Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:59, 2 December 2014

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: 30 days

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: 30 days

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

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.

veneration??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fatwa against Terrorism - deleted section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent edit warring as of August 2014

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

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

Usage of proper terms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft

• Mawlid, Public celebration of Muhammad's birthday.

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

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

• Use of devotional music.

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

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

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

Article is Disputed template on Barelvi

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

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

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

1. Sirriyeh 1999: 49
2. Sirriyeh 2004: 111
3. Martin Parsons (1 January 2006). Unveiling God: Contextualizing Christology for Islamic Culture. William Carey Library. pp. 149–. ISBN 978-0-87808-454-8. Retrieved 2011-04-20.
4. Urban Terrorism: Myths and Realities - N. C. Asthana & A.Nirmal - Google Books. Books.google.com.my. Retrieved 2012-09-24.
5. Urban Terrorism: Myths and Realities - N. C. Asthana & A.Nirmal - Google Books. Books.google.com.my. Retrieved 2012-09-24.
6. "outlookindia.com". M.outlookindia.com. Retrieved 2012-09-24.
7. Curriculum in Today's World: Configuring Knowledge, Identities, Work and ... - Lyn Yates, Madeleine Grumet - Google Books. Books.google.com.my. 25 February 2011. Retrieved 2012-09-24.
8. The Columbia World Dictionary of Islamism - Olivier Roy, Antoine Sfeir - Google Books. Books.google.com.my. 26 September 2007. Retrieved 2012-09-24.
9. Tremors of Violence: Muslim Survivors of Ethnic Strife in Western India - Rowena Robinson - Google Books. Books.google.com.my. Retrieved 2012-09-24.
10. Urban Terrorism: Myths and Realities - N. C. Asthana & A.Nirmal - Google Books. Books.google.com.my. Retrieved 2012-09-24.
11. Indian Defence Review: April - June 2007 - Bharat Verma - Google Books. Books.google.com.my. 19 February 2008. Retrieved 2012-09-24.
12. Arun Shourie, The World of Fatwas or the Sharia in Action, pg. 135. ASA Publications, 1995. ISBN 9788190019958

• Start-Class Islam-related articles
• Top-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• Misplaced Pages requested maps