as understood and practiced in India. Defense of these beliefs sometimes brought the Barelvis into conflict with other movements and creeds. These are repeated lines no need.

lets discuss it first. Shabiha (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright, it seems four points are up for discussion. I'll try to keep my own comments as organized and easy to read as possible.

1. Yes, it was already mentioned that Reza Khan founded it, so I guess it is repetitive if we only mention that. But...

2. The source does mention that Khan had tried to found a madrasa two times before and was unsuccessful. Why shouldn't this be mentioned? It's in the source, and it does indicate to the reader that the Barelvi movement didn't just spring up from nowhere but was the result of repeated efforts. I do think the source provided could cover that, right?

3. The point wasn't to mention the links to Pakistan, but links to Pakistan today, contrasting the Barelvi movement's present success in Pakistan with the fact that the movement is even older than the Republic of Pakistan is. My intent was merely to show the movement's age and foundation as a defense of Pakistan. That being said, you're right that these points are already mentioned, so even if I was making an accurate point I guess it doesn't need to be included if it is repetitive.

4. Same here, you're right that it's repeated, and it is better in the support section than history, as it's about intent rather than a record of events.

I don't know...points three and four did slip by me, I can see how they're repetitive. But points one and two seem relevant, and I do feel that they're supported by the provided source. I don't know if my explanation makes things clearer or not. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Very Important discussion.I would like to submit that

1.It was not founded by Imam Ahmed Rida Khan Quadri.He never founded a so called Barelvi movement.He was a one of the great Scholar of Sunni Sufi movement in South Asia.His opponents gave this title Barelvi.It was never used by him.He never said that this is Barelvi movement.He always considered his organizations and Institutions as part of Ahle Sunnah movement.Even today all organisations and associations subscribing to traditional ideology of Ahle Sunnah Wala Jamaah in South Asia just uses title of Sunni.In reality and on ground Barelvi word is not used by Supporters of Ahmed Rida.His opponents used it to fulfill their agenda that it is a new movement.

2.This seems to be doubtful.It has been contested here by Shabiha, you should try to support your view from more verifiable sources.The movement was not Madarsa based and this is just an allegation with out much explanation.

3.There is no such major linkage as you have tried to put.

4.I think it is very much in the Article.

I will share my opinion when other points will come.Msoamu (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• OK then. Can anyone come up with further reliable sources to back up their points? :) Lukeno94 (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

My points one and two seem to have the sources already. The source for the first, that Ahmed Reza Khan had tried twice previously to establish a madrasa, is sourced here. I'm sure that other sources could be found. As for him founding the movement, then I don't think this even needs to be discussed. All scholarly sources acknowledge him as the founder; in fact, we could stack more sources then necessary for that. That is one point where we have to weigh editor objections against the sources...some Salafists will sometimes deny that their movement took its inspiration from Rashid Rida, and similarly such claims can be discounted due to valid sources.

As for links to Pakistan today, then Msoamu, I don't understand what you mean...are you saying ther isn't linkage between Barelvism and Pakistan today? I was under the impression that Barelvis were the largest group of Muslims in Pakistan numerically. If that isn't linkage, then what is? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Any further comments? There's still quite a bit more which needs to be discussed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

1.Imam Ahmed Raza Khan was simply a main leader of Sunni community at that time.See Page 5-10 [[3]].Researchers who have expertise on this Subject have only considered Imam Ahmed Raza as main leader of the movement.No one has used the word founder for him.He is considered a reformist Ahle Sunnah Scholar by neutral scholars of west.Imam Ahmed Raza and the websites associated with Ahle Sunnah movement have described him only a main leader.There was another Prominent leader before him named Allama Fazle Haq Khairabadi and many leaders were associated with him.Moreover founding stands for establishing something new,but Ahmed Raza Khan did not started or established a new movement.He was a reformer of the Islam.Reforms stands - to restore to a former good state, or bring from bad to good.

2.He was not involved in Madarsas establishment.Your point on Madarsa is not Neutral.He had all resources and infrastructure to establish Madarsas but he focused his life on writings.He authored more than 950 Books on all topics of Islam and sciences.

3.Ahle Sunnat Wal Jama'at are in huge majority worldwide,it is an accepted fact.Similar is the case with India ,Pakistan and Bangladesh ,Ahle Sunnat are in majority.This does not established a linkage to Pakistan.Ahle Sunnat leaders had divergent views on Pakistan movement.Referenc: Ahmad Riza Khan Barelwi: in the path of the Prophet(Sallallaho Alaihi Wassalam) by Usha Sanyal[4].

4.Same as already discussed.Msoamu (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Msoamu, every scholarly source we have available in this article refers to Ahmed Reza Khan as the founder of the movement. Every one of them. If you're claiming that researchers with expertise in the subject don't, then I would suggest actually inspecting the currently available sources. You're denying that the recognized founder of the movement is the founder of the movement, and your only basis is a single source written by Usha Sanyal who herself is a supporter of the movement. This is another case where you're simply challening all available scholarly research as wrong, which is itself wrong.

2. The source says he previously tried to establish two schools, which are known as madrasas in that part of the world. This is the thing about sources, Msoamu. If they're reliable and verifiable, then an editor can't just come along and say: "Nope. All of that is wrong." That isn't how Wikipedia functions.

3. Ahlus Sunnah, another term for Sunni Islam, are the majority, yes. We're not talking about Ahlus Sunnah as a whole in this article; this article is just about one movement. Or, are you attempting to deny that Deobandis, Ahle Hadith, Salafis, Muslim Brotherhood, Tablighi Jamat, etc., are also Sunnis?

Msoamu, I have to admit, this isn't looking good for your case. I really think you need to review Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Citing sources. I'm not flashing these for the point of debate; I'm saying this because a lack of familiarity with these policies is hampering discussions regarding this article. An editor has the right to challenge the verifiability or reliability of any source and then discuss it with other editors. And editor does not have the right to simply discount reliable and verifiable sources and dispute their content, and then proceed to edit an article based on his own personal views, no matter how informed those views may be. Please read the above three articles, then actually inspect the sources for the suggested history section, and then after doing all that return to the discussion. Otherwise, engaging in such a discussion is fruitless and won't get us anywhere. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

We're still looking at valid sources in the form of the Eurasia Review, Sushant Sareen and others which support my suggested changes. Is there any more input into this? The only issue I can see is that some of the suggested references included an inter-Wiki link to the article for Deobandi and that obviously doesn't help the reader much. Otherwise, I haven't really seen much legit opposition here; denial of what is stated in valid sources doesn't amount to much, especially without clear suggestions on how to amend the section. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Now that the thread at WP:ANI has been resolved, I would like to turn attention to this again. To be honest, I haven't seen actual objective arguments against either the sources in my suggested edits or the specific wording I used. Language barrier issues also cluttered the counter-suggestions. If I don't see any legitimate opposition to the history section (and I haven't so far), then I think it would be fair for me or anyone else to put it back in the article. The Barelvi movement is a major movement of Sunni Islam in the Indian subcontinent and it doesn't make sense that readers have no way of learning about the movement's history. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I have seen any response to my history section. Consensus is determined via the quality of arguments, not by the argument being made. It has become apparent, given all that transpired here and on ANI, that the previous nitpicking at my edits was an attempt to stifle discussion and avoid reaching any consensus, a violation of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I've been very patient and very fair up till now, but improvements to Wikipedia shouldn't be stonewalled. If I don't see any sort of response, then I will assume consensus per WP:TALKDONTREVERT and just reinstate the history section. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

1.Your just calling some supporter of the movement is baseless and not fact.Usha Sanyal is a, non Muslim academician and has done a ground level extensive Research on the Ahle Sunnat movement in south Asia.Just calling an academician of much repute a supporter is nothing but an false allegation.The burden of proving her, a supporter of the movement,lies on you.I have given you references from her extensive researches which contradict your claim.

There are hundreds of authentic researches available on the topic which considers Imam Ahmed Her researches will have much weight as compare to personal opinions or opinions of opposition camps.Who is Usha Sanyal? Dr Usha Sanyal, Historian Part time Lecturer, Queens University of Charlotte.Former Visiting Assistant Professor of History, Wingate University.Ph.D. History (1990) Columbia University Awarded with Distinction. Dissertation: “In the Path of the Prophet: Maulana Ahmad Riza Khan Barelwi and the Ahl-e Sunnat wa Jamaat Movement in British India, c. 1870-1921″ Committee Chair: Prof. William R. Roff.M Phil. History, Columbia University, South Asia and Southeast Asia.MA in Southeast Asian Studies, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.BA (Honors) in Sociology, minor in Economics, Delhi University, India.

• MAJOR PUBLICATIONS

Devotional Islam and Politics in British India: Ahmad Riza Khan Barelwi and His Movement, 1870-1920. 3rd edition from Yoda Press, 2010. 2nd edition. New York and Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999. Ahmad Riza Khan: In the Path of the Prophet. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2005. Numerous articles published (See publications page) Girls’ madrasa in India – Summer 2012 fieldwork

• CURRENT RESEARCH INTERESTS

Ahl-i Sunnat or “Barelwi” Madrasas in South Asia. Traditionalist” reformist women, especially those of the Ahl-i Sunnat or Barelwi movement, through the study of the “Sunni Bihishti Zewar” and related texts. Al-Huda International and the Ahl-i Sunnat movement. Raza as Mujadid(religious reformer).[5]

Hundreds of Valid and academicians have classified him as religious reformer or Mujadid. [6][7][8] [9][10][11] So now there are two arguments one is poorley researched and also used by his opponents that he founded a sect named Barelvis and other is that He was Mujadid in Islam and reformed the religion.As proved above.The article may not have single sided view of any side.The present sentence is already very much neutral.

