Talk:Qawwali/Archive 1

Move

Thanks, Mona-Lynn, for changing the main page title. A shame, though, to lose the past revision history. Is there any way to change the name but keep the revision history?

Short answer: Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page.

Long answer: in the easiest case scenario one simply clicks "Move this page" and types in a new title. This transfers the edit history to the new title, so that the record of all the work by past editors is not lost. If there is an existing article at the new title that must be deleted for the move to happen.

Unfortunately, right now, when I try to delete the Qawwali page (so as to move qawaali and it's edit history to that title), I get the message:

• "Can't delete this article because it contains new block-compressed revisions, which are not supported by the new selective undelete feature and could result in data loss if deletion and undeletion happened. This is a temporary situation which the developers are well aware of, and should be fixed within a month or two. Please mark the page for deletion, protect the page and wait for a software update to allow normal deletion. If there is an actual complaint from a copyright holder or other suitable legal complaint and they are unwilling to accept page blanking and protection as a temporary measure, please ask a developer for assistance."

Hyacinth 04:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quite a few of us, lifelong fans of Qawwali and people who speak Urdu and can read Persian, think this is spelling is preferable to "Qawali" or "Qawaali" or "Qawalee". The only thing closer to the actual word in Urdu/Persian would be "Qawwaali" or "Qawwaalee". So please check before moving it back to one of those.

Previous Revision History (under Qawaali)

For history, here's the history of Qawaali:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qawaali&action=history

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:11, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Kausar

copied over from Talk:Qawaali

I wonder if anyone can explain to me the significance of "Kausar". It comes up often in qawwalis. I know it is the name of a fountain in Paradise, but there is clearly some significance over and above that. Ali is referred to as "Saqi-e-Kausar", and there are references to how he will greet entrants into Paradise and offer them the waters of Kausar to drink. Sarabseth 17:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Kausar reference is from Islamic canon. Kausar/Kawsar is the name of a river in paradise (jannath, firdaus, etc.) that is mentioned in the Qur'an. There is surah by the same name. See: Kausar.

Saqi-e-Kausar is not a reference to Ali, but to the The Prophet himself. As in the qawwali sung by the Sabri Brothers:

MaikashoN aa'o, aa'o, Madinay chalo

Dasth-e-saqi-e-kausar say peenay chalo

Or:

Oh Drinkers, come, come let us go to Medina

From the hand of host of the Kausar, let's go to drink

Muhammad is buried in Medina. Ali is in Najaf—thus the reference you hear in qawwalis to Shah-e-Najaf

Hope this helps.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:21, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. the second line was wrong in the transliteration. I have corrected it.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:27, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a big help.

I'll have to go back and listen to the Nusrat qawwalis which convinced me that the Kausar references were to Ali.

So there's no specific symbolic significance attached to Kausar, or to Muhammad offering the waters of Kausar to drink? Kausar just loosely represents the abundance to be found in paradise? Sarabseth 21:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. the second line was wrong in the transliteration. I have corrected it.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:39, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

About the additional significance. Well, the references are more implied and metaphysical than some thing I could list as bullets. Here's a rough start as my limited intellect allows:

For Sufis, the stream of Sufi wisdom and knowledge (metaphysical "knowing", rather than written words, of course) is traced back to Muhammad through one of two people he is said to have initiated in that field: Abu Bakar and Ali. So one implication is something of the nature of "let's go to imbibe of this fount of wisdom (gnosis, ma'arifath, irfan...) directly from the source. And when one is talking of streams and liquids to be imbibed, the person at the "source" of it is identified using the symbology of one of the things Islamic tradition says will happen in paradise: those "with Mohammad" will have access to the "Waters" of Kausar. Of course, one underlying thing you have to keep in mind, is that the whole symbology of "drinkers"/"imbibers" (sharaabee, mai-kash, or badha-khaar) has multiple meanings. The question of talking about the imbibing of Sufi wisdom (often considered heretical and thus, like alcohol, forbidden by orthodox Muslims) using the metaphor of drinking alcohol and vice-versa is kept fluid, and is part of the paradigm-subverting nature of Sufi poetry--and its beauty. See also my post on the Urdu ke naam blog about The Object of the Sufi Poet's Devotion.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:39, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Sarabseth 14:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the Day of Judgement, Rasulullah (Salla'llahu'alaihi wa sallam) will intercede on behalf of mankind before Allah (Almighty and Glorious is He). Prophets and Messengers will send their followers to ask the Holy Prophet (salla' llaahu'alaihi wa sallam) 's intercession. He will liberate people who have been condemned to hell and get them put into heaven. The flow of blessings of Allah upon the Holy Prophet (salla' llaahu'alaihi wa sallam) is ceaseless. The word 'Yusalluna' in 'Yusalluna alan Nabi' means that Allah is sending salaam (peace and blessings) on the Holy Prophet (salla' llaahu'alaihi wa sallam) continuously. The word 'Al Kauther' in 'Inna aataina kal-Kauther' besides referring to ' a fount in paradise' literally means ' to be blessed abundantly'. Out of his abundance of blessings the Holy Prophet (salla' llaahu'alaihi wa sallam) will give charity to sinners and transgressors and save them from hell.

Once Rasulullah (Salla'llahu'alaihi wa sallam) opens the door of intercession, other Prophet's, Angels, Martyrs, Pious Scholars and Saints of Allah will plead on behalf of people linked to them for the sake of Allah. [see Sura 43, Verse 67]:(irshad soofi http://www.sufi.co.za/

Friends (acquired through worldly bonds) will become your enemies on the Day of Judgement, except the righteous. (Whom you befriend because of Allah)

In this world the attachment of love to our Beloved Prophet (Salla'llahu'alaihi wa sallam) and the Aulia will benefit us in this world and the hereafter.

