Talk:Barelvi movement/Archive 1

Aqeeda definition
The Aqeeda Which i have added is Correct.becaus We Know What is Our Aqeda more than any other Person We are Barelwi (Sunni) .this page has been a medium of Practical in the Hands of Wahabis. Shabiha


 * Chisti, Suhrawardi etc. are Tariqas. They are Madhabs of Tasawwuf. These are distinct from Aqida. Please recategorise what you're adding or stop doing it. --Nkv 10:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The Aqeeda of all Sunnis is the same, Barewis DO NOT have a distinct aqeeda from Shafis, Malikis etc, we all Sunnis have the same Aqeeda, that is the least common denominator between all Sunnis. You are mixing up the lazy and inaccurate general use of the word Aqeeda linguistically by (again) Indian subcontinentals who use it to refer to more general and divisive issues, and incorrectly applying that use in a strictly technical sense here. Please provide one reliable source which defines Aqeeda as other than the basic, fundamental foundational qati'i creed/Iman established with conviction without any thunn or Shaq. If you don't speak Arabic, or if you don't quote arabic sources you are hardly qualified to define the term Aaliyah Stevens 15:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

New Edits
I am adding some useful and relevent information about Barelwis by the Heading : These heads may be modified in to some other relevent one if needed .I am trying to provide a full fledge information on this topic. Shabiha 06:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)shabiha
 * Barelwi follows the following Sufi Tariqas
 * Points of Dispute with Others
 * Organizations

salaamz i would just like to add barelwi is not a sect people like the deoband and wahabis have turned it into a sect. the so called barelwi aqeedah has been here since the time of the prophet sullula hu alayhi wasalam. Barelwi is a place in india where one of the greatest sufis of the qadariyyah silsila came from imam ahmed raza khan, he did not inevent his own sect/aqeedah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.252.74 (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality/Accuracy Tag
Tagging of this article seems bias ness ha ben done. What was wrong with the Aqaid Section When I Add a Link To That Barelwi Considers their Prophet as Noor / Hazir o Nazir /Capable of Telling Ghaib(Unseen Power)and he will Intercede on the day of Qiyamah.
 * This is a belief that many schools have. The Barelwis are a Hanafi group who follow the Maturidi school of Aqida who consider Ahmad Raza Khan as their leader. That's it. There's no charter anywhere that says "If you have to be of the Barelwi school, you should consider the Prophet as Noor". --Nkv 13:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong if This is Our Aqaid and WIKIPEDIA testifies it. Hundreds of References may be given to Prove this Point. On =WIKIPEDIA= You will Find

What was the fate of Muhammad's soul after his death?

[edit] Sufi views Sufi's believe that Muhammad is alive his spirit pervades the world and can be reached by true seekers.

For the Barelvis, the holy Prophet knows ilm -ul-gaib and he sees all the deeds by his Ummah and also he has been given all theknowledges by his Lord.; he is Hazir (witness); he is Bashar as well as Nur (light). [2] It has been stated in the Hadith: "Verily, Almighty Allah has made it Haraam upon the earth to eat the bodies of the Ambiya". It has also been stated that Ambiya and Aulia are alive and are blessed with Sustenance from Almighty Allah(God provides food for them in their graves). [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_of_Muhammad#Sufi_views

Please Reply soon ....


 * I just don't think it's advisable to turn an article into a badly edited one with lots of transliterated Urdu terms. I think that the only thing the article needs is a statement that Imam Ahmad Raza founded the school, that it's largely restricted to India, that they differ on many points from the Deoband school and some links to disputed subjects. Anything more is prosletysation since it is a group largely restricted to India. --Nkv 13:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Shabiha 09:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)shabiha

Barlewi is not a School but a Movement
The Barelwi School as You are Saying is not a School or Sect. It is the Name Given by the People having Purinitical Wahabi Ideology in the Indian SubContinent to Oppose the Defending oftraditional Sufism by Imam ahmed Raza Khan. The People of Kahmir to Kanya kumari and Kabul to Dhaka were Traditional Sufism Practising people Who Find the Defence of their Aqaids or Ideology in the writings of Imam Ahmed Raza Khan, a Great sufi Scholar. It has been researched By Columbia University Scholar Usha Sanyal :Ahle Sunnat Movement and Imam ahmed Raza Khan Barelwi .Total 25 Ph D's in Various University of the World have been Completed On him. Any way people Read the British Islam You will Know the Truth. All the Sunnis Who are known as Barelwis by others have same Ideology Except with Deobandis and Wahabis. Shabiha 14:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)shabiha

From all the research that has been conducted in Universities of the world on the works and efforts of Imam Ahmed Raza Khan Barelwi, has anyone ever found a single quotation from Imam Ahmed Raza Khan Barelwi, in which he distinguishes any movement to be followed by his followers as a new school of thought and for his followers to label themselves as Barelwi ?

On the contrary, Imam Ahmed Raza Khan Barelwi was a staunch orthodox Muslim with undying belief in his love for the Holy Prophet of Islam (SAW) as being his salvation. He was Qadri in his Spiritual following and allegiance to an unbroken spritual chain leading upto the well known Saint and Sufi Scholar Hadrat Abdul Qadir Jilani (RA), and stood out in his time for his strong willed and often unparralleled rebuttal of new ideas and beliefs which were infiltrating the Muslims of the Indian Sub Continent. At about this time there were various claimants to the title of "Authentic & Mainstream Muslims" from within the Indian Sub-Continent. Amongst these you will find the works of the Ahl-e-Hadith group and in particular the book written by Ehsan Elahi Zaheer "Bareilawis History & Belief" (translated into English by Dr Abdullah 1985). This book aims to isolate the efforts and works of Imam Ahmed Raza Khan Barelwi as a new Sect with ideoligy and practices out of the empit of Islam and innovatory to the extent of creating an Unlawful Innovation or series of Unlawful Innovations. The label of the Book was aimed at isolating Imam Ahmed Raza Khan Barelwi, and promoting the title Barelwi or Bareilawi, as an identifiable sect.

The ideology of Imam Ahmed Raza Khan Barelwi is the same as the prevailing majority not only in the Indian Sub-Continent but throughout the Muslim world. Therefor the followers of Imam Ahmed Raza Khan Barelwi are neither a Sect nor an identifiable School, they are mainstream authentic Mulims. Muftian 14:16, 13 May 2007

Unreferenced numerical claims
Recently, a user wrote claims in the introductory paragraph that Barlwis make up the majority of Muslims in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and the United Kingdom. I inspected the referencs to confirm and almost laughed, and then almost cried. The "references" were as follows: This is just not acceptable for an encyclopedia. Many people read Wikipedia for information and to have blatantly unbacked claims paraded around as fact is wildly irresponsible. I hope we can all be mature and objective with our edits in the future. MezzoMezzo 21:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For India, the link was an internal Wiki link to the article in Islam in India. And all it said was that Barelwis make up a "large number" of Muslims in India, not the majority.  That article itself also did not provide a reference.
 * For Pakistan it was the same, a simple link to the Wiki article on Pakistan. And again no mentioned that Barelwis are the majority, just that there are many of them.
 * For Bangladesh it was again the same thing, link to the Wiki article which itself didn't say that make up the majority.
 * The United Kingdom references were a trip. The first was a link to the Wiki article, which does claim that Barelwis make up the majority but only after the same user who inserted these claims here edited it, in addition to putting more information (into the Islam in the United Kingdom article) that was very culturally biased toward South Asians.  The second reference was a news story about the Terrorism Act of 2006 in the UK, which was just confusing.  The last was a link to a PDF file from some evangelical Christian group saying that Barelwis make up the majority of Hanafi Muslims in Northern England and, surprise surprise, not providing any references for claiming so.

Biased
This is completely biased Barelwi article, where is all the illegal Fatwas? Where is the mention of Ahmad Raza commiting kufr in his own book. No wonder, you have kept the article safe by saying "Wahabi propoganda". I'm informing some admins. --Yu5uF 19:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

two recent things with points have beeen added
i have added barelwis fatwa about salman khan and their presence in United kingdom. oneshould discuss them before editing .121.247.138.34 10:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Shabiha
 * The notability of that specific fatwa was not substantiated in the link, only that it was made. There are literally hundreds of fatawa out there, and since Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information there is no reason to include it.  In addition, the POV charged information about Deobandis has absolutely no relevance to this article whatsoever. MezzoMezzo 16:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This information has once again been added, despite it not being relevant. Please do not edit war. MezzoMezzo 09:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop mezzo mezzo ...HELP IS NEEDED OF NEUTRAL EDITORS
Salman Khan 's fatwa is very much in the news and first google salman news what i do is Blatant POV and u do is all correct. Either remove abdul mannan's news or other wise don't delete Times online news about moderate majority. Actually u wish to show this Movement in Bad Image whereas u r Always deleting links which shows that DEOBANDIS ARE HARDLINER AN BARELWIS ARE IN MAJORITY IN BRITAIN N ARE MOERATE. ARE THESE MY PERSONAL VIEWS?

Shabiha 23:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, just because the fatwa on Salman Khan is in the news does not justify its presence in the article. There are literally hundreds of Barelwi fatawa out there and you have not proven why this one is more notable than any others.  Wikipedia is neither a soapbox] nor is it a [[WP:IINFO|trivia collection.


 * Second of all, I have no problem removing the information on Abdul Mannan as I just noticed now that you brought it to our attention that it is unreferenced. Good eye, i'll take it out now.


 * Third of all, do not accused me of trying to put anyone in a bad image as you do not know what my intentions are as an editor. This is not only a violation of the official No personal attacks policy but of the Assume good faith behavioral guideline as well.


 * Fourth, that Deobandis are hardliners is once again just an opinion and once again another point of view. While the Times article is suitable as an external link, it is advertised as an opinion/editorial piece and not balanced journalistic coverage.  These are both the paper's and what seem like your personal views and to base article content off of them is a violation of the official Neutral point of view policy.  In addition, you still have not explained how information on the Deobandis is relevant at all in an article about a completely different religious group.


 * Also, while it's good to get as many editors as possible involved, please do not launch personal attacks on my on the talk page or through headlines, or insinuate that I am not being neutral without even hearing my reasoning for edits. You have made personal attacks on me several times in the past as well as recently on the Deobandi article.  I want to work this out with you but if you cannot stop these attacks then you will be reported.  You have been warned. MezzoMezzo 03:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This edit has been made again, this time without even discussing it here on the talk page. Shabiha, the section you are adding is pure point of view and original research. Not only have you still failed to explain why the fatwa regarding Salman Khan is notable - there are hundreds of fatawa made by the Barelwis, as mentioned before - but you also haven't defended your insertion of comments about Deobandis, an entirely different religious movement that already has their own separate article, into this one. Furthermore, one editorial openly advertised as an *opinion* piece by the Times is not an indication of widespread acceptance that Barelwis are moderate and Deobandis are not; it only represents the opinion of the person who wrote the article and while it may serve somewhat as an external link (maybe, not saying yes for sure) it is pure POV and doesn't belong as a reference for article content. Please stop this behavior immediately as it is both disruptive to the improvement of this article and a form of edit warring as you have consistently refused to discuss your edit here, relying instead on debating the actual subject of the article (which is not what talk pages are for) and launching numerous personal attacks on myself. MezzoMezzo 20:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The fatwa has been discussed widely in Indian Media and Salman khan is a Super Star of Bollywood which has Crores of Supporters .It has relevancy also in terms ofResponse of Public debates.

Im adding what a Reputed and famous News source has said about Barelwis.As we Claim our Majority in Every programme ,a Third Party as Famous as Times Has Very Much Relevancy. It is Not the Opinion buta Research work base on the Calculations of Numbers of Mosques.count here our Committees and Some Masjids[]only. im Not saying deobndis are Hardliner ifferent People with Evidences are saying it

1.[]

[]

3.[] 4.-]

5.[]

6.[]

7.[]

8.[]

U will not Find Links about Barelwis Discussing Hrlinerand Extremism. All These links Shows that eobandi Ideology is Extremist and Hardliner. All arewrong and u r Once Again True.

U may again reject all of these and Others but See OthersPoint also the Image ofBarelwis is PeaceLoving ,Moderate and less active in politics.The Attributes of a Partucular Movement Must be on its Page. Shabiha 23:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point entirely. It's not about whose opinion is "true" or what should or shouldn't be rejected.


 * As I mentioned above, there are literally hundreds of Barelwi fatawa out there. Yes, the one about Salman Khan is in the news; you still haven't explained why it is more relevant than the other fatawa.  Current events can function as an external link but news reports ARE NOT what Wikipedia is for, and basing article content off of news reports is in violation of the official What Wikipedia is not policy.


 * As far as Barelwis being moderate, you more or less refuted yourself here. It is others points; these are all various points of view and again, they can serve as external links but to base article content off of them as your edits do is in violation of the official Neutral point of view policy.  Posting more links of people holding that specific point of view doesn't actually prove it's "correctness", as any point of view can never, ever be "correct" in regard to official site policies. MezzoMezzo 02:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Times Report is Investigation not opinion
An investigation by a national newspaper claimed almost half of Britain’s 1,350 mosques, including 59 out of 75, across Oldham, Blackburn, Burnley, Preston and Bolton, promote teachings of the Deobandi movement.

The report claimed Deobandi is an ultra-conservative movement.... []. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabiha (talk • contribs) 00:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, for the umpteenth time this is the Barelwi article. That report you just posted is about Deobandis and they already have their own article.  Furthermore, according to the person interviewed in that very article: "I have done a lot of work with the Deobandi school and if it was not for their support we would not have built the bridges within our communities. It suggested adheering to faith people are categorised as extremists. That is dangerously pigeonholing Muslims. It also undermines how much Islam has travelled and does not recognise the obvious progression that it has made."  So even ignoring the fact that Deobandis being "hardliners" is merely an opinion, that article doesn't even seem to back up the assertion.


 * I understand that you have strong views on this subject but you need to understand that you have no right to base any article on this site on your views; rather, articles are based on objective information and what is relevant in regard to official site policy. What you're doing right now is treating this like some sort of debate between me and you when ideally we're supposed to be discussing this issues in a mature fashion, without any hard feelings, and ultimately trying to improve upon articles.  Edit warring is not helpful and will get you nowhere, as it isn't going to push anyone away from simply reverting as well.  I ask that you please review all the above policies and guidelines that I have posted here for you before replying here, as you'll see that to base article content off of news reports, point of view, and personal creed is incorrect. MezzoMezzo 02:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I read some of the stuff posted by Shabiha... Obviously this person does not know the basics of Wicki rules... this is not our "journal entries" that we can add info about an Indian actor! Also, "in the news" does not necessitate relevance to academic or wick-type info. I believe this person should be reported/probated/banned, whatever necessary, for the repeated reverts and attempts at biasing the article. Abureem 16:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that i'm not the only one who realizes this...Shabiha, it has been explained to you by multiple editors now via What Wikipedia is not that news reports are not valid content for articles; yet, even after the above comment by Abureem you went ahead and did the edit again without even justifying it here, claiming in the edit summary that the information you have added is "current"...which is exactly why it doesn't belong. I'm going to ask you again to please stop edit warring. MezzoMezzo 19:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

NEW Heading Missionary Activities
Please discuss about this Movement of Barelwis and then Edit .It is very Much Relevant. i think that Times news link should be there as it is Presenting a true picture and making People aware about the distinction between two movements. also it is widely discussed and Reported item ..Ur views may be Otherwise.Shabiha will also agree with me i have added fatwa link on the Page but in External link Area to bring an end to dispute. Please Respect new Heading. Msoamu 22:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I like your edit. Like I said before, the news report is ok as an external link but per WP:NOT, news reports and current events aren't relevant to article content itself.  However, your caption on "they have been described as" is neutral and while I can only speak for myself, I agree to your edit.  Thanks for helping to resolve the issue in a way that enhances the article. MezzoMezzo 04:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Though the new Heaing is Nice but i have to say that Fatwa needs to be Mentioned in the Middle of the Page. I request to Msoamu to please give it more Exposure. I will not Revert that now as it seems to me that good work has been done.thank You Msoamu. Shabiha 18:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Heading
As for the references for quotes on Barelwi beliefs, these claims seem dubious at best, more likely to appear from material critical of them. Until it can be checked for authenticity, it should not be up there due to its highly contentious nature. shabiha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.140.112 (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you and support your recent edit. Please don't copy-paste my own comments from other talk pages though, it looks like trolling. MezzoMezzo 13:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
In regard to the recent edits, please see WP:MOSISLAM. The article had a great deal of honorifics, POV, and dead links that had to be removed. MezzoMezzo 03:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Shabiha, please don't accuse me of vandalism simply for removing your POV from this article as you did here. You asked me to justify my edits on talk, and I did so here; you then went around and reverted without even responding here.  Not only did you violate the official No personal attacks policy, but you're also engaging in edit warring, disruptive editing, and are POV pushing.  Please be mature about this and explain the issues you take with my recent edits, seeing as you were the one who asked for it to be discussed here to begin with.


 * Also, please don't claim to be restoring the consensus version when it's clear that no consensus on this article has been reached yet. That's dishonest. MezzoMezzo 15:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't Change timesonline views and it was not me who Inserted them in Persent Position .It was some Other User and after a Long time of Nearly two Months You Started them Changing with out Discussion so You vandalized!
 * I Know that You are not liking Majority word with the Barelwis in U.K but it is Truth which is Confirmed by Neutral Sources  So You have no Option but to Vandalize it.
 * If You will Continue then i am going to take Your More time.
 * I think It will be Better to let me do my Business with these articles and you Improve Your favourites.Shabiha (t • c) 20:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I was removing the direct quote from the article as it was chosen for the POV that it presented. It's a good citation; a specific quote isn't actually necessary.

Second of all, my changing it without discussion is NOT vandalism; you obviously have not read the official Vandalism policy. Please don't hurl accusation around like that considering you don't seem to understand what it means.

Third of all, my concern isn't editing my "favourites"; my concern is ensuring a neutral presentation of public information for all readers of Wikipedia. You've consistently shown on this article that your concern isn't the same. You have also failed to address your other insertions, such as Wikipedia as a source and non-external links into the external links section. MezzoMezzo 01:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that Shabiha clearly states an intent of bias (favoritism): "I think It will be Better to let me do my Business with these articles" should entitle her/him of being kicked out for objectives that are not consistent with wikipedia's goals. Abureem 14:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Shabiha (t • c) 18:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia will not work according to Your personal Views !Unerstand . You want to see Times online report by YourOwn Glass but it will be there as was Reported.Means Truth will Prevail.
 * To Abureem You shown Your true Colours. Ihave nothing to say.


 * 1) The same could be said to you about your own personal views, as you have made it known numerous times both here and on the article for Deobandis that your goal is to represent what you feel is "Sunni Traditional Islam".
 * 2) Please don't tell me what it is I want for this article, as you are violating Assume good faith.
 * 3) Abureem is voicing a concern than I know editors other than he and I share and have expressed about you in the past.
 * Please understand Shabiha, that if you're willing to discuss each issue here in a mature manner, are willing to listen to the concerns of other editors, and are willing to compromise to reach a consensus then we won't have all these recurring issues with you. If you continue with the behavior you've displayed so far, then you're just engaging in edit warring and disruptive editing and nobody is going to tolerate that.  Please consider this seriously. MezzoMezzo 19:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Shabiha (t • c) 20:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * u need to stop ur disruptive editing in the article which is already fine.
 * abureem and likes have no Civilty and they are working on behalf of You.or they are Sockpuppet of urs.
 * Times issue was settelled already which needsnnot ur Biased and Non Neutral editing.
 * and Don't remove new heading Presentabout various scholars.it is Vandalism once again.

First of all, how is my editing disruptive? I've justified all my edits here on talk like you asked. You, however, have consistently reverted any changes not only without discussion, but also with rather rude edit summaries as well. That's a textbook example of both disruptive editing and edit warring.

Second of all, if you think Abureem or anyone has been uncivil, then you need to say up front where you feel this incivility occured. You simply throwing the word out there means nothing.

Third of all, the accusation of sock puppetry without any basis is a personal attack; just because more than one editor recognizes your disruption doesn't mean they're "working together" against you. You also have absolutely no basis for accusing Abureem specifically of being a sockpuppet of me - i'm not even sure if you fully understand what one is.

Fourth, the Times issue was never "settled", you simply felt the need to insert your own POV; no discussion of it ever took place.

Fifth, please explain how my edits are biased; otherwise, you're just launching another petty personal attack.

Sixth, accusing me of vandalism without proof is also a personal attack. Vandalism - since you don't seem to know what it is at all - is editing with the intention of compromising Wikipedia. Having differing views on what's best for an article is NOT vandalism.

You've engaged in a serious amount of edit warring, disruptive editing, and personal attacks here on this page. You also appear to have violated the official revert policy in this recent edit as well. This has to stop. MezzoMezzo 20:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Mezzomezzo's Disruptive Editing
Any One can see that on 25 th oct He did Starting of Disrupting this Article which was not facing any major change for more than 2 months.
 * Mezzo mezzo Inserted New and Very Derogatory and Undefined and un discussed word Barelwism for Barelwi Movement and Replaced Islam which was written there.

Shabiha (t • c) 20:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He after some time changed the Times Online Views by his Biased Editing to remove Majority word from Report also Taken Over of some Barelwi Mosques by deobanddi Group in U.K.
 * I came to Know that he than Continued from here his baseless editing.
 * he Removed New HeadingPresent which has names of some Barelwi scholars.
 * he Persuaded Abureem the Uncivil Wahabi najdi ,to come on this page Specially against me, who said to throw me Out in this talk page.when i was suggesting to mezzo to let me do my work.
 * the Base less editing of Mezzo is continued which is not Bearable.


 * Shabiha,I remind you not to attack other editors as you did here. You called me "uncivil", a "wahabi", a "najdi" and a "sock-puppet". Since the former 3 are clearly personal attacks and the