Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:10, 10 February 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barelvi movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Islam Start‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barelvi movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Guidelines for developing and editing Islam-related Misplaced Pages articles are at: Misplaced Pages:MOSISLAM

References and Notes

we need this section.

Shrine and grave worshipping

Dear fellow editors, I have never personally believed that Barelvi Muslims "worship" shrines and graves. Yet my personal opinion should not be the basis for adding or removing Misplaced Pages statements on this issue. Nor should anyone else's opinion serve as that basis. EVIDENCE is the vital thing. If Barelvis do NOT worship shrines and graves, there should be citations to reliable and neutral (third-party) sources saying that. Given that the claim that they do worship shrines and graves has two citations to sources, I have felt duty bound to protect the integrity of Misplaced Pages by upholding the principle of verifiability. Please don't just delete, add or modify things you don't like without providing sources. Thanks and best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Though modern or urban living barelvi don't practice grave worshipping but in villages and on famous shrines like Data Darbar and Sakhi sarwar shrine its very common. even 2 or three years ago pakistani taliban attacked on these shrines due to worshipping issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqibsandhu (talk • contribs) 06:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Can the following citation be used to refute the claim that they worship graves and shrines? http://www.jamatahlesunnat.ca/intro.htm. In the set of common beleifs of all denominations claiming to be Ahle Sunnat Wal Jama’at (inlcuding Barelvi), it is clearly mentioned that they worship ONLY Allah.

Sorry, but it cannot be used as a source. It is not a neutral and third-party source as defined by WP:SOURCES. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

GCS: given that the term "worship" is not a precise technical term, do you reckon there'd be value in a slight rephrase to "venerate" or similar? Not to try to twist the source, but given that in this context "worship" can be confused with "see as equivalent to God" (which is evidently rubbing some readers wrong), maybe the term "venerate" would be a legitimate paraphrase of the source which gets across the right impression but doesn't leave as much room for interpretations of apostasy? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a cite by USIP (decently reputable, though this book leans toward tertiary) using "devotion" and "venerating": . We could also flesh that out by noting that the opponents of the Barelvi label these acts as "worshipping", so we can clarify the contention there. Cites for latter: MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear MatthewVanitas, I think your judgement is spot-on. Let's try to create a more balanced section using your recommendations. Excellent work. If we try to steer a neutral and source-based path, we should be able to enhance clarity and prevent excessive excitement and un-constructive edits. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all it is submitted that Ahle Sunnah commonly called Barelvis don't worship any one beside Allah.The Article clearly says that they belives in monothism then what is the problem? The false accusations can't be content for wiki to show a Sunni Movement in bad light in the eyes of other Muslims.There are thousands of Urdu and English sources and moreover when they themselves accept that they worship Allah only then POV should be stopped.Moreover you need to see this visiting of Tombs of Muslim saints in the larger context .This Practice is most common all over Muslim world.There are thousands of Tombs in Egypt,Turkey,Libia,Syria,Saudi Arabia Afghanistan etc.The Muslims visit these places to seek blessings of Pious persons.There is group named ""Wahabism"" or Deobandis/Salafis who in their own interpretation considers it as something wrong but theirs is not general and widely accepted opinion.Top Islamic Institution of the world,Al Azhar ,considers it lawful.Muslim prays at the grave of Holy Prophet (peace and blessings upon him) in Medina city of Saudi Arabia,there is little dispute and only minority opposes it.It may be included in criticism section separately.The characteristics section should be free from biased points.I am removing that point Shabiha 20:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this sentence -- "Veneration of, or intercessional prayers offered at, shrines and the graves of saints, a practice which opponents call “shrine-worshipping” and “grave-worshiping” and consider to be un-Islamic" -- is a well referenced and neutral statement that does NOT say that Barelvis worship shrines. It says that they pray AT the shrines, which some opponents object to and characterize (wrongly or rightly) as the wrong thing to do. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is no problem with these wording if they are put in specific section named criticism section.Opponents have another views of all practices which barelvi Sunnis follows that does not mean that prominence will be given to their criticism.It will be problematic for wikipedia to allow this type of prominence to criticism in main section where general content is written.I am changing its place. Shabiha 05:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. I think you are mistaken to believe that the line above should be moved into a new "Criticism" section. It is certainly not "problematic" where it is, and moving it will actually (a) give the issue more prominence; (b) leave the "Criticism" section looking unnecessary; and (c) possibly entice opponents of the Barelvis to add a whole raft of other criticisms. Please read back through the edit log. This article used to be far more controversial (and far more often vandalised or unhelpfully edited) than it currently is. For all these reasons I strongly recommend leaving the sentence where it is. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello and Thanks for your suggestions.When i read in depth,it reveals that all the three lines on Visiting and intercessional prayers are repeated more than one time.What is the Practice of Ahle Sunnah or Barelvis is to Visit and ask for help through this Pious personality meant intercession.So it is better to include their basic faith on relevant Hadees on which they rely to justify these practices. Shabiha 06:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. We both need to be careful not to get into an edit war, or violate the three-revert rule, so I will ask a few seasoned, senior editors to take a look at the Barelvi page and its recent edits. Best wishes,George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am also avoiding edit war, and please don't violate the three-revert rule. You single handedly removed a well sourced neutral content of the Article calling it excessive.It is not justified.Be careful if you are not expert of Islam then you may not interfere.