Thanks for the information, but I guess the question was largely answered by iFaqeer on Apr 28, 2005. I have also taken the liberty of moving your comment to the end of the discussion. --Sarabseth 13:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Would anyone mind if the opening sentence is changed from

"Qawwali (قوٌالی), also spelt qawaali or quwalli, is the devotional music of the Sufis."

to

"Qawwali (قوٌالی) is the devotional music of the Sufis." Sarabseth 20:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Spiritual practices template

Can someone please change the spelling in this list from Qwali to Qawwali? (I tried to figure out how/where to do it, but couldn't). Sarabseth 12:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. :-) — Richard_RDF^talk 17:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Well Known Qawwals

Is not well-Known criteria ? Qawwals are presenter in particular rhythmic way, one can say sort of recitation. There may be or may not be inclusion of Musical Intrument. Time to time Qawwal started in the regional area, many of them became well-known in local area, regional or whole county. Yes Pakistan is country at present, but as far as qawwali is concern it is not bound to only Pakistan. One can Devide Qawwals separating as Pakistani and Indian (Hidustani, Bharati, Hindi etc.). Actually there should be only be list of Qawwals then one can categorize list according. I see well-known Qawwals of Past only few names. Did anybody heard HMV records of past? who were Habib Painter,Abdul Rehman (Kanchwala),Yusuf Azad, Ismail Azad, Jani Babu, Shanker Shambhu,Asam Azad etc etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalakmu (talk • contribs) 22:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed Faiz Ali Faiz from this list. It's not an exhaustive list of all qawwals. FAF is just starting out. He's not particularly well-known. (Not much good either, in my opinion, but that's not the point here.)

You can always start a Wikipedia page for him if you like. Or a page that would be an exhaustive list of all qawwals. Not a bad idea at all, the latter. I'm currently on vacation, with limited internet access. Will start such a page when I get back home, if no one has already done so. Sarabseth 02:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit by Naawfas on jan 11

I think that "film qawwali" of the type you cited is best regarded as a separate genre, or a sub-genre of Indo-Pak film music. It certainly has very little in common with the qawwali music tradition covered by this article. You should perhaps start a new Wikipedia article for film qawwali. Sarabseth 05:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

New tribute band link

This new link was just added:

• Three part film about a Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan tribute band

I haven't watched the video, but it may be a parody rather than a tribute. If someone watches it, can you please correct the description, if necessary? --Sarabseth 13:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

qawwalis in Gujarati

69.192.110.28, can you provide any examples of qawwalis in Gujarati and other regional languages? Songs as well as singers? --Sarabseth 12:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of any substantiation, I have removed the references to Gujarati and Sindhi.

If anyone has concrete information concerning qawwali in any regional languages other than Bengali, please add it in, or "Talk" to me, and I can do so. --Sarabseth 17:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

meaning of qawwali

I have removed the following, inserted by an anonymous editor: "The word Qawwali is derived from the Arabic word aqwaal which means word of God."

The standard interpretation, which is found in most sources, is that it is derived from "qaul" meaning utterance. I have not heard of this aqwaal etymology before. If someone can provide a reference, we can add both meanings. --Sarabseth 22:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes the translation was wrong. The word Qawwali is Urdu which is a form of Sufi Music. The word Qawwal means singer of Qawwali. However in Arabic Qawwal means "The Great Quotation" or "The Great Saying" and is from the word Arabic word Qaul meaning "Saying". The word Qawwali was adopted because in its initial form, it was quoting the saints. Hassan Farooqi

Marsiya is not Qawwali

Marsiya does not fall in the Category of Qawwali. Marsiya is a mourning of dead and is sung without music in a sad tone like the blues are sung in the West. Therefore I have removed the following: "* A marsiya is a lamentation over the death of much of Ali's family in the Battle of Karbala. Once again, this would typically be sung only at a Shi'a concert." Hassan Farooqi

It is true that Marsiya is a distinct musical genre like you decribed, but it is also a type of qawwali (just like "ghazal"). So I'm restoring the deletion. --Sarabseth 11:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

List of qawwals

1) Does anyone know for sure whether Mohd. Saeed Chishti is still alive? (My guess is that he is, but I'm not sure). 2) I'm not sure that splitting up the list into "past" and "today" works very well. For example, the Sabri Brothers still continue as a qawwali party under Maqbool Ahmed Sabri even though Ghulam Fareed Sabri has died. --Sarabseth 12:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Qaṣīdat-ul-Burda

What does this have to do with qawwali? --Sarabseth 11:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Qawwali but so is the case of Marsiya and Ghazal. Marsiya is a Shia thing and they would be very offended if it is referred to as Qawwali, something they do not approve.Hassanfarooqi 19:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have said this before. I'll try once again:

The terms Marsiya and Ghazal are used to describe specific types of qawwali, just like the article explains. The fact that both terms also have other meanings in the context of poetry/music doesn't change that.

So Marsiya and Ghazal are indeed related to qawwali. (And, BTW, nobody is referring to Marsiya as qawwali. Rather, a sub-set of qawwalis are being referred to as Marsiya. And whether Shias are offended or not, or whether Shias approve of qawwali or not, the fact remains that this term is used in the typology of qawwalis.)

As far as I can see, Qaṣīdat-ul-Burda has nothing to do with qawwali. --Sarabseth 08:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess you are getting confused because of the wayward term "Shia Concert". This is a very bad translation of Shia term "Majlis". The term concert suggests a gathering where music is performed. Shia Majlis are gathering of mourning and has absolutely nothing to do with musics. All forms of shia mourning e.g. Marsia, Noha, and Matam may include rythmic chest beating but you can not call it music. Unlike these mournings, praise poetry like Manqabat and Qaseeda Burdah has a happy tone and can be sung with Qawwali genre of music.Hassanfarooqi 12:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My comments are not based on what the article said, but my knowledge of qawwali.

The qawwali "Ya Hussain Ya Hussain" by Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan is one example of a marsiya.

The qawwali "Yeh Jo Halka Halka Suroor Hai" is one example of a ghazal.

The terms ghazal and marsiya are used in qawwali to describe the thematic content of the lyrics.

They have a different meaning outside qawwali.

In all your comments so far you seem to be saying that because they have a different meaning outside qawwali they can't or don't have the meaning in qawwali that is ascribed to them in the article.

In all my comments, I've been trying to point out that that's not true. The same terms can and do have different meanings in different contexts.

When the article says

"A marsiya is a lamentation over the death of much of Ali's family in the Battle of Karbala. Once again, this would typically be sung only at a Shi'a concert."

the first sentence is definitely accurate. Maybe the second sentence should be removed? --Sarabseth 09:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well by your logic if some Qawwal sings Qaseeda Burdah, then Qaseeda Burdah will also become form of Qawwali, just like Mesut Kurtis has sung. The thing is, any improvising does not make it standard. Since marsia is not supposed to be sung with music, it is not classified as Qawwali as Qawwali is a genre of music. Nusrat Fateh Ali's improvising Qawwali to sing Ghazals and Marsias do not make Ghazals and Marsias a form of Qawwali just like if he had sung Qaseeda Burdah it would not have made it Qawwali. Qawwali is much beyond Nusrat Fateh Ali. It is a 700 year old tradition started by Amir Khusru. To the credit of Nusrat Fateh Ali, he has improvised a lot, not only different forms of poetry such as Ghazals and Marsias, but also different types of musics. He was an institution in himself but Qawwali is a much more powerful tradition than his personality.Hassanfarooqi 12:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"Well by your logic if some Qawwal sings Qaseeda Burdah, then Qaseeda Burdah will also become form of Qawwali"

It's best if you don't put words in my mouth. That's not my logic at all, though maybe it is your misunderstanding of my logic.

You just don't seem to get it that the same word can have different meanings in different contexts.

You also don't seem to get it that nobody is saying Marsiya is classified as Qawwali. Some qawwalis are classified as Marsiya, which is a very different thing.

Also, ghazal is a well established tradition in qawwali, it's not something Nusrat "improvised". Every major and minor qawwal performs ghazals in addition to naats, hamds and manqabats. That predates Nusrat's career. --Sarabseth 04:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"ghazal is a well established tradition in qawwli". I will dispute that. No doubt Qawwals have sung Ghazals but it does not make Ghazal a category of Qawwali as the article suggests. Qawwals like Nusrat Fateh Ali have sung pop, rock, and punjabi folk songs. "You also don't seem to get it that nobody is saying Marsiya is classified as Qawwali". Excuse me, but the article clearly puts Marsia and Ghazals as categories of Qawwali. What you dont get is that every genre of music has its improvisation but then every genre has its own classical style which identifies it. Classical Qawwali is a genre of music that started with Amir Khusrow and is best seen in Chishtiyya gatherings.Hassanfarooqi 13:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

<<"ghazal is a well established tradition in qawwli". I will dispute that.>>

Your disputing that doesn't make it false. Nusrat has sung not only pop, rock and punjabi songs, he has also sung all kinds of other stuff. Including ghazals in the ghazal style.

That doesn't change the fact that ghazal as described in the article is an authentic sub-category of qawwali. Every qawwali artiste worth the name in the 20th century performed and recorded ghazals in the qawwali style. Nusrat's qawwali albums are distinct from his non-qawwali albums (except for compilations, of course). Ghazals in the qawwali style appear on a very large number of the qawwali albums. A major chunk of his qawwali output consists of ghazals (at least 25%,I would guess). All other qawwals, most of whom never released anything other than qawwali, also include ghazals in their qawwwali albums.

On one of his albums Aziz Mian explains how the established etiquette for a qawwali performance is that ghazals are to be performed only after a hamd, naat and one or more manqabats.

Based on this tradition of ghazals as an intrinsic part of qawwali, the article seems to be perfectly accurate when it talks about ghazal as one type of qawwali song.

You seem to be hung up on what what qawwali should be. The business of an encyclopedia is with what qawwali is. Whether you like it or not, both ghazals and marsiya have become an intrinsic part of qawwali, even if they weren't when qawwali started out 700 years ago. --Sarabseth 04:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You have now ran out of technical arguments and seems very offended. I see no point in continuing this discussion. You may redefine Qawwali based on your limited knowledge that you have from commercial Qawwals like Nusrat Fateh Ali, Aziz Mian, and Sabri Brothers. What do I care. You shall hear no more from me. Those who really want to know what classical Qawwali is should explore purely spiritual qawwali legends coming from the 700 year old "Qawwal Bachcha Gharana" like late Qawwal Bahauddin, late Qawwal Manzoor Ahmed Niazi, late Qawwal Munshi Raziuddin.Hassanfarooqi 13:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to have had any argument to make in the first place. All you did was repeat the same thing over and over.

You didn't respond at all to the substance of what I said last time, choosing instead to accuse me of getting offended when your last entry shows that you're the one who's acting like they are offended. That's a pretty childish approach to discussion.

Pretty childish too to try and taunt me by saying that I have a limited knowledge of qawwali.

For the record, I'm not redefining qawwali. I'm merely defending the consensus reached by a very large number of wikipedia contributors over a considerable period of time about certain aspects of qawwali. You're trying to redefine the content of the article to match your evidently narrow-minded notion of "true" qawwali or "spiritual" qawwali.

For the record, I consider Nusrat to be a giant who towers head and shoulders over every other qawwal of the 20th and 21st centuries. His qawwali is more spiritual and more deeply satisfying than anyone else's, including the very competent qawwals you named. --Sarabseth 15:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Aziz Ahmed Warsi link

This link was just added to the article (http://www.geocities.com/~sm0e/R-aziz.txt). It links not to a website but to a single newsgroup post. Is that kosher according to wikipedia rules or norms? --Sarabseth 06:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted this link today. The person who added it had described it as "a site dedicated to Aziz Ahmed Warsi". On reading it, I found that it's a single newsgroup post consisting of one person's largely childhood reminiscences of the qawwal. It may be an appropriate link for an Aziz Ahmed Warsi page, but it's too peripheral to be linked to the Qawwali page. --Sarabseth 13:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Shahid Ali Khan

Why have you removed Shahid Ali Khan? I thought your knowledge of Qawwali was limited to Nusrat Fateh Ali but you hardly know his most successful student in North American. You are acting as if you own this article. Anyone you don't know, you simply remove! Hassanfarooqi 15:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"I thought your knowledge of Qawwali was limited to Nusrat Fateh Ali"

On what basis did you arrive at this conclusion? (It is, of course, total nonsense.) --Sarabseth 02:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone other than Hassanfarooqi who considers Shahid Ali Khan to be a well-known qawwal? --Sarabseth 04:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"You are acting as if you own this article. Anyone you don't know, you simply remove!"

You seem to be determined to cast aspersions at me. I have never tried to push my personal opinions or likes/dislikes in this wikipedia entry. For example, back when I assembled the list of qawwals that you just edited, I left out the Nizami Brothers. Even though I enjoy their qawwali, and even though they have a good reputation in Delhi, I didn't add their name to the list, because I don't think they qualify as well-known.

This is not an ego trip for me. I care only about the integrity of the Qawwali page.

Somebody doesn't become a well-known qawwal just because he was a student of Nusrat, or just because someone declares them to be a celebrated qawwal. I am deeply devoted to qawwali. I have several close friends who are also deeply devoted to qawwali. None of these friends nor I have ever heard of Shahid Ali Khan, let alone heard any of his qawwali. Maybe he is good, I have no way of knowing. But he is certainly not well-known.

In any case, I'm not deleting Shahid Ali Khan's name from the list. I'll leave it to others to decide whether to leave it in, or take it out.

I would also recommend to you that in future you leave childish personal attacks out of your comments here. --Sarabseth 12:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I am informed by someone who has performed with Shahid Ali Khan that he will shortly be releasing his first album. Not only is he not well-known, but this person wrote: "...he is not up to par I feel. A well-known qawwal I would say no, more like a local qawwal who is just trying to break through." --Sarabseth 16:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hassanfarooqi

Turns out this guy has a history of violating Wikipedia policies and making personal attacks on people who disagree with his edits. See "refrain from personal attacks" under User Talk: Hassanfarooqi.

Just in his recent contributions to Qawwali, he has shown himself to be an opinionated person who not only stoops to personal attacks when he doesn’t get his way, but who is also not above misrepresenting the facts to get his personal opinions reflected on this page.

Describing Shahid Ali Khan as “the celebrated Qawwal of North America” to protect his inclusion in the list of Well-Known Qawwals is an obviously dishonest exaggeration.

At this point I wouldn't trust anything he contributes to Qawwali, or any other page for that matter, unless it is corroborated by someone else. --Sarabseth 03:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Look who is making personal attacks on me :) Hassanfarooqi 04:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Your wikipedia record speaks for itself. All I did was point out what your wikipedia record is. If that's a personal attack upon you, you have only yourself to blame. --Sarabseth 14:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Restoring Old Opening Paragraph

The previous opening paragraph worked much better, I think. The version I just removed overloaded the introduction with facts that in any case appear later in the article, and work much better in the existing sequence than in the introduction (which was getting into too much nitty-gritty detail before any kind of context was established).

I'm not sure the web site references that were included added anything to the article at all (since there is already an excellent and pretty exhaustive discussion of the relevant topics in the article), and they certainly don't belong in the opening paragraph. --Sarabseth 18:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so. But your initial removal left the impression that Qawwali is universal to all Sufis everywhere. Thanks for accepting that point from me and making further changes. But your net effect is still to change "South Asian" to "Indian subcontinent". I'd like to suggest that we keep South Asian.

Also, your edits, lead to there being no mention of the work done in the recent decades which has led to Qawwali-influenced music making inroads into the wider pop culture, both in South Asia, and more widely.

--iFaqeer 21:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that since the intention is to refer to only India and Pakistan, "Indian subcontinent" is more specific and more accurate than "South Asian". (Let's leave it to others to choose between the two?)

As for the second point, that's not quite true as stated. I changed

Qawwali music received international exposure through the work of the late Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan of Pakistan, who was picked up by the Real World label and collaborated with many non-Sufi musicians (most memorably Peter Gabriel) in crossover efforts, including things like the soundtrack to The Last Temptation of Christ and some other Hollywood films.

to

Qawwali music received international exposure through the work of the late Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan of Pakistan, who was picked up by the Real World label and also collaborated with many non-Sufi musicians in crossover efforts.

The mention is still there; I only removed a few details. I think details of Nusrat's crossover efforts properly belong in the Nusrat article, and they are indeed to be found there.

If someone feels strongly the details should be in the Qawwali article as well, they can certainly be inserted here. But I think this should be a separate, later section instead of being loaded into the introduction. It should also probably be a wider discussion of how Qawwali-influenced music has made inroads into popular culture instead of focusing just on details of Nusrat's crossover efforts. (If someone decides to add such a section, there is useful material in the Bulleh Shah article too.) --Sarabseth 03:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's set up a section at the end. A lot of articles on the Wikipedia have sections that descibe <topic> in Popular Culture

And why is Qawwali limited to India and Pakistan? Afghanistan has overlap with our culture and history, no? Especially when it comes to Sufism. [And Budhdhism, and ... but I digress.]

I like the fact that you think of "South Asia" as wider than Indian subcontinent. But then, isn't Bangladesh also part of The Subcontinent? Sri Lanka?

--iFaqeer 19:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of overlaps with "our culture", I'm pretty sure the Sufi tradition of Qawwali does not exist in Afghanistan. There are other forms of Sufi devotional music that are prevalent in other Muslim communities throughout Asia, but qawwali is practised only in India and Pakistan. --Sarabseth 02:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

munadjaat

Is a munadjaat the same as a naat? If not, what's the difference? --Sarabseth 16:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

wajad

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, in reference to wajad, that it is the "height of spiritual ecstasy for Sufis" instead of "height of spiritual ecstasy within Islam?" I don't think there is the same equivalent for Sunnis or Shias as relates to this article is there? Aspenocean 13:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Opening Line (edit of June 4, 2007)

Copying the following discussion from User talk:Sarabseth:

Hi there! In what way do you disagree with my changing the text to "some" Sufis? From a Sufi standpoint, it's the music of the Chisthi Order... there are several other prominent orders on the Indian Subcontinent, such as the Naqshbandis, who don't practice Qawwali. And as for the other word I changed... Qawwali was traditionally performed at shrines, not just mainly. Yes obviously it has branched out a lot since then, but the sentence starts out "Originally..." - and originally, it was at shrines. Can you undo your revert please? – cacahuate ^talk 16:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

When you say "the devotional music of the Sufis", that does not mean "of all Sufis". To say "some Sufis" is redundant, and makes the opening sentence read awkwardly.

The fact that some Sufi orders don't practice qawwali can certainly be added later. I just don't think it belongs in the opening sentence.

As for the originally/mainly issue, I'm not so sure it was originally performed only at Sufi shrines. "Mainly" is a less controversial construction. If there is some citation to support "only", it can be changed back. --Sarabseth 19:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, saying the Sufi does indeed imply all Sufis. That's the very difference between some and the. Saying most wouldn't even be accurate, so implying all is definitely not accurate. That would be like opening the Asia article stating that "Hinduism is the religion of the Asians". And then later on, somewhere in the article (as you suggest) clarifying that, well, actually, there are many religions encompassed within, and that Hindus are just one part of that. Sorry, but I'm changing that back.

As you know it's widely believed that Amir Khusrau invented qawwali, and he would perform it at his teacher's shrine, in Delhi. I'm less worried about that line though, so leave it if you like. – cacahuate ^talk 00:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Hinduism is the religion of the Asians" is a very poor analogy, in my opinion. Asians have many other religions, the Sufis of the Indian subcontinent have no other devotional music. Qawwali is indeed the only devotional music of the Sufis of the Indian subcontinent.

Will others please chime in with their opinion too?

Amir Khusrau "invented" qawwali while Moinuddin Chishti was still alive. So it was not originally performed at Moinuddin Chishti's shrine. As far as I am aware there is no evidence whatsoever that qawwali was originally performed only at Sufi shrines. --Sarabseth 03:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's precisely why it's a good example. In both cases the statement only applies to a fraction of the people in question. At any rate, surely you don't disagree with the sentence as I've put it now: Qawwali is the devotional music of the Chisti Sufis of the Indian sub-continent. All I did was add the word "Chisti", making the sentence more precise, and for that matter, true. What's there to disagree with?

Regarding the other point Khusrau was a disciple of Nizamuddin Auliya (Moinuddin Chisti died over 20 years before Khusrau was born). My understanding was that Khusrau performed regularly at Nizamuddin's dargah, but looking at both of their articles on WP it seems that he died 6 months after Nizamuddin, which didn't leave much time for that. So I was mistaken there. – cacahuate ^talk 03:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Regarding the other point Khusrau was a disciple of Nizamuddin Auliya": yes, sorry for that typo

What fraction of Sufis in the Indian subcontinent are Chistis? --Sarabseth 21:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Unsure, and can't find a handy pie chart  :) But I know that at least the Naqshbandi, Qadiri, and Suhrawardi have sizeable presences as well. Chistis may well be the largest of these groups, I don't know. But Qawwali is used by the Chistis solely, to the best of my knowledge, which is why I think it's best to specify that in the opening sentence – cacahuate ^talk 01:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

is it probably true that Chistis outnumber the other three groups put together?

does "to the best of my knowledge" mean you're not sure?--Sarabseth 18:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything for sure. But to the best of my knowledge, Qawwali is only practiced by Chistis – cacahuate ^talk 03:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's best not to change the article if you don't know for sure? As a general rule, "I think, but I don't know if it's true" is not a good basis for altering content.

In the past this article has been read and edited by people who are a lot more knowledgeable about the practice of qawwali by Sufis. No one has raised this issue before.

I'm going to leave it reading the way it does now (Qawwali ... is the devotional music of the Chisti Sufis of the Indian sub-continent). Others can judge if we should revert to what we had before or not. --Sarabseth 13:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, I know FOR SURE that Qawwali is practiced by Chistis, and not ALL Sufis... which is the line that we're debating here... not who knows the most about Qawwali... keep it in perspective here brother. I'm not 3 years old, no need to talk to me as such. – cacahuate ^talk 02:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

leave the snark out of it please.

if you justify an edit by saying "I don't know anything for sure. But to the best of my knowledge, Qawwali is only practiced by Chistis" you can't really blame me for my response.

and since you are determined to be obtuse, the issue is whether Chishtis constitute an overwhelming majority (say 90%) of the Sufis in the Indian sub-continent. --Sarabseth 11:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, I would love if you would leave the snark out of it. Much appreciated. Regarding your last comment, I never "justified my edit" with that comment... that was my response to your questions once they reached the argumentative point of ridiculousness. Nobody can ever be entirely sure of anything. If I believe something to be true and want to edit an article to reflect that, I'm free to do so, and others are free to correct any mistakes I make. That's kinda how this thing works. Which is why I came along and saw a mistake and fixed it. (Actually I thought I saw two mistakes, but clearly admitted my error on the other one further up on the page).

It doesn't matter what percentage are Chistis. If it's less than 100%, why not be clear? The point is, as I said above, several other orders have sizable presences on the sub-continent, who don't practice Qawwali. So adding one word that clarifies the sentence and makes it true isn't really a contentious edit, yet you've managed to make it one. I'm not quite sure why we ended up here, but we both love Qawwali, and I think both would like to see a nice article about it. So, let's be friends? – cacahuate ^talk 03:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I added several references for Chishti comment, since it was requested by a user... citations aren't my strong point, yet, so let me know if any or all are unacceptable or if you want to cut it down to one or two – cacahuate ^talk 06:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The citations you have added contain only the following statements (as far as I can tell):

Qawwali originated with the foundation of the Chisti order of Sufis in Khorosan [Eastern Persia] in the early tenth century and was brought to the Indian Sub-Continent in the twelfth century.

... it is generally agreed that Qawwali originated with the Chisti order of Sufism

They are often connected with the Chishitiya fraternity, named after its founder, Moinuddin Chishti, who lived in the 13th century.

The origins of qawwali probably predate the birth of Muhammad. The earliest Islamic scholars discussed the spiritual effects of music, but it was only in the time of al-Gazali(1085-1111) that these principles were refined and codified. These principles were then expanded by the chisti school of Sufism. It is this order that has been responsible for the propagation of the qawwali in India and Pakistan for then last few centuries.

None of these, individually or collectively, demonstrates or establishes that Qawwali is the devotional music specifically of the Chishtis and not of Sufis generally. "Qawwali originated with the Chishtis" or "Qawwali was propagated by the Chishtis" is a far cry from "today Qawwali is the devotional music of the Chishtis rather than Sufis in general". Sarabseth (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I politely disagree. I did a fair amount of reading and skimming last night when searching for those refs, and nothing I've come across points to your assertion that it isn't specific to Chishtis. I'm certainly not asserting that not a single non-chishti has an interest in Qawwali... but that it's generally rooted in and practiced by them. All of the articles I was able to find about Qawwali that mentioned a specific Sufi order mentioned Chishtis... I didn't come across any that mentioned anything other than Chishtis. Perhaps, if this is really still bothering you, you can find something to support your view? – cacahuate ^talk 10:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This really isn't that difficult. The citations you added do not support the point that you are trying to support. It's not a matter of me finding something to support my point of view. Your own citations do not support the statement you added to the article that qawwali is the devotional music of the Chishti Sufis specifically. Finding references to Chishti origins etc. does not support the specific statement we are discussing. Can you really not see that? Sarabseth (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I can't, and I too can't see why once again you're making this difficult. Your saying that my citations don't support my argument doesn't mean they don't. You've said nothing beyond "they don't support it", and haven't offered any reason why you believe that, or any links to anything that contradicts what I'm asserting. If you can't spend some time looking for links that prove me wrong, why are you even here arguing? What sufi orders aside from Chisthi do you believe also widely practice Qawwali? If Google is blocked for some reason on your browser, then at least answer that last question and I'll see if I can come up with some links to support your claim for you – cacahuate ^talk 19:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I do believe that the gap between what the citations say and what you claim they support is self-evident. So I have nothing more to add. Sarabseth (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Cacahuate has reverted my edit saying "let's finish discussing this first, nobody else has even agreed with you yet, don't start an edit war".

Isn't this more than a little childish, to claim that it is okay for him/her to make whatever edits he/she wants, but everyone else needs permission from someone else first? If I reverse his edits that's an edit war, when he/she reverses mine it's not?

Can someone else please step in and explain to this person: a) how the contents of his citations does not support the statement in the text that was marked as needing a citation?, b) that there's a big difference between saying that historically Qawwali originated with the Chishtis, and saying that today Qawwali is the devotional music of the Chishtis rather than Sufis in general", c) that he has totally failed to substantiate the latter point? Sarabseth (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't "revert your edit", you removed some citations that I added to the article, when what you should have done is continued to discuss it with me politely on the talk page, so I re-added them. Getting back to the original point, your "point B" above is exactly what I'm trying to get you to understand. If Qawwali originated as a form of devotional music within the Chishti order, and all of the info I've found online seems to agree with that, then as you say above, there is a huge gap between it being the devotional music of the Chishti sufis or the devotional music of all Sufis, which for it to have become, it would have had to have branched out considerably from its roots. I've come across nothing that states anything even remotely close to that. Now, I've never stated that Qawwali hasn't changed at all in form or in its audience since its origins... I'm aware that for some it's taken on an almost purely secular role, but then that has nothing to do with Sufism or this conversation. All that said, to answer your "point C", you're the one asserting that Qawwali has changed significantly from its roots and now applies to most or all sufi orders, which as far as I'm concerned puts the responsibility of proof on you.

Anyhow, I'm not interested in continuing to argue about this, it's really simple at this point... I've come up with a very valid explanation for wanting the sentence to be specific, and if you disagree then show me that I'm wrong by finding some sources that prove me wrong. But please don't drag out this argument without being willing to do some of your own research first – cacahuate ^talk 22:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, scrap some of that... would you agree to the opening sentence reading "Qawwali is a form of Sufi devotional music popular on the Indian Subcontinent"  ? My point from the beginning has never been that I want the Chisthis mentioned in the first sentence of the article, just that the sentence as it read before was misleading. I'd be happy with the above sentence, and then describe the origins in the origins section further down. The whole article still needs work and expansion, I hope to have time to work on it soon, and I hope we can collaborate on it together without a tense discussion over each line. This is silly – cacahuate ^talk 22:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't "revert your edit", you removed some citations that I added to the article, when what you should have done is continued to discuss it with me politely on the talk page, so I re-added them.

I made an edit. You reversed it. That is exactly what is meant by the phrase "you reverted my edit". Amazing that you have managed to convince yourself you didn't revert my edit. But that's pretty much on par with the quality of your "thinking" throughout this exchange. Sarabseth (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't force you to be civil or to come to a compromise, so I'll take your lack of response to my questions as disinterest in the actual issue, and ignore your condescending personal attacks from here on out – cacahuate ^talk 05:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You can take anything you like any way you want. That doesn't begin to make it true. One of these days you might even come to realize that.

I've taken your lack of ability to understand anything I say as a sign that there's really no point my wasting time trying to respond constructively to you. By the time you revert my edits and piously proclaim that you are not reverting edits, all possibilities of meaningful communication have been left far behind. You're in some wonderful self-deluded world of your own, and you obviously like it there very much. It's not only hard but pointless to try and compromise with someone who says black is white.

No matter how much you try to spin the facts, the facts remain that a) you have not been able to support your contention that qawwali is the devotional music of the Chishtis, b) you don't seem to understand enough English or logic to see this. Sarabseth (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarabseth is right. Cacahuate's citations don't support his viewpoint. "Qawwali originated with the Chishtis" is certainly not the same as "today Qawwali is the devotional music of the Chishtis rather than Sufis in general". It is completely illogical to assert that just because an article mentions the Chishtis, that means it has somehow established that qawwali is primarily a Chishti thing.

I'm removing the citations and the Chishti reference.

And, Cacahuate, try to act like an adult and live up to your own prescriptions to others: "nobody else has even agreed with you yet, don't start an edit war". In other words, don't change this back, dude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.238.202 (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarabseth, do try to remember to sign in before posting, and sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~) – cacahuate ^talk 03:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Grow up, dude! So now your behavior presumably doesn't constitute an edit war because you have decreed I am a sock puppet? Rules only apply to other people, never to you, right? You're something else again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.238.202 (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Grow up" is right! Sockpuppetry indeed. Life must be very convenient when you make up your own truths as you go along. I've engaged in futile discussions with idiots and assholes before. I never resorted to sockpuppetry then, and I certainly don't need to do it now. Too bad your fragile ego got hurt because someone supported me in opposing your point of view. But when you make absurd, illogical claims like "Qawwali originated with the Chishtis" or "Qawwali was propagated by the Chishtis" is equivalent to "Qawwali is the devotional music of the Chishtis and not Sufis in general", you should be prepared for people to laugh at you. Sarabseth (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As I've said a few times now, I'm open to you showing me that I'm wrong, and that Qawwali has branched out from it's origins as primarily a Chishti devotional practice and is now widely practiced devotionally by most or all Sufi orders. By all means, find some sources that support that and I'll happily admit my error. However I did suggest an alternative above that I think might satisfy us both, what do you think about the opening sentence reading "Qawwali is a form of Sufi devotional music popular on the Indian Subcontinent". It avoids the issue of who is currently practicing it altogether, which I couldn't care less about establishing right now anyhow, and it's a bit less vague and broad than the previous opening sentence – cacahuate ^talk 06:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

One, as I've said repeatedly, it's self-evident that "Qawwali originated with the Chishtis" or "Qawwali was propagated by the Chishtis" is not equivalent to "Qawwali is the devotional music of the Chishtis and not Sufis in general". How about you address that, instead of dodging it?

Two, you added the Chishti reference, an editor asked you to provide supporting citations, and you have been unable to do so. Asking me to prove you wrong is an absurd response to being asked to produce a citation supporting your contention. You're now reduced to asking others to produce citations proving you wrong. That's not how it works, buddy. When you are asked to produce a citation to support your edit, you need to be able to do so. Or to be honest enough to admit you can't. By neither producing a supporting citation nor admitting you can't -- and by still insisting that you're somehow in the right -- you're just making yourself look both foolish and dishonest. That's perfectly fine, I guess, if you don't care about your credibility on wikipedia.

You're just playing games here, and you know that perfectly well.

And I don't notice you apologizing either for impugning my integrity.

For the record, I don't see anything wrong with the opening sentence as it originally stood before you added the word Chishti to it. (And that has been the opening sentence for a good long time; no one else has had any objection to it before.) You have failed to produce any good reason to explain why it should be changed. You've asserted beliefs that you are unable to support. To my mind, that translates into no case for changing the original version. Sarabseth (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer your first point, I've said a few times now that I agree that those are very different things. However it's actually you that is making the large leap of faith between them, not me... I'm asserting that devotionally, not a lot has changed, and during my research found nothing that has shown me otherwise. You're asserting that it has changed vastly, and aren't willing to back that up with anything other than your own personal words. In other words, I'm saying that black is still black, while you're saying that black has changed to white and that everyone should just take your word for it.

To answer your second point, it's actually me that is challenging an addition/change of material here, not you. You are the one that originally changed the text to make it apply to all Sufis, and yes, I'm asking you to back that up with some references, since the burden of evidence indeed lies with you. But rather than add a lazy "cn" tag to the sentence, I've done my best to rewrite it and make it true again, and hopefully improve it in the process, and I've also added 4 citations that show that black was once black, and say nothing of it changing to white.

Thirdly, the fact that "nobody had yet objected" to the sentence as it once was is irrelevant. Most articles start out with first round stub quality sentences/paragraphs that are overly general and often stereotypical, and they're steadily rewritten and honed and expanded upon and improved throughout the life of an article... That's how the Iraq article got from this to this. There's all kinds of sentences all over this wiki that are too vague, too broad or just plain untrue, and the fact that they've existed thus far in their currently poor state doesn't mean they shouldn't be changed.

And finally, I think if you reread the above thread you'll see that I've consistently tried to move us toward a solution and an end to this argument, and tried to find a less heated way forward... I've tried several time to refocus us on the one and only actual issue here, which is that I had a problem with the sentence being applied to all sufis instead of some sufis. The addition of the word Chishti is not the issue here, that was simply one of a few ways that I tried to clarify the sentence, and I've offered to compromise with you twice now by removing it if we also change the sentence back to its original spirit. So, I think it's pretty clear that I'm not interested in playing games, but in focusing on the article itself. If you disagree with the new sentence that I'm proposing speak now, otherwise I think we should just change it to that or something similar in spirit and put this whole thing to rest – cacahuate ^talk 07:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"To answer your first point, I've said a few times now that I agree that those are very different things."

I'd be very interested if you could point out when and where you said this a few times.

That does, of course, mean that you yourself agree that your citations do not support your point of view. Perhaps you'd care to explain why then you restored those citations after they were removed for precisely this reason by two different editors?

"I'm asserting that devotionally, not a lot has changed, and during my research found nothing that has shown me otherwise. You're asserting that it has changed vastly, and aren't willing to back that up with anything other than your own personal words."

No sir, no sir, three bags full. I'm "asserting" only that you have failed to provide citations that actually support your point. That the only honest thing to do now is to take out the Chishti reference, or let it stand with the "citation needed" tag.

"To answer your second point, it's actually me that is challenging an addition/change of material here, not you. You are the one that originally changed the text to make it apply to all Sufis"

Not true. In terms of the current discussion (Chishtis versus all Sufis), there is no meaningful difference between "Qawwali is a Sufi devotional musical genre" and "Qawwali is the devotional music of the Sufis". All I made there was an innocuous change to fix language that read awkwardly.

And, in any case, your challenge of this editorial change I made on 24 May 2005 was resolved when you added the word Chishti in June 2007, and I allowed it to stand.

Please stop this dishonest nonsense of using my editorial change of 24 May 2005 as a red herring. The current issue is not that change (and so there's no burden of proof on me), but the editorial behavior you have displayed after your insertion of the word Chishti was challenged by 192.30.202.15 in his edit of 17 February 2008, when he/she inserted the "citation needed" tag.

Since then, I've merely pointed out the inadequacy/dishonesty of your response to his/her challenge. As you are fully aware, when you are challenged on your edits, you need to be able to support them. You have been challenging me to provide proof that you are wrong, and insisting that your edit should stand until disproved by others, which is totally dishonest wiki-edit behavior. It's quite funny that you're quoting the "burden of evidence" rules to me, when you yourself are in the middle of cheerfully turning them upside-down.

"And finally, I think if you reread the above thread you'll see that I've consistently tried to move us toward a solution and an end to this argument, and tried to find a less heated way forward..."

I only see you consistently misrepresenting and distorting everything, and being utterly dishonest.

If you disagree with the new sentence that I'm proposing speak now

I said this before, and you totally ignored it, but I'll say it one more time. You can ignore it or respond, depending on whether you're playing games or not. When you propose changing the opening sentence in a spirit of compromise etc., what you are claiming is that the article should be changed from what it originally read because of some beliefs that you have which you have been unable to support when challenged. That's absurd.

And I still don't notice you apologizing for impugning my integrity. Accusing me of dishonesty is a very good way of finding "a less heated way forward". Sarabseth (talk) 14:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've nothing more to add to my last statement, which is incredibly clear, concise, and focused on the issue at hand. I've now changed the opening sentence to reflect what I've been suggesting, and that reflects the original spirit of the sentence. If you again wish to change it to encompass "all" sufis, please back that up with references – cacahuate ^talk 04:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Legendary Qawwals of the Past

1) Fateh Ali Khan Mubarik Ali Khan is the name of the nusrat Feteh Ali's Father

2) Bakshi Salamat Qawwal ---- They were Aone class Artistes of Radio Pakistan and pakistan Televission . They were the most popular qawwals in the world during that time , Bakshi Salamat Qawwali group performed in Sigapore and Malysia 1980 . Bakshi Salamat qawwal's audio's are available at oretial Star and Rehmat Gramophoe.

3) Who is Maula Baksh? Is this Nusrat's grandfather? If so, are you going by "if he was Nusrat's grandfather he must have been very well regarded", or is there any reference which demonstrates his standing and reputation?

--Sarabseth 00:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

To Ayyub salamat

Don't edit previous comments. Add your own comments below. (Note to all: the previous comment is not mine any more; it was edited by Ayyub salamat.)

What part of "Fateh Ali Khan is already on the list" do you not understand?

Nusrat's father was Fateh Ali Khan. Mubarik Ali Khan was his uncle. The party was headed by Fateh Ali Khan. He is already listed. The entry does not have to be repeated (as you kept doing before) or expanded (as you have done today).

As for Bakshi Salamat, and "They were the most popular qawwals in the world during that time", that may be your personal opinion, but it's pure hogwash. And from your name, it seems that you may have some family connection to him. You cannot keep foisting your personal opinions into a wikipedia entry if other editors disagree. I'm not the only one who disagrees with Bakshi Salamat's inclusion on this list. However, you are the only one trying to add him to the list. Please cease and desist.

I'm not going to go in and undo the changes you made to the Qawwali page today. Will leave it to others. Suggest you do so too (respect the consensus opinion). --Sarabseth 16:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Legendary Qawwals of Past..? How far is the Past, What are the years included in the sentence

word "Past".? would 1945,1949 HMV records of Qawwal consider Past Qawwals ? Let there be page of Qawwals without any geographical boundaries of Pakistan and India(Bharat). When Ameer Khusru (disciple of Nizamuddin Aulia) recited Qawwali, India was as one (including present Pakistan area) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalakmu (talk • contribs) 23:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

India and Pakistan

This whole "Qawaali has nothing to do with india" nonsense is getting rather tiresome.

It has every bit as much to do with India as Pakistan. It is performed at Sufi shrines all over India just as it is in Pakistan. Qawwali performances attract enthusiastic crowds in India just as they do in Pakistan.

Qawwali performances attract enthusiastic crowds in India just as they do in Pakistan.

Over the last few months, various people have got pretty offensive on this subject (as per edit summaries under "History").

The funny thing, of course, that this anti-India tirade is entirely antithetical to the spirit of Sufism and of qawwali. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree... I'm pretty sure it's just one person using different accounts, I can't imagine there are several with this same ridiculous agenda – cacahuate ^talk 05:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Tiresome? Well I think it has nothing to do with India and will continue to delete your nonsense until you understand this. By the way it is only one person and that's me, so you can go ahead and report me to whoever you wish, but fact of the matter remains, Qawaali has nothing to do with India. Stop stealing other peoples culture and history and start concentrating on your OWN culture and history, which indians have a hardtime being proud of. Explains why you people can't even speak your own language (Hindi) and opt for a colonial langiage (English). Disgusting needless to say. User talk:Bk2006 13:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

→ co ← – cacahuate ^talk 00:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I have never heard of a popular Indian qawwal. It is predominantly a Pakistani form of music, and all the famous musicians of the genre continue to be Pakistani. Even if it is in India, there is not much strong sigificance about it. Also, if Sarabseth does want to show that it exists in India, then he/she needs to provide links and references to point out to it rather than just stating opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strider11 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard of a popular Indian qawwal

That just shows your ignorance of the subject. It is actually you who is trying to force your opinions into the article, opinions that are flatly contradicted by the facts.

The following from the "Legendary qawwals of the past" and "Well-known qawwals of today" lists in the article are all Indian qawwals: Aziz Ahmed Warsi, Habib Painter, Jafar Husain Khan Badauni, Aziz Nazan, Chhote Aziz Nazan, Ghulam Sabir Nizami and Ghulam Waris Nizami.

So why don't you just go away quietly and stop pretending that you have any knowledge whatsoever about the prevalence and popularity of qawwali in India? --Sarabseth (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding these Indian Qawwals, can you clarify their notability? If they are popular, for some reason, either their pages don't exist or either there is not even a category called "Indian Qawwal singers" on Wikipedia, which I was searching for. By the way, can you also properly verify the fact that most popular Qawwals today are all Indian, as you just mentioned above? Because when I opened all the pages in that list that "did exist", they all turned out to be from Pakistan.// —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacifist94 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hogwash; I never said that "most popular Qawwals today are all Indian".

Whether or not their pages exist or someone has bothered to create a category called "Indian Qawwal singers" doesn't change the facts.

The "Legendary qawwals of the past" and "Well-known qawwals of today" lists were created a long time ago. No one has disputed that these Indian qawwals belong on these lists. Therefore, there are many legendary and well-known qawwals who are Indian. That is clearly sufficient to establish the facts that Strider11 disputed and challenged me to prove: that qawwali exists in India, that all the famous musicians of the genre are not Pakistani.

Because when I opened all the pages in that list that "did exist", they all turned out to be from Pakistan.

Impeccable logic. When you click on the pages of Pakistani qawwals they all turn out to be Pakistani. Feel free to explain how that undermines my point.--Sarabseth (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And who are these "enthusiastic crowds" composed of? Hindus and Sikhs?? lol!!! Anyway my friend, no matter how much you try, the spiritual hub of Qawalli will always be Pakistan, not India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.96.12 (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of so-called 'robot vandalism'

SpBot has twice in the last week removed the interwiki link ur:قوٌالی, and this action has twice been reverted manually. The robot's action appears to be correct as there is no article at the destination. None of the 9 other-language WP's contains a link to an Urdu article. I am reverting the reversion now, and please discuss before undoing.
--Yumegusa (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)