2.The two failed attempt ,the sentence your drafted is nowhere in the book,from where you have taken it?There are valid reasons why Ahmad Raza Khan did not support Nadwa Madrsa.They should be in the article first by neutralizing the sentence.

3. Yes,there is difference between all you quoted and between Barelvis.All are within Salafism and Ahle Sunnat Barelvis are not followers of Salafi thought.

4.Such a long paragraphs you have drafted needs proper attention.There is al ready consensus on this version.Msoamu (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Usha Sanyel's works should have much weight because the other sources are just personal opinions? Msoamu, there's no way you can prove that about every source. I feel Sanyel is a supporter, you feel he's some sort of specialist with more knowledge than the other sources. The obvious compromise here is to simply include Sanyel's opinion as one of the sources and synthesize it with the other. Your comments that every single other source on the topic of Barelvis is poorly research and I'm going to be honest, I think you're saying that because you're displeased with the term "Barelvi." There's no problem with noting in the lead that this movement doesn't refer to itself as Barelvi and doesn't agree with the term, but the scholarly majority can not be discounted simply because you disagree with their conclusions.

2. The mention of the failed attempts are on page 75 of Riaz's book.

3. Aside from your clearly inaccurate claim that all the mentioned groups (Salafis, Ahli Hadith, Deobandi, Tablighi Jamat, Muslim Brotherhood) are actually Salafis, you still haven't answered my question. Ahle Sunnat is from the Arabic term Ahlus Sunnah, which is the long form of Sunni. Are you denying that Salafis, Deobandis, Ahli Hadith, Tablighi Jamat and the Muslim Brotherhood are Sunnis? The articles and scholarly consensus indicates otherwise but I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here.

4. No, Msoamu, there is no consensus on the current version. Read WP:CONSENSUS. Don't just skim it; READ it. What you're saying is clearly incorrect, and if you keep trying to stonewall these edits simply because they don't promote an almost mythical telling of the Barelvi movement's history, then I will be foreced to seek mediation once again.

Please consider what I've written carefully. Don't just try to formulate a reply in order to have a back and forth argument; actually think about my suggestions and try to find a solution. If you just keep arguing and stating that anything I say is wrong and all of the sources I provided are wrong, then eventually it will come down to more serious review for conduct and I don't think anybody wants that at this point. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm still waiting. I know it's been a few days, but this seems to be an incident of stonewalling. Multiple users have voiced support for my changes at this point, and all I'm seeing in opposition are claims that "the sources are biased." Even if you (Msoamu) do still oppose the edits, the fact that you only seem to bring inaccurate understandings of Wikipedia guidelines and claims that "the sources are biased" leads me to believe that, per WP:TALKDONTREVERT, I can just go ahead and reinstate my suggested edits now even while we continue this discussion on the talk page; they are reliably sourced and while all editors have the right to discuss the issue, it doesn't appear that you have a case for actually removing the content so far. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You are still not waiting ,you just inserted your POV in the Article with out discussing here valid points.

1.You said,I feel Sanyel is a supporter, of the Barelvi movement.You should tell reasons for your allegations.She is a scholar of repute and a historian who has done authentic researches on the topic and calling her supporter with out valid reasons make you seems biased. 2.The failed attempt you talked about is just biased Unresearched poor point and obviously Non neutral,his establishment of Madarsas is mentioned in hundreds of sources but no one mentions this fact and there is no evidence your source is more researched than others.Read 252 3. Next-

For lead section-

The movement's name stems from its close association with the writings of Islamic Scholar Maulana Ahmad Riza Khan, a resident of Bareilly, whose writings – "estimated by some at one thousand" – had a "strong orientation toward the 'rational' (ma'qulat) sciences, and jurisprudence.Barelvis believe themselves to be the true representatives and heirs in South Asia of the earliest Muslim community, the companions and followers of the prophet Muhammad.They emphasized thata "good" Muslim accord primacy to the shari'ah (Islamic law) over tariqah (the Sufi path); and [insist] that being a "good" Muslim was contingent on personal devotion to the prophet Muhammad as a loving guide and intercessor between Allah and the individual through a chain of pirs ending in the living pir to whom each individual was bound by an oath of loyalty or bay'ah.

Practices- Intercession Ahmad Riza's insistence that "individual believers needed the Prophet's intercession with Allah if they hoped for Allah's forgiveness," and those who denied this intercession "on the grounds of the equality of all believers before Allah were deemed by Ahmad Riza to be guilty of arrogance"

Presence

My next Proposal,Barelvis form the majority of Pakistani Sunnis,and have a comparatively moderate and tolerant interpretation of Islam

In Britain-Vast majority of Pakistanis in Britain have tended to identify themselves with the Barelvi Movement.

They emphasize love of the Prophet and his continued active existence.

Your Proposals-the movement's foundation predated Pakistan's nationhood;the movement was, essentially, founded as a defense of traditional Islam as understood and practiced in India. is fine.I support with .

slight change of South Asia in place of India.Reason is obvious,Undivided India now form major South Asia including Sri Lanka.

Defense of these beliefs sometimes brought the Barelvis into conflict with other movements and creeds.Similar pints are al ready written in conflict section repetition is not fine.

Unlike most other Muslim movements in the region, the Barelvis opposed the Indian independence movement due to its leadership under Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, who was not a Muslim..There are other views of this opposition.which must be clearly written before it like Barelvis were apolitical etc.I have sources which counters this claim Read here

On the other hand, Khan and his movement, being among the foremost campaigners for Sufism, were largely responsible for pulling Muslims into conflict with Hindus and were primary supporters of the Pakistan Movement.There are opposing and diverse opinions on this issue.Major Barelvi scholars were not in favor of Pakistan movement also.Like Hakeem Maulana Qdrutullah Gilani,Maulana Usman Qadri,Wajeehuddin Rizi etc.Read this Link[12]

The Barelvis were joined in this by all major Islamic movements in the Indian subcontinent - including Shi'ites, Ismailis and Ahmadiyya - except the Deobandis, the Barelvis main rivals.There was no Joining as movement.language is baseless.I have sources which counters this claim Read here

Now following lines I suggest to be inserted in Presence in the U.K section-

Historically, relations between the movement and Britain have been better than those of other Islamic movements with the country. The majority of Pakistani and Kashmiri immigrants to the United Kingdom are still descended from Barelvi-majority villages,

and the Barelvi movement in Pakistan has received funding from the country- Bias incomplete picture,what do u meant by country here?

To present a non bias and complete picture,write completely.Whether Britain gave funds? or it was donation of of Public money?

in part as a reaction to rival movements also receiving funding from abroad.

Still, according to Western analysts the foreign funding the Barelvi movement receives from abroad is minor, thus being the likely reason why Barelvi jihadist groups -Total bias wordings.There is not even a single Barelvi Jehadist group.

You have said it many times not You? Having been supportive of the creation of the republic of Pakistan,

Include it in Presence section;the Barelvi movement has traditionally held a strong following in the country as well.

I support this Para in separate heading:Reaction to Blasphemy

As a reaction to the anti-Islam film Innocence of Muslims, a conglomerate of forty Barelvi parties called for a boycott of Western goods, while at the same time condemning violence which had taken place in protest against the film. Msoamu (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Mosques

• Can anyone tell me why those Canadian masjids are put up their. I am absolutely sure that the Salaheddin mosque is NOT Barelwi. Anyone who lives in Toronto can tell you that it is faaaaaaaar from being Barelwi. I also find it hard to believe that the Al-Rashid mosque (that was started up by Lebanese Muslims, who aren't Barelwi, and Canadians) is barelwi aswell. The others, only Allah knows best. 198.72.58.236 (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• 198.72.58.236, unfortunately we cannot make changes based on this: see WP:OR. If you can find some reliable sources on these mosques, then we can see if you are correct or not. :) Lukeno94 (talk) 08:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, but technically there isn't any reliable sources that show they are barelwi. ;) 198.72.58.236 (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Fair point. I looked and couldn't find anything anywhere that said the Salaheddin mosque was Barelvi, so that needs to be removed. A search on the Al-Rashid mosque didn't turn up anything about it being Barelvi, so that should be removed as well. I would note that there isn't a single mention of Barelvi/Barelwi in either mosque's Wiki article either. Any other mosques you aren't sure about? Lukeno94 (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

if there are no sources to verify their claims ,they may be removed.Msoamu (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Correct, so we should really approach this the other way: can anyone find any sources for any of these being Barelvi mosques? Lukeno94 (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Should there be some sort of a time limit on how soon such sources should be brought? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• If no one presents a source for a mosque by two days after the full protection is lifted, then it should probably be removed. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• ... It's time. 64.111.86.242 (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• OK, here's my analysis on the remaining mosques:

• North Manchester Jamia Mosque - That's a Barelvi mosque, based on its Wiki article. If anyone wants to dispute this further, feel free - but for now, it stays.
• Ghamkol Shariff Masjid - That's a Sunni mosque, based on its Wiki article, so it's been removed. It can go back if someone comes up with a good source that shows it is a Barelvi Sunni mosque.
• Manchester Central Mosque and Islamic Centre - That's a Barelvi mosque, based on its Wiki article. If anyone wants to dispute this further, feel free - but for now, it stays.
• Mecca Masjid/Makkah Masjid - Don't know what it is, but there's no indication it's a Barelvi mosque, so it's been removed.
• Haji Ali Dargah - That appears to be a Barelvi mosque, based on[13]. If anyone wants to dispute this further, feel free - but for now, it stays.
• Jama Masjid, Fatehpur Sikri - That appears to be a Barelvi mosque, based on its Wiki article and a few unreliable sources that I won't list here. If anyone wants to dispute this further, feel free - but for now, it stays.
• Nakhoda Masjid - Don't know what it is, but there's no indication it's a Barelvi mosque, so it's been removed.removed.
• Masjid-an-Noor, Newfoundland - Don't know what it is, but there's no indication it's a Barelvi mosque, so it's been removed.
• Ottawa Mosque - Don't know what it is, but there's no indication it's a Barelvi mosque, so it's been removed.

• I'm willing to discuss these decisions, but 4 mosques is probably a good number anyway. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Why you did not try to search some info about these Mosques before removing it.There was no objection on these Mosques.Dear,I am amazed to see your recent edits on the basis of doubt.You yourself said Ghamkol Shareef Mosque is Sunni.Sunni is common terminology used by Ahle Sunnat or Barelvis. See here [14] and Please restore these Mosques.Also find [15].Msoamu (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Sir, the term 'Sunni' is also used by Deobandis, Ahl-ul-Hadith, Salafis, Habashis,Sufis as well as Barelwis. So your argument that the term 'Sunni' is common terminology for Barelwi might only apply to Barelwis in the Indian sub-continent. I assure that when someone from an Arab country, an African country, a European/North American country, a Central or South East Asian country uses the term 'Sunni', they probably aren't referring to Barelwis. To tell you frankly, all the Canadian masjids that were listed on this article aren't what you would classify as 'Barelwi'. And it seems that you don't like the fact that my IP address is my signature. I apologize if it makes you displeased with me.64.111.86.242 (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I second the comments of the IP address above - wish the guy would create an account and help with further improvements. With all this being said, can we consider the mosques issue resolved? MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Your allegation that I didn't try to find information is completely incorrect, and your refactoring of my comment is inappropriate. There are a large amount of different Sunnis, hence why I didn't keep it. Also, any more than 4 or 5 images and it begins to look cluttered - especially on smaller screens. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please also restore the Mosques in [16].Msoamu (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Lead sentence

In the deleted edits, I had put the following sentence in the lead:

"which were a reaction to the reformist attempts of the Deobandi movement"

It is confirmed by the corresponding source and in fact more than one of the article's sources refer to this. I felt it was significant that the Barelvi movement formed as a defense of what it saw as traditional belief against attempts by the Deobandis at reforming those beliefs. Thoughs? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The sentence is not NPOV.Ahle Sunnat or Barelvi movement was it self a reformation movement.[17].Msoamu (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see how the sentence violates NPOV, both groups wanted different reforms? Lukeno94 (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The sentence is also in the cited source as well as other sources; there seems to be consensus among analysts that the Barelvi movement was a reaction to attempts by Deobandis. Unless the specific wording I used was wrong...if so, Msoamu, could you clarify what exactly is wrong? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It shows Deobandi movement as reformist while the Barelvi is shown as just a reaction but the fact is just opposite.Wording is not NPOV.The wording is Unfair and with bias.According to various scholars,Barelvi movement developed on the basis of Love of Holy Prophet Sahaba-e-Kiram (Companions of Holy Prophet) ,Auli-e-Kiram (Sufis).Who ever Ahle Hadees,Shias,Deobandis,Qadiyanis tried to lower the dignity of Holy Prophet, Barelvi movement challenged them and presented a true picture.This is the actual fact.

I suggest this sentence for the lead section which is actual picture.

Barelvi movement was formed to the reaction of writings of Deobandi,Ahle Hadees ,Shia,Ahmadi scholars which were considered derogatory by the Barelvi Scholars in the court of Prophet Muhammad .It condemned every sect on the basis of respect and dignity of Holy Prophet. . Shabiha (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Shabiha, are you joking? What you're suggesting here isn't even remotely neutral, in fact it's basically representing the POV of Barelvis as objective fact. It also isn't what the source actually says; it mentions that the Barelvi movement - not that it doesn't mention traditional beliefs of Indian Muslims which Barelvis wanted to defend, but rather the movement itself - was a reaction against reformist attempts by Deobandis. To reform something means to change it; it's not a good or bad thing, it's just an action. It seems to me that both you and Msoamu aren't claiming this sentence is POV because it's promoting a certain idea, but because it is not promoting a certain idea - the idea of the Barelvi movement. I'm really shocked to see all this written out; the blatant bias is clear. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Mezzo You accuse me to promote a certain idea.I am not here to promote a certin idea.I am here to edit the Articles from neutral Point of View.Please refrain from attacking me personally see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

  You suggest it a reaction of Deobandi movement,I presented reason for the reaction.It was the writing of Deobandi scholars as well as of other scholars in the eyes of Barelvi scholars which were basis of promoting this movement.

  Imam Ahmed Raza Khan wrote a treaty named Husamul Haramain against these writings of these scholars and got confirmatory signatures from Sunni Scholars of Makkah and Madina.[18].complete picture [19].

  This line will be more accurateBarelvi movement was formed to the reaction of writings of Deobandi,Ahle Hadees ,Shia,Ahmadi scholars which were considered derogatory by the Barelvi Scholars in the court of Prophet Muhammad .It condemned every sect on the basis of respect and dignity of Holy Prophet. . Shabiha (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Again Shabiha, I'm not impressed by the passive aggressive copying of my comments to you below. It is clear from the timestamps on our respective comments that you're parroting what I've said to you regarding personal attacks, as well as the issue of "reviewing guidelines" which I recently made to another editor on another talk page. You're not making me mad, but it is uncalled for.

Regarding personal attacks, then I did no such thing; I am making an observation based on the weak opposition to my edits here. It is within the realm of possibility that my edit was completely wrong, but the nature of the opposition and your initial suggested edit seems to be an instance of wanting to sugarcoat the subject of he article.

Let's look at your current suggestion:

"Barelvi movement was formed to the reaction of writings of Deobandi,Ahle Hadees ,Shia,Ahmadi scholars which were considered derogatory by the Barelvi Scholars in the court of Prophet Muhammad .It condemned every sect on the basis of respect and dignity of Holy Prophet"

Aside from the grammatical and mechanical errors, you also mention that the Barelvi movement was a reaction to Ahle Hadis, Shia and Ahmadia. Well, maybe. I don't recall that being in the cited source but if you can find a valid source mentioning these other groups as well then of course it should be included. And reaction to the writings...I don't recall that in the source at all, most scholarly pieces mention the Barelvi movement being a reaction to other movements, not simply the writings of those movements. One might think it is merely semantic, but remember that holding closely to the sources is best in regard to disputed content.

Now, about the wording. Barelvi scholars considered the writings of some of these movements derogatory to Muhammad...I don't recall that being in the source and in fact most sources mention more than just views regarding Muhammad. Disagreement was also over serious matters of doctrine, so why mention just one matter of disagreement and not others? It seems to be undue weight regarding some issues. Your version also includes weasel words such as "basis of respect and dignity," which is only according to Barelvi opinion, and "holy" prophet - since when does Wikipedia refer to any person with honorifics?

I really feel that in addition to excessive words of praise for the Barelvi point of view, your suggestion is also giving undue weight to only one topic of disagreement at the expense of others without real reason. This is on top of the issue of reaction to writings versus reaction to movement, and the mention of Shi'ites and Ahmadi. Please respond. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Shabiha, please calm down, we are supposed to be discussing this calmly. MezzoMezzo, ensure you don't do anything to provoke him (by making remarks such as "passive aggressive copying of my comments", for example) Lukeno94 (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'll make sure to think twice about potential reactions my comments could cause. In the meantime, any other ideas from anybody in regard to (what I view as) the undue weight and excessive praise? MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

My suggested lead is supported by the cited sources, and up until now I haven't seen any legitimate opposition to the way it is phrased; rather, what we've witnessed here is merely a wholesale denial of what is reported by multiple valid sources within the article. That being said, could we get some more feedback here regarding my original lead change so we can resolve this part and move on? MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

As is the case on some other articles, my lead is supported by reliable sources and written in neutral, accurate English language. If no actual opposition can be given to either the sources themselves or to the wording of my suggestion based on sound English composition, then it really ought to be put back in, right? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting for any type of response. If nobody can bring any legitimate opposition to the proposed change in the lead, then I will assume consensus per WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Which is fine, actually; I know that some editors don't care for me personally and I won't push anybody to eat crow. Silence is fine, and given that no legitimate reasons have been given so far it's fair to assume that the suggested version above is now the consensus version. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I support this sourced version with some edits.Barelvi movement was formed to the reaction of writings of Deobandi,Ahle Hadees ,Shia,Ahmadi scholars which were considered derogatory by the Barelvi Scholars in the court of Prophet Muhammad.Msoamu (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Well Msoamu, your version and my version are quite close but there is a small issue and a big issue with your suggestion above. First, your grammar, punctuation and word usage are bery poor and your suggestion can't be in an article on English Wikipedia at all, hence I feel mine should be inserted since you seem to agree with it in meaning. I'm not trying to be rude but we need to be honest about this, and I hope you understand that even if we accept the meaning of your suggestion, we can't implement it as is because of the quality of the writing.

The second issue is the big one - "the court of Prophet Muhammad." Native speakers of English would not use court here. "Prophet" is an honorific term, and can't be included per MOS:HONORIFIC, just as we can't write "pbuh" per WP:SAWW. Here is how I would edit your suggestion for quality and WP:MOSISLAM style purposes:

"which were a reaction to the reformist attempts of the Deobandi and Ahl al-Hadith movements, in addition to the spread of Shi'ite and Ahmadi ideas."

Then, the section on the reason why the Barelvis oppose these groups should be mentioned in the opposition section. While what you say is true regarding the views about Muhammad, there are other serious differences which can be sourced as well; rather than pick one difference at random, I would suggest we simply leave the details in the appropriate section. The lead is written only with the most important details; it's an overview of the movement, and a group as significant as the Barelvis needs a very clear and direct lead; inserting the specific reasons for their differences with other groups could pull it off topic. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, Msoamu; I just don't think it belongs in the lead of the article. I hope you will consider this compromise. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm seeing very little actual reason as to why this lead shouldn't be there. Your (Msoamu's) version is more or less the same as mine, minus some details. I've given an easy compromise: we reinstate my version, and the points you want to add can be added as soon as you provide a reliable source supporting them. There's no reason to wait on this because of your opposition to other edits of mine. The article as it stands right now is of rather poor quality and readers shouldn't have to wait when there doesn't even seem to be a real dispute here, per Wikipedia:The deadline is now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I have accept your first line,in these wordings'Barelvi movement was formed to the reaction of writings of Deobandi,Ahle Hadees ,Shia,Ahmadi scholars which were considered derogatory in Islam by the Barelvi Scholars .What do you say now?I think this compromise on your part is possible and complete sentence is neutral.Adding Reformist is biased and non neutral lnaguage.Msoamu (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Reason for Reaction

• Books ,Fatwas and commentaries of founders of Darul Uloom Deoband, Shia scholars,and Ahmadi founder, considered evils by Ahle Sunnat Barelvis

• Imam Ahmad Reza Khan took a strict stance against Wahhabis and accused them of Kufr (disbelief). In his opinion the Wahhabis as well as the Deobandis are the present day :

When asked whether the Wahabis had existed during the (golden) age of the first four caliphs, he responded in the affirmative, relating a number of hadith in support of this view. The Khawarij who had seceded from Hazarat Ali’s army …had been the first..In the present time, they were known as ‘Wahabis’ The Ahle Sunnat Movement in British India 1880-1921, Edited by Prof. Dr. Allah Bukhsh, Islamic Propagation Centre Lahore, Pg 223)

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..This Fatwa was issued on the basis of various books written by these Scholars.

• This line will be more accurateBarelvi movement was formed to the reaction of various writings of Deobandi,Ahle Hadees ,Shia,Ahmadi scholars which were considered derogatory by the Barelvi Scholars in the court of Prophet Muhammad.It condemned every sect on the basis of respect and dignity of Holy Prophet. .. Shabiha (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean with the first two points with asterisks up there; they appear to be incomplete sentences, and I don't quite understand the meaning. Try cleaning up the grammar and syntax a bit to be more clear.

As for fatwas of apostasy regarding Deobandis and Wahhabis then the information is correct and already available in other sources. I suppose that information could be included, but where? You opened this separate section here on the talk page and it isn't clear what you're suggesting. Also, what are spittoon, bihome, raza and sunnirazvi? Are these neutral, reliable and verifiable? Wouldn't it be possible to cite the same information with sources already available in the article?

As for the "this line would be more accurate," then where are you suggesting this line goes? I'd like clarification on what you're suggested and where, as I can't tell from what you've written here. It will be easier to respond once you do that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting for some clarification on this. Assuming good faith, this could potentially be a constructive addition to the article but unfortunately, the quality of the writing is so poor in its current form that I literally don't understand what it means. As soon as we get some clarity, serious discussion can occur. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Presence

In the edit in question, I changed the lower half of the "presence" section to the following:

According to Pakistani journalist Khaled Ahmed, the switchover from Barelvism to Deobandism and the gradual decline of Barelvism in the UK has resulted in the conversion of some mystically-minded Kashmiri expatriates to hardline Muslims, though political analysts in the region have described the idea that Barelvism is more tolerant and moderate than Deobandism as a myth.

There were a few reasons for doing so. The article in its current state claims:

"The switchover from Barelvi Islam to Deobandi Islam has resulted in the conversion of some mystically-minded Kashmiri expatriates to hardline Muslims."

This is being presented as objective fact, yet that isn't the case; it's the view of one journalist based on his experience with the topic. The fact that Khaled Ahmed has a page about him on Wikipedia is enough to show that he is notable and the source should stay; however, it is not a piece of research or objective, academic study. With that in mind, it shouldn't be presented as some proven fact which scholars on the topic have discovered; rather, it's the opinion of Khaled Ahmed. And while his opinion is notable and deserves to be here, it is still an opinion, even if it is based on the observations of an expert.

Now, as for my following addition:

"though political analysts in the region have described the idea that Barelvism is more tolerant and moderate than Deobandism as a myth."

This was placed as a follow up to Ahmed's comments in order to demonstrate that not all experts on the topic are of the same opinion. The source given is the Eurasia Review, a reliable source which was deleted when my history section (discussion above) was removed. This is necessary information as it demonstrates the fact that not all experts hold the same view of the Barelvi movement's relationship with violence. While Barelvi editors might not like that, the fact is that some experts hold that view and the readers have a right to access all of the information in one place (Wikipedia). I also feel that my wording makes it clear that this is also an opinion and not objective fact; it is the description of political analysts in the reason. I would like to see what other editors make of this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Anything? Any comments at all? MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a form of silent consensus or a lack of attention. Either way, my argument is logical and sourced. If nobody shows interest in a few days or so, I'll assume it's a green light to put this back in the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been about three weeks and nobody has opposed this edit. Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT, I will assume a silent consensus here. I suspect there was no opposition to begin with, but that Msoamu simply copy-pasted an older version of the article, blanked the version with my edits and pasted, without inspecting every change I had made. Commentary isn't necessary but would be preferred before I start reinstating edits. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The switchover from Barelvi Islam to Deobandi Islam in the UK has resulted in the conversion of the mystically minded Kashmiri expatriates to hardline Muslims.The source further clarifies its point in these words,The reason was import of wrong mullahs from Pakistan by the UK government and by the influence wielded on the mosques by rich Arabs scholars. Back in Pakistan the person of Yazid was being abused for the service of a brand of politics that lacks morality. I will support full explanation.Msoamu (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The issue isn't whether the comments are explained in brief or in detail; it's that the comments aren't based on empirical research, yet the article presents them as objective fact. This is incorrect composition; this is the opinion of Khaled Ahmed, not something researchers have concluded after detailed study. Ahmed is notable so the comments should be mentioned in the article, but it needs to be clarified for readers that this is one man's opinion. I'm not talking about the explanation. Do you see what I'm getting at now? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You (Msoamu) agree with me that the source is valid and belongs in the article; you seem to disagree with me presenting the quote in the source as one journalist's opinion instead of objective fact. I think this is partially based on you (Msoamu) misunderstanding WP:NPOV, which is in regard to our edits and not the source itself. With that in mind, I'm going to reinstate the edit as I think this is more a misunderstanding than a disagreement. Continued lack of response, whether an attempt at stonewalling or just other editors being busy, is still cause for me to assume consensus per WP:TALKDONTREVERT. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

What is reason of changing the lower half of para?To present a personal opinion as fact? or any thing else?Msoamu (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Beliefs

In the disputed edit of mine, I changed this section:

"Like other Sunni Muslims, Barelvi base their beliefs on the Qur'an and Sunnah, and believe in monotheism and the prophethood of Muhammad. Barelvis follow the Ash'ari and Maturidi schools of aqidah, any one of the four school of fiqh, and the Qadri, Chishti, Naqshbandi or Suhrawardi Sufi orders."

To this wording:

"Like other Sunni Muslims, Barelvis claim to base their beliefs on the Qur'an and prophetic tradition, and to believe in monotheism and the prophethood of Muhammad. Barelvis follow the Ash'ari and Maturidi schools of Islamic theology, the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, and the Qadiri, Chishti or Suhrawardi Sufi orders."

There are some issues worth discussing regarding this. The first is the basis of Barelvi beliefs. It is not hidden that while Barelvis uphold that their beliefs are correct and based on the Qur'an and Sunnah (per all Sunni Muslims), the detractors of the Barelvi movement disagree. Rather than go into such disputes, I simply amended the first sentence to the more neutral version of presenting how Barelvis view themselves rather than presenting how Barelvis want themselves to be viewed.

Regarding jurisprudence, then there really shouldn't be any issue here. The four mainstream schools of Sunni jurisprudence are Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali. I don't know of a single Barelvi scholar who isn't Hanafi. If someone knows of a Barelvi scholar who is Shafi'i or something, then please speak up; that would be so odd that it might even warrant inclusion in the article!

Lastly, I corrected the commonly accepted spelling of the Qadiri Sufi order in English and I removed references to the Naqshbandi Sufi order as none of the sources on this article seem to mention Barelvis as being a part of that order. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'd like to see other opinions regarding all of these edits. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• You might not know a Non Hanafi Barelvi Scholars from Indian Subcontinent.That does not meant that they are not.There is already

Scholar in the Barelvi Article named Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musalyar who is Shafai.Shafai of Sri lanka,Kerala are directly associated with this movement.

• There is a very Prominent Imam of Ahle Sunnat or Barelvi in New Delhi grand Mosque, named

Mukarram Ahmad who is master of Sufi Naqshbandi order.This is the same Scholar whose page you had unsuccessfully nominated for deletion [20] before removing content, in your continuation of proposing these Sufi oriented Articles for deletion.

Now-

"Like other Sunni Muslims, Barelvis beliefs on the Qur'an and prophetic tradition, (Contesting Claim-to base their beliefs? Does it mean is there some doubt they have beliefs in Quran and Prophetic Traditions?

Interpretation of these sources have created various movements but Article can't be written from the view point of critics who doubted.)It must be neutral from all angles.

There is no POV in this lines that

Barelvis beliefs on the Qur'an and prophetic tradition.

now I propose this line

Barelvis holds that the Qur'an,the Hadith and the consensus Ijma of Scholars and Qiyas as sufficient guidance for the Muslim.

and believe in monotheism and the prophethood of Muhammad. They follow the Ash'ari and Maturidi schools of Islamic theology, the Hanafi Shafai school of jurisprudence, and the Qadri, Chishti,Naqshbandi or Suhrawardi Sufi orders."

Regarding the Proposal of name of Qadri Sufi order,Wiki Article with this spelling Qadri is enough to suggest that this is ok.Msoamu (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious POV and grammatical issues with your suggestion, there are three matters which require clarification before I give a more cogent reply?

1. The article for Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musalyar doesn't mention him being a Barelvi. The category is there, but considering that there is no other mention of the movement in the whole article, it could reasonably be removed.

2. The article for Mukarram Ahmad doesn't mention anything about Naqshbandiya. In both of the above, you will need to bring reliable sources before continuing.

3. There is no Wiki article with the spelling "Qadri." What you linked to here is a redirect page. Redirect pages often contain variant spellings, common erroneous spellings or in the case of words which are not originally English (like this), various different transliterations. Please review Wikipedia:Redirect for more info about that.

I have more comments about your...uh...comments as well, but I need responses to the above three points before going any further. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

We're still waiting to see clear-cut cases of Barelvis who are recognized sheikhs in the Naqshbandi order - and keep in mind that one Barelvi sheikh being a member of the order isn't really sufficient to prove that membership in the order is common throughout the movement. Non-Hanafi madhahib is another thing too; if there is a non-Hanafi Barelvi then even I'm interested in reading about such a person. Beyond that, I'm still waiting for comments on the POV issues which I tried to clean up in this section; movements claim to base their beliefs on many things, but that shouldn't be stated as objective fact when similar movements show opposition - Wikipedia informs, the readers judge for themselves. This should be simple to wrap up. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, I can't rule out the possibility to there being recognized Barelvi clerics who are non-Hanafi in madhhab, or who follow the Naqshbandi tariqa. If reliable sources could be brought to prove that, then awesome! It would absolutely enhance the article with a fact about which many of us don't know. Unfortunately, based on the above, I have seen neither reliable sources nor sound argument to support such as case. If neither are brought, I'm assuming the contentions have been dropped and my original suggested improvements to the "beliefs" section can be put back in. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

In this heading of discussion-

I have suggested this para which is most neutral and verifiable about an Islamic movement Ahle Sunnat.

Barelvis holds that the Qur'an,the Hadith and the consensus Ijma of Scholars and Qiyas as sufficient guidance for the Muslim.and believe in monotheism and the prophethood of Muhammad. They follow the Ash'ari and Maturidi schools of Islamic theology, the Hanafi Shafai school of jurisprudence, and the Qadri, Chishti,Naqshbandi or Suhrawardi Sufi orders..

There is no POV in the heading written already in the Article.Other issues may be discussed in other headings.It is established fact they are larger community on south Asia so it is a fact and natural that all four prominent chain of sufism are represented well in this Ahle Sunnat movement.Msoamu (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

If there isn't any POV in the section of the article now, then why are you suggesting a new version? It doesn't make sense to me. Beyond that, you haven't provided any proof of Barelvi scholars who follow the Shafi'i madhhab or the Naqshbandi order. And if you take those two parts out, then you basically are suggesting the same as my proposed edit, albeit with spelling and grammatical errors. Am I to understand, then, that your main issue is mentioning the Shafi'i school and the Naqshbandi order? MezzoMezzo (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This is one issue where I'm going to have to get pushy. Msoamu, please respond to my comments. Your suggestion is the same as mine with two differences: you insert to claims which you have utterly failed to substantiate, and the quality of writing is awful. Because your suggestion is the same as mine aside from these two points, I will assume that you support my edits on principle. I suggest that we reinstate my edits as they were, and then both of us continue searching for reliable sources stating that there are Barelvis who follow the Shafi'i school of Islamic law and who follow the Naqshbandi order. If reliable sources are found then of course it should be mentioned, and I'm even interested in inspecting this issue. But that dispute should not prevent us from reinstating my edits, which improve the article and thus Wikipedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Same as above, Msoamu; your suggestion and my suggestion are almost the same, though mine contains better grammar and prose. We seem to agree on everything except for two points, and I already explained to you that if you bring valid sources, then I will agree with your extra points. I'm going to reinstate this section now, and considering that we more or less agree on this issue then I don't see why it should be removed. Just bring sources for your claims and if you do, I will even insert your suggestions myself - this is about good composition and good citation, not me versus you. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

My proposal

Barelvis holds that the Qur'an,the Hadith and the consensus Ijma of Scholars and Qiyas as sufficient guidance for the Muslim.and believe in monotheism and the prophethood of Muhammad. They follow the Ash'ari and Maturidi schools of Islamic theology, the Hanafi Shafai school of jurisprudence, and the Qadri, Chishti,Naqshbandi or Suhrawardi Sufi orders..

You are challenging ,the burden lies on you MezzoMezzo.Though i have even given you examples of notable Barelvi scholars from Shafi school and from Naqshbandi Sufi chain.Msoamu (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Muhammad

In this subsection, I changed the following point:

"Asking auliyā' (Muslim saints) for intercession to God on behalf of the living. This consists of the intervention of an ascending, linked and unbroken chain of holy personages, pirs (Sufi saints) reaching ultimately to Muhammad, who intercede on their behalf with God."

To this version:

"Veneration of the dead, including asking auliyā' (Muslim saints) for intercession to God on behalf of the living. This consists of the intervention of an ascending, linked and unbroken chain of holy personages, pirs (Sufi teacher) reaching ultimately to Muhammad, who Barelvis believe intercede on their behalf with God."

I actually feel that, if we take the sources provided, I was defending the Barelvi movement from misrepresentation. Most of the sources which mention Barelvi practices don't refer to asking Muslim saints for intercession, first and foremost because most native English speakers have no idea what auliya are. Rather, most of the sources which mention this practice seem to refer to it as "tomb worship."

I think we can all agree that "tomb worship" is pejorative and almost condescending; Barelvis obviously don't believe they are worshipping tombs so in this case, the presented version (auliya) isn't well understood and the term used in many of the sources seems to miss the point. The "veneration of the dead" article here on Wikipedia seemed to be the closest thing to actual intent, and pairing it with the auliya version seems to make it clearer.

As for interceding on people's behalf with God, then this is obviously a dogmatic religious belief and Wikipedia is not here to promote anyone's relgious beliefs; it needs to be clear that Barelvi's believe this happens, not reported objectively that it happens.

As for calling pirs teachers instead of saints then perhaps I am simply unfamiliar with Indian/Pakistani terminologies, but I thought a pir is a teacher. That might need clarification from a Barelvi editor, as does all of the above here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

In the following Para ,

• "Asking auliyā' (Muslim saints) for intercession to God on behalf of the living. This consists of the intervention of an ascending, linked and unbroken chain of holy personages, pirs (Sufi saints) reaching ultimately to Muhammad, who intercede on their behalf with God.

well sourced[21]

• I propose addition of Prophet as per this valid and reliable source[22]

Asking Prophet Muhammad and Muslim Saint for intercession is their basic Practice and a point of contention with other movements such as withSalafi and Wahabi.Who opposes this Practice.[23][24][25]

So,I suggest it

• Asking Prophet Muhammad and auliyā' (Muslim saints) for intercession to God on behalf of the living. This consists of the intervention of an ascending, linked and unbroken chain of holy personages, Pirs (Sufi saints) reaching ultimately to Prophet Muhammad, who intercede on their behalf with God.

This sentence is totally objective and neutral.This is Barelvis most common practice that they seek intercession of Prophet Muhammad and Saints.Msoamu (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The word "prophet" CAN NOT be used. Please review MOS:HONORIFIC, this is very clear there.

Global Security is absolutely not a reliable source, by the way. Aside from being poorly written, they compile material from multiple websites. It's basically just a fork site; besides that, this section is about Barelvi beliefs. I don't see any reason to include the beliefs of other groups except to make some sort of a discussion regarding relations, but there's already a section in the article for that.

Now, about your suggestion...holy? Unbroken chain? Presenting Muhammad's intercession as fact instead of dogmatic belief? I'm sorry, but no. That's not going to fly at all and the reasons are clear. You're trying to present what Muslims believe as objective fact on an encyclopedia, whether that be consciously or subconsciously on your part. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to read some more comments regarding the veneration of the dead vs. tomb worship cannotation in addition to some of the semantic issues here. We made a lot of progress up until three days ago - we're very close to finishing the whole dispute and improving the article from the obvious POV issues it contains. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a contentious section revolving around issues which have been contentious elsewhere on Wikipedia. Referring to our prophet Muhammad as "the prophet Muhammad" in an article is a no-no on an encyclopedia. Perhaps what we could do is refer to him as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if that would satisfy our Barelvi editors. I don't know how those more familiar with the policy would feel, but "the prophet Muhammad" does seem like an honorific; perhaps "the Muslim prophet Muhammad" or "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" would be considered a description rather than a title?

I would also like to revisit the semantic issues above - especially the fact that my suggestion, veneration of the dead, is far more polite than the terms used even in academic sources ("tomb worship"). If anything, my edit was an attempt to show the movement's actions in a more positive light at which case I left myself open to accusations of pro-Barelvi POV; how this ended up being an issue where I was supposedly pushing anti-Barelvi POV is beyond me. Anyway, what do the other editors here think? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The already written -

• Asking Prophet Muhammad and auliyā' (Muslim saints) for intercession to God on behalf of the living. This consists of the intervention of an ascending, linked and unbroken chain of holy personages, Pirs (Sufi saints) reaching ultimately to Prophet Muhammad, who intercede on their behalf with God.

Global security- is reliable source and has been used widely on various Islamic article with out objections from neutral editors.It is Neutral and non partisan.It has clear and objective description about various movements including Barelvi movement.More over the point is also supported by another valid Neutral source named,Martin Parsons (1 January 2006). Unveiling God: Contextualizing Christology for Islamic Culture. William Carey Library. pp. 149–. ISBN 978-0-87808-454-8. Retrieved 20 April 2011.

• The Practice of Intercession is not limited to Indian Sufi Muslims but it is most common in the world connecting it to veneration of Dead is just narrowing down the total concept of intercession according to personal views.

Intercession- or Tawassul "supplicating Allah by means of an intermediary, whether it be a living person, dead person, a good deed,or a name or Attribute of Allah Most High'.This if from the Reliance_of_the_traveller which is a translation of a classic work of Shafi'i Fiqh and which has been approved of as being conformant with the beliefs of the orthodox Sunni community by the Al-Azhar university.All the supporters take this verse of Holy Quran in Sunni Muslims (including Asian Sufi or Barelvis) of Intercession,If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful (4:64). To change its meaning,idea,concept,terminology according to personal opinion is an attempt to just prove a Point and obviously Wikipedia is not to prove a Point.Msoamu (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Msoamu, how do you know that I am suggesting "veneration of the dead" due to my personal views? Do you even know what my personal views are? And on what basis are you accusing me of editing to prove a point? MezzoMezzo (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm still quite bothered by these personal accusations, and would appreciate some sort of explanation or retraction. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Veneration of Dead is an accusations on Muslims who follow Sufism.This is the basic allegation of Salafism on Sufi followers.Barelvis believes in Tawassul which is wider and more broader concept as has been proved just above.The Proposal you brought in the already written following para

"Asking auliyā' (Muslim saints) for intercession to God on behalf of the living. This consists of the intervention of an ascending, linked and unbroken chain of holy personages, pirs (Sufi saints) reaching ultimately to Muhammad, who intercede on their behalf with God."

To this version:

"Veneration of the dead, including asking auliyā' (Muslim saints) for intercession to God on behalf of the living. This consists of the intervention of an ascending, linked and unbroken chain of holy personages, pirs (Sufi teacher) reaching ultimately to Muhammad, who Barelvis believe intercede on their behalf with God."

This proposal is just to show Barelvis are involved in veneration of Dead which is untrue.It is established fact that they follow Tawassul or Intercession of Prophet, Sufis.[26][27][28] Msoamu (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Msoamu, I think this is both an issue of your English and the personal problems between us. Tawassul and intercession aren't what the sources refer to; most of the sources provided refer to Barelvi practices as "tomb worship." I could very well suggest that this be included. Instead, I am suggesting veneration of the dead because I think it's actually fairer to the movement than are most scholarly sources; I'm attempting to neutralize the language used.

Will you say that the academic sources now - which are mostly written by non-Muslims - are someho "salafi"? Discuss the issues Msoamu, not the people behind statements. Veneration of the dead is a fairer version of "tomb worship" because obviously Barelvis don't worship the tombs, rather they feel they respect the pious and engage in certain practices which Salafis might oppose. My version, however, gives no credence to those criticisms; it is merely an attempt to specify the act for readers of Wikipedia, most of whom are native speakers of English and don't have prior knowledge of these movements.

Do you understand the reasoning behind my word choice now? Do you agree that following what the majority of the sources say - "tomb worship" - isn't the best choice of words? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Look, this is the bottom line: the current version is difficult for native speakers of English and non-Muslims (and even many Muslims) to understand without prior knowledge of the subject, nor does it follow the sources closely. My version is not only supported by the sources, but is actually kinder to the Barelvi movement than most mainstream sources are. I'm going to reinstate my edits for now as I haven't seen any legitimate opposition, just your (Msoamu) unfortunate misunderstandings of the English language and Wikipedia policies. If you still have a problem, then bring it here to talk but please don't revert without giving reasons why. What you've given so far aren't valid reasons and I think any outside observer will agree. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• If you are suggesting some changes bring reliable source.I suggest it from Barelvi and Non Barelvi sites.This belief can;t be changed as per personal opinion.

  Asking Prophet Muhammad and auliyā' (Muslim saints) for intercession to God on behalf of the living. This consists of the intervention of an ascending, linked and unbroken chain of holy personages, Pirs (Sufi saints) reaching ultimately to Prophet of Islam,Muhammad, who intercede on their behalf with God.

Msoamu (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Beard

Oh, I almost forgot. About the beard:

"Leaving the beard to grow for men; the movement views a man who trims his beard to less than a fist-length as a sinner, and shaving the beard is considered abominable."

This is a validly sourced belief and not a viewpoint which all Muslims hold. I thought it warranted mention since it is contained in a valid source as something which distinguishes the movement. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Arun Shourie source is not neutral and full of bias therefore not reliable.He is leader of Anti-Muslim Party.There is natural bias in his writings about Indian Muslims.This above pint is concept in Jurisprudence which has been derived from great Scholar of Islam Hadrat Shaykh ‘Abd al-Haq “Muhaddith-e-Dehlwi by Ahmad Raza Khan in the following words,to shave off completely or trim the beard very short once is a minor sin and to habitually do so is a major sin..Msoamu (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, Arun Shourie is a former economist from the World Bank and a legitimate scholar. In fact, I don't even see any criticisms in his Wikipedia article. You or any other editor not liking him doesn't cancel his notability and expertise on subjects relating to South Asian movements.

Second of all, what you're trying to quote there is a primary source. This is not totally disallowed by Wikipedia policy, but they can in some cases due to the care needed in dealing with them. Given the extremely partisan nature of this article, I cannot consent to the usage of any primary sources. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, a reading of WP:PRIMARY supports my claim that a primary source can theoretically be used but is generally avoided even on non-controversial articles. There's no reason to be quoting directly from Barelvi texts on the Barelvi article, just as there's no reason to quote directly from Deobandi texts in a criticism of Barelvism section, for example.

I would also like to remind those of us here about Arun Shourie. He was an economist with the world bank, the editor of two major newspapers and a former minister with the government of the world's largest democracy. That doesn't discount him from possibly being biased, but where is that bias? It must be demonstrated, and it certainly isn't demonstrated on his article - there isn't anything remotely critical or negative at all. I think this might be an issue where a reliable secondary source must be kept even if some editors and readers might not like what that source contains or who wrote it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It's been about five days. I would really like some sort of clarification or defense of the negative comments regarding Arun Shourie, and of the usage of a primary source in such a contentious, controversial article. I feel that my insertion here was warranted, neutral and supported by reliable sources. It also provides an interesting factoid about the movement to Wikipedia readers, as in this modern era many Muslims (including Hanafis in South Asia) don't hold the same view that the Barelvis do, though to be fair the Barelvi view here is the more traditional one according to Muslim primary religious sources. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, MezzoMezzo, you have waited long enough. I believe your insertion was warranted. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Arun Shourie is an RSS BJP functionary and the communal party of India.Theleader has sectarian and communal views.His Anti Muslim bias are notable enough to reject his written Book as valed and neutral source.Msoamu (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

He is an RSS feed? What does that mean? And as for his political party, then your accusation is regarding that party, not Shourie. You haven't brought any proof of him being biased; all you did here was talk about a political party and then repeat your claim that Shourie is biased. You holding the opinion that he is biased doesn't prove that he's biased. You need to find actual reliable sources to say that a respected academic scholar and newspaper editor who was once an economist for the World Bank is somehow biased, not a personal opinion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll put it this way to keep things simple. If Arun Shourie is biased, then there will be reliable secondary sources stating as such, and given the fact that he was once an official for the World Bank, such accusations would likely be in the mainstream media. One editor on a Wikipedia talk page saying Shourie is biased isn't proof. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Its not about how many are proving a partisan person as Biased.Its about proving him.He belongs to RSS a communal organization which has history of committing riots against Muslims.He is biased and his views are not reliable.Msoamu (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is he biased and not reliable? That's what I'm asking. Is he biased and not reliable because Msoamu says so? Are we to edit articles based on the opinions of individual editors now? You're not bringing valid sources to prove his bias. If such sources were available, then they should be on his own biographic entry here on Wikipedia. I see no such thing on his article, and you stating that he is biased is not a form of evidence. Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT, arguments of "I like it" or "I just don't like it" - or, in this case, "I just don't like the source" - carry no weight whatsoever. If you can't reasonably discuss this source, then per the mentioned policy I will disregard your comments and consider this to be a new consensus. Please read what I've said and give a valid response, not just another "the source is wrong" type of message. You're not proving anything by doing that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This is getting really old, man. This appears to be either stonewalling, or the other editor (Msoamu) is too busy in real life to contribute, and work on improving Wikipedia articles shouldn't come to a standstill because of any editor. I'm going to reinstate this valid, reliable source. Please do NOT remove it unless you can provide evidence that Arun Shourie is specifically unacceptable, though I don't think you can - I mean, the man is an academic, a journalist, a media icon and a former economist at the World Bank. Saying "he's biased" doesn't cut it per WP:TALKDONTREVERT. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Though Arun Shourie is biased but to break this ice I am ready to accept your point but make a separate heading for it.Jurisprudence.The issue comes under jurisprudence.Msoamu (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Relations with other movements

Before the subsections for this section, I added the following sourced paragraphs:

"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.