Personal attacks are very undignified and unnecessary. You do not know my religion. I have made over 1,000 edits on Islamic (and esp Pakistani) topics. And note: I am both an Urdu and Arabic speaker. So please reflect on why that might be. I think you will find you have already now violated the three-revert rule, not me. In a spirit of fairness, I will wait and see what other editors think. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Assalamolaikum/Hello to all,Please stay away personal war.I have tried to neutralize the section ,Hope it is now according to Wiki rules.Time to cool down.Msoamu (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Msoamu. I believe in the editors' consensus, so let's see what other editors think in coming days. I never mind being wrong about my own edits. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm with GCS on this one: the RSs appear to indicate some basic facts that Barelvis conduct prayers/veneration at shrines, and some of their opponents deride this as "grave worshipping". That doesn't appear to be a contested fact, and the claims of "the Deobandis are wrong about that because hadith says... and because it's totally normal in other areas too..." are really tangential and likely approaching WP:OR. The "Criticism" section I submit is best left for comprehensive criticism and larger explanation of context. I don't see that having brief and proportional mentions of how the Barelvi practices differ from some neighbouring non-Barelvi practices is disrupting of the Beliefs/Practices sections. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The Prayers of Sunni Braelvis are same and there is no difference in their prayers.They venerate Prophet,Companions,Scholars,Imams,Sufis as the other majority of Sunni Muslims do.I think wiki may not be used to potray this movement unnecessarily against the basic tenets of Islam i.e against Worship other than Allah.They believe in in One God(Tuaheed and Risalah) and other basic tenets of Islam.The concept of respect and reverence at grave and outside grave is common in Islamic world like practice of Egypt Muslims,Turkish Muslims where Muslim visits Graves of Pious to ask for help through intercession.Talking about opponents ,they opposes all practices of Common Sunni Barelvi Muslims.I am editing now section wise please cooperate in improving and don't just remove neutral content.Msoamu (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The point is your addition of entire hadiths is not Neutral: you're doing it explicitly to defend Barelvi practises. It's not there to inform the reader, it's to say "see, the Barelvis are totally correct, so there." I'll look at the refs later to see how you're using them, but I'll make an WP:AGF here and assume the sources explicitly state those hadith are used by the Barelvi to explain themselves. Even if that is the case, you can simply link to the article about that hadith, there is no need to cite the hadith at length. Your edits are taking up a large amount of space for the sole purpose of depicting Barelvi (or greater Sunni practises, point immaterial) as backed by hadith, and thus implicitly depicting the Deobandi et al. as incorrect. I'm removing the hadith again, but leaving your new cites. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

There are at least three starting paras which prominently mentions criticism of this movement,which is unjustified and not balanced.Its each line or para need not to show that it is not liked by Salafis,Deobandis, Ahle Hadith,Nadwis,Jamat-e-Islami(All are Wahabis as declared by Various Scholars including Imam Ahmed Raza) ,making it something a critism of various movements.Which is not the situation.It is simply a South Asian Sunni Sufi Population like Sufi Muslims of ther parts of the World.I am removing repetition of other groups. Shabiha 18:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted your recent edits; given that a fundamental fact of Barelvi Sunnism is that it exists in contrast/conflict with other schools, I don't feel that the amount of "criticism" in the article is unjustified. The whole reason they're called "Barelvi" and not just "Sunni like everyone else" is because they have become a religious-cultural-political movement due to the specific dynamics at play in South Asia from the late-1800s onward.

We have had in the past some people that basically tried to turn the whole article into "There is no such thing as Barelvi, they're just the most Sunni of all Sunnis and anyone who disagrees with them isn't Sunni". Writing the article with Barelvis considered the "default" of Islam would be misleading. I'm not seeing any problem with the NPOV of this article, except from people who want to remove anything resembling criticism from it, which has been a perennial issue with this article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with MatthewVanitas. The tension between Barelvis and other Muslims who represent a different view of Islam cannot be ignored. We should not take sides in any claims of theological "truth", of course, but we should not hide the different viewpoints. I therefore fully support MatthewVanitas' reversions. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Which group is just called sunni? sunni itself has sub divisions and as the article already says "movement of sunni islam"..seeing the wahabis also call themselves sunnis there had to be a differentiation of the two so people wouldnt be confused..& those that had said there is no such thing as barelvi were somewhat correct..the core traditional sunni followers belong to barelvi movement as the article says & none of them identify as barelvi but sunnis, their anti wahabi stance however brands them as a member of the group. Baboon43 (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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.

Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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..

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages as a battle ground, you will always lose, no matter what. That's because Misplaced Pages isn't a battle ground to begin with. If you take Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

• Start-Class Islam-related articles
• Top-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles