Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:06, 19 May 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: 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

IP edit warring

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

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

discus my last edit

my last was

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

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

now i edited it

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

changes made

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

Raza Khan Barelvi not mine.

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

1. Askam e Shariat part 1,Fatwa no 2
2. Askam e Shariat part 1,Fatwa no 2
3. "Anwaarul Intibah Fi Hallil Nidaa Ya Rasoolallah" by Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi
4. "Shifa-us-Siqaam" by Imaam Taqiudeen Abul Hasan Subki
5. Mawaahibbe Ladunnia" by Imaam Ahmed Qastalaani
6. "Mutaali ul Mussarraat" by Imaam Allama Faasi

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

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

Dear Am Not New, no, this link is unacceptable as a Misplaced Pages citation for a whole variety of reasons. Citations to reliable, authoritative, and neutral third-party sources would permit the edits you want to make. They are essential. Misplaced Pages requires them. 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) 06:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri Barelvi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

global security.org

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

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

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

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

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

Beliefs and practices - new edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead - new edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free Hand to Personal POV

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

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

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

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

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmYR--mkxwM
2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2314840/Sharif-leading-Pakistans-electoral-race.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

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