"Although conflict has occurred, relations with other Muslim movements in South Asia have not always been hostile. In mid-2012, leaders of both the Barelvi and Ahl al-Hadith movements in Kashmir Valley denied that there was any animosity between the two sects in the region. In more recent times, the Barelvi movement as a whole has begun to mix with Shi'ites more often than before."

The strain in relations between Barelvis and Deobandis is well known and has affected much inter-Muslim discourse in the region. In fact, I believe Ahmed Khan's excommunication of Deobandis is even mentioned on the page for him here on Wikipedia. His declaration of apostasy for the rival movement is the best way to demonstrate the strained relations with other movements, and, of course, numerous other sources can be found for the same sentence.

As for the mending of ties with Ahle Hadith, then I stumbled upon the source entirely by accident and was shocked. It's a good sign for everyone in the region and certainly notable, considering all the doctrinal differences between the two groups. I don't know why anyone would remove it, though I suspect that as a reaction to other sections, all of my edits were just reverted en masse without real inspection. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The Present Subsection has clearly established this fact-

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.Your proposed following

"Having formed as a reaction against the reformistPOV Deobandi movement,(not only Deobandi but Ahle Hadees,Salafi,wahabi,Shia,Ahmadi)

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. Not Valid source,Highly biased source.

fatwās of apostasy was issued against the founders of the Deobandi, Shia Islam and the Ahmadiyya Community not against all People.

• Your text-

"Although conflict has occurred, relations with other Muslim movements in South Asia have not always been hostile. In mid-2012, leaders of both the Barelvi and Ahl al-Hadith movements in Kashmir Valley denied that there was any animosity between the two sects in the region.

• I suggest as this is very minor stance of

What message it carries,denial of animosity? Means normal relations. Dear Luken, Don't you think it should be in Support section?

• In more recent times, the Barelvi movement as a whole has begun to mix with Shi'ites more often than before."

This is biased piece and blatant lie.SeeWikipedia:Neutral point of view,Wikipedia:Exceptional claims.Msoamu (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain what exactly is wrong with the sources? Simply stating that you think they are biased doesn't make it so. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to revisit this as I don't want the issue to slide, this appears to be another issue of a source not being biased so much as not confirming the preconceptions of some editors and readers. Not just the sources provided, but even beyond that numerous reliable secondary sources confirm that Deobandis were a reformist movement, the Barelvi movement formed as a reaction to Deobandism, the fatwa of apostasy was against all members of the movements/opposing groups wholesale, and in recent times there has been rapproachment between Barelvis and Ahl e Hadith in Kashmir and between Barelvis and Shi'ites in general. Other users have suggested this to you (Msoamu) before and I'm not sure if you read the page in full, but please review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I think it will clarify a lot of the issues which have popped up here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting for clarifications or counter-arguments beyond "the sources are not neutral" and "this is blatant lie." The information which is supported by valid sources here is also found elsewhere on Wikipedia; the takfir of other groups is known. Additionally, my insertion regarding reconciliation efforts between Barelvis and Ahl al-Hadith was objective and made in good faith, but as an aside it's also a positive sign for peace among religious groups in the region. I don't know why anybody would oppose such an insertion when reliably sourced. Both pieces of information absolutely enhance Wikipedia and I don't see why they shouldn't be put back in. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Few of my points have already been clarified by me.The source is typical sectarian biased source which talks about factual inaccuracy to promote his own sect.Ahmed Raza Khan did not issued Fatwas against all Deobandis.Allready written and supported by valid source in the Article.Msoamu (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is the source sectarian? Why is it biased? What inaccurate facts does it promote? Msoamu, are you sure that you read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources thoroughly enough? MezzoMezzo (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting on this one. I really don't see any problems with the sources per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and Wikipedia editors - you, me or anyone else - voicing the opinion that a source is biased doesn't make it so. I have to be honest, this seems like refusal to get to the point. This article is in need of serious improvements and those improvements shouldn't be hampered in this fashion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

In more recent times, the Barelvi movement as a whole has begun to mix with Shi'ites more often than before-This is most negative and false allegation imposed by Opposition groups.You have to first explain and prove the points of mixed up.Just simply alleging that served no purpose.Msoamu (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I already proved it with the source. If you don't provide an actual reason as to why the source is invalid, then it will be reinserted into the article regardless of your protests. You really need to review WP:CONSENSUS - it seems you haven't read it at all. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I've waited long enough, and so have the readers. "The source is lying" is invalid per WP:TALKDONTREVERT. I will be reinstating the validly sourced material; if you (Msoamu) want to remove it, then be prepared to support your claims with evidence; don't just rephrase them here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Arun Shourie is Islam basher and Non neutral personalityrunning campaign of Misinformation against Islam and your claim of him being neutral is debunked now.Third Party sources confirm it.Read.Neither he nor his point is valid and neutral.

Further your exceptional claim and accusation needs to be proved.

• In more recent times, the Barelvi movement as a whole has begun to mix with Shi'ites more often than before."

This is biased piece and blatant lie.SeeWikipedia:Neutral point of view,Wikipedia:Exceptional claims.You are proposing this through a Muslim author,there are fair chances of him being non neutral.It is like Christians have begun to mix with Hindus more often than before.Msoamu (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Support

In this subsection, I made the following addition:

"Although the Nadwatul Ulema council was founded in 1893 to reconcile the Indian Subcontinent's Muslim sectarian differences, the Barelwis eventually withdrew their support of the council and criticized its efforts."

It seems relevant considering that the Nadwa Council is already mentioned in the article, and that the Barelvis were at least partially supportive at one time. I can't really see why this small snippet would be removed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• You need a reference for the second bit there, otherwise it seems like WP:OR. It also isn't particularly well worded, and should be more like "They withdrew support for the council after discovering that the underlying principles of the council were those of a Wahabi nature.(ref goes here) Today, the Barelvi movement still opposes the council.(ref 2 goes here) The first bit seems OK. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That second bit is NOT what I wrote. Shabiha edited my comment here. I didn't suggest that and I find it very childish and rude that s/he is apparently editing my own comments now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Nadwa ,

Although the Nadwatul Ulema council was founded in 1893 to reconcile the Indian Subcontinent's Muslim sectarian differences,(There are no reliable sources to prove this,source of Riaz is unreliable).

The Nadwa college is part of Deobandi wahabi movement so there was no point of supporting it.

the Barelwis eventually withdrew their support of the council and criticized its efforts.".This was natural.Msoamu (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

In Support subsection-I am adding this-

Sunni Barelvis have cordial relations with a number of International movements and Scholars.Prominent Sunni scholar of Saudi Arabia Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki was given Ijazah permission to give Bayaa'h by Mustafa Raza Khan.

Many prominent Europeans and Arabic Sunni Sufi Scholars have supported this movement in its stand against Wahabism and Deobandi.Many are regular visitors of their mosque and to various events such as Dhikr and Mawlid.Famous Islamic author Gibril Haddad defended Barelvi faiths and criticized Deobandi for Wahabi influence on it. Ali Gomaa grand Mufti of Egypt,,Saudi scholar Dr Umar Abdulla Kamil 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.. Msoamu (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Again Msoamu, why is Riaz not a reliable source? Your opinion is not a form of evidence. You need to defend your position.

As for your suggestion, then it needs some major work but the idea in and of itself seems good. Youtube is absolutely rejected as a source, and livingislam is a highly partisan site designed primarily to attack any and all non-Sufi Muslims. Ali Gomoa's own website is a primary source and thus doesn't prove the notability of his connection. The Hindu is fine. I don't know what Islami Education is. What is it? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, still waiting for further comments on what exactly is wrong with the sources presented. Aside from the fact that the sources seem to contradict the personal opinion of one editor, there doesn't seem to be any other opposition. That is the crux of the issue; my suggestions are in line with the sources themselves, so I think the debate is regarding the sources rather than the specific wording. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If no credible arguments are brought, then I don't see why the material in question can't be put back in the article. The argument seems to be against Ali Riaz as a source, but no actual reasons have been given; this is the reason why it seemed to be an issue of NPOV on other than the part of Riaz. His book is published by Rutgers University Press, a respected printing press of a respected university. While the possibility of bias can never be ruled out for any source, it's safe to say that in order to level that accusation against a scholarly work from such a reputable publisher, the accuser will need to bring some serious evidence - so far, I have seen none. Riaz is already mentioned in the article's bibliography at the bottom so it was obviously used in the composition of this article already, and I believe he is cited as a source elsewhere. I'm somewhat shocked and unless this argument can be backed up, then like I said, the material in question needs to be reinserted for the good of the article and its readers. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been almost three weeks since I've seen any replies here. Improvements to this article should not be stifled. Given that during the past three weeks Msoamu and Shabiha have been active here and elsewhere, it's fair to say that they've seen my comments here, as have other concerned editors, and have elected to not respond. Three weeks is very fair on my part and if I don't see any responses soon, I will assume a silent consensus per WP:TALKDONTREVERT. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The Barelvi movement has been supportive of only Sufi movements and Nadwa movement was opposed due to its Wahabi leanings.This complete picture should be written.Also I have supported it-Many prominent Europeans and Arabic Sunni Sufi Scholars have supported this movement in its stand against Wahabism and Deobandi.Many are regular visitors of their mosque and to various events such as Dhikr and Mawlid.Famous Islamic author Gibril Haddad defended Barelvi faiths and criticized Deobandi for Wahabi influence on it.

Ali Gomaa grand Mufti of Egypt,,Saudi scholar Dr Umar Abdulla Kamil 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..Msoamu (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

For the most part, I agree with you. I don't agree with using Youtube as a source, nor using Ali Gomoa's personal website as it's a primary source and that issue has been discussed here already, but in essence I absolutely support your suggestion.

But you still didn't answer my question: why is Riaz's book a biased source? If you can't provide any evidence, then it will end up back in the article. I hope you realize that efforts to stonewall progress on the article will eventually fail. Please respond. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm reinserting my suggested edits now; they are validly and reliably sourced and I haven't seen any legitimate claims proving otherwise. As for Msoamu's suggestion, then I'm all for it barring the two links I mentioned above. Given that I have a lot of work to do myself, I don't have the time to insert Msoamu's edit at this time. If he doesn't respond after a few days or doesn't insert the edits on his own, then I will do it, time permitting. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is not about Nadwa movement and it is about Barelvi Movement.For what Nadwa council was formed or not is not subject matter here but why Barelvis oppose them is really relevant? Riaz being a Muslim author can be biased and Non neutral.He can be Deobandi,Wahabi,Shia,Qadiani.We must bring here more reliable neutral sources.Even if it can be accepted as source than language needs to be neutralized which is praising Nadwa movement in Barelvi Article and trying to show that Barelvis created a Problem.The language and meaning must be non neutral.So,

Nadwatul Ulema council was founded in 1893 ,Barelvis withdrew support for the council after discovering that the underlying principles of the council were those of a Wahabi nature.

• Lets insert it-

Many prominent Europeans and Arabic Sunni Sufi Scholars have supported this movement in its stand against Wahabism and Deobandi.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. Ali Gomaa grand Mufti of Egypt,,Saudi scholar Dr Umar Abdulla Kamil 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.

You Tube can be accepted as Source sometimes.

Msoamu (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Sectarian violence

In the disputed edit, I made the following addition:

"South Asian 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."

The source is, again, the Eurasia Review, a valid source. It also comes in a section about mutual violence between Barelvis and various other sectarian movements. Note that the addition doesn't make the claim that Barelvis are as affected by intolerance and radicalism, as though that is actual fact. The sentence starts with: "South Asian analysts have claimed." I feel this makes it very clear to the reader that this is merely a claimed opinion held by some analysts, not an objective fact. I can't imagine why this would be removed other than for the purposes of whitewashing the history of sectarian violence in South Asia and trying to hide certain elements from the eyes of readers. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• I would definitely state that this sentence should stay as-is in the article, perhaps adding a ref for each half of the sentence maybe? Just to be sure. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to find more references for both halves of the sentence tomorrow while looking up the assassination condemnation. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• And where are they? ;) Lukeno94 (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a thought; could we cite already existing sources from the article multiple times in this case? Obviously the aforementioned Khaled Ahmed could source the second part of the sentence, and some of the news articles in the "presence" section might be able to do so as well. The first part has been repeated in some sources which I believe are on other Wikipedia articles; I will try to bring them here for review. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, the interview with Khaled Ahmed does seem to imply that Barelvis are all peaceful, which could ref that part of the sentence - the interview is here and is already cited as a source once in the article - though in a very non-neutral way as I pointed out above. We could just cite it again here, as Ahmed is obviously a notable journalist. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that this proposed edit has received no opposition at all and has even received input from other concerned editors, I think it's safe to assume that it forms the new consensus. Given that consensus, whether voice or silent, is now emerging elsewhere on this talk page, I will probably wait a few more days to see if anyone wants to speak. If they forever hold their peace, then I wouldn't expect any opposition to reinstating these edits. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Personal views and opinions can't term a whole movement as intolerant and radical.There are hundreds of thousands views against this view.This is minor view in terms of movement which has received praised for being Peaceful and moderates.You have to prove through authentic researches and Datas.As you have claimed ,burden lies on you.Msoamu (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The source I provided is from professional analysts and the proof has been provided. The links you gave can also be in the sentence - remember that the sentence mentions BOTH views. You can't simply discount anything remotely negative about this movement as "just opinion." You've given us good sources for the second part of the sentence, but nothing to dispute the first. Again, if you can't provide anything beyond "the source is wrong," then your peers have the right to discount your view from the consensus. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

None of the sources I used were merely personal opinions and I think any observer will agree. On the other hand, Msoamu did make a valid suggestion. The obvious compromise is to insert BOTH suggestions and give them equal weight. This seems to be the fairest and most rational compromise, and both improves the article and allows the discussion to move on. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This is minor opinion and should be dropped.Major sources have confirmed it as Peaceful in the U.K (Timesonline) and moderatein India Pakistan Bangladesh here [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] Google Moderate Results.Your suggestion,they are in Pakistan affected by intolerance and radicalism ,is minority and personal view and as per Wiki:Undue should not be here.Msoamu (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo,I provided you many sources which says they are moderates and Peaceful and you used them with out actually inferring meaning from them and insisted on your biased version.Which present one view.This is your vision of keeping Articles neutral?The language and wordings used by you is cherry picking and is biased.There is not at all no requirement relevance to present every minute details of an incident.One incident from history can't portray majority of South Asian Muslims as radical.This view is personal opinion and Biased one.Radical and intolerance are highly biased wordings.I hope you will work with more coordination.I would support this view which is more neutral.Scholars from all sects boycotted his funeral.Prayer leader of Badshahi mosque (Deobandi)rejected a request to lead prayer.

On 4 January 2011, Taseer was assassinated in Islamabad by his own security guard Mumtaz Qadri, a Barelvi,who disagreed with Taseer's opposition to Pakistan's blasphemy law.His funeral was denounced by some (in fact the majority of) clerics and religious scholars (from all sects and groups) from mourning Taseer.Taseer was against the blasphemy law and termed it a black law.It was suspected that this was the main reason for his assassination. This is not suitable for sectarian violence heading.I propose to make it in Reaction to blasphemy law section.which will be clear and more neutral in tone.There was no sectarian violence and all sects opposed this funeral. Msoamu (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Assassination

I believe this is the last of the disputed edits. I added the following information:

"On January 4, 2011, former governor of Punjab Salmaan Taseer was assassinated by a member of the Barelvi movement due to his opposition to the blasphemy law in Pakistan. Over five-hundred scholars of the Barelvi movement voiced support for the crime and urged a boycott of Taseer's funeral. Supporters attempted to prevent police from bringing the perpetrator to an anti-terrorism court, blocking the way and cheering on the assassin."

I really feel that the importance of this section goes without saying. The articles for other religious movements whose members have committed violence contain sections on said violence by members, even while making it clear that the acts of some members don't represent the entire group. The same goes here; I felt that my addition made it clear that the assassination, it's support and the funeral boycott were acts by some individuals and not all members of the Barelvi movement condone those acts.

This section cannot be removed, though. That these acts took place is a fact. All of it is supported by valid sources and this was recently in the news. Again, does the movement as a whole support this? No. If that isn't clear, then my addition can be worked on, but I feel that it is clear. This one is really in need of more input. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• It does need to be present, yes, but you may want to try and find a Barelvi source that condemned the attacks, just to ensure a fully NPOV section. This is assuming, of course, one exists. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

There probably is if we look hard enough. I can try to find one on the Net tomorrow morning, unless someone else can find a condemnation first. Then we could just combine. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• There's mention about the condemnation here:[37] Lukeno94 (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I found a second source about the 500 clerics supporting the assassination here and a source about Barelvi scholars defending the assassinated governor here. It also mentions that Tahir al-Qadri declared Salman Taseer's statements to NOT amount to blasphemy, and I'm pretty sure Qadri is a Barelvi, someone correct me if I'm wrong. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright, let's wrap all this up. Here is a new suggested version:

"On January 4, 2011, former governor of Punjab Salmaan Taseer was assassinated by a member of the Barelvi movement due to his opposition to the blasphemy law in Pakistan. Over five-hundred scholars of the Barelvi movement voiced support for the crime and urged a boycott of Taseer's funeral, though other prominent Barelvi scholars condemnded the assassination, signalling a split. Supporters attempted to prevent police from bringing the perpetrator to an anti-terrorism court, blocking the way and cheering on the assassin."

I hope that this version is found to be fair to all sides in showing the nuance within the Barelvi movement. Hopefully, this can be reinserted as well and we can wrap up work on this article - it's been a very long time. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. You have been fair to all sides. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This old news serves no purpose.There can be hundreds of old news related to killings and assassination of people of different movements.Like We can't insert assassination of all Sufis,their followers into Wahabi Page. or we are not going to insert assassination of Christians and shias by Wahabis with name in to Salafi article.Similarly this old news of an assassination is totally Undue and irrelevant to the movement.There are already incidents of some killings in violence section.Msoamu (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

An extremely notable political figure assassinated due to a controversial issue (blasphemy laws in Pakistan) is so notable that your comments don't even warrant a response; the fact that 500 Barelvi scholars supported it, along with prominent ones like Tahir al-Qadri denouncing it, is likewise significant. Your comments carry no weight, and your constant attempts to prevent anything you don't like from appearing in the article are not appreciated. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The assassination of a major government figure and the split it caused among Barelvi scholars is absolutely notable, and whether its new news or old news doesn't make a different. Multiple users support the suggested edits; I will reinstate them now. If anybody has a problem, then pelase bring actual evidence, not pithy comments like "it serves no purpose." Knowledge and information access IS the purpose of Wikipedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It may be notable as per your opinion but not as per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and see also Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.Msoamu (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Msoamu, please re-read those policies. They don't say what you imply they say. Simply because something is news does not mean we exclude it. That says that we don't cover routine news. Furthermore, "indiscriminate collections of info" refers to things like listing everyone who lives in a city, or a complete list of all paintings in a given museum, or a list of all products made by a given company. I'm not saying the info belongs here (the key question to answer would be whether or not this meets WP:UNDUE, and whether WP:BLPGROUP is being respected), but the policies you've cited have no relevance here. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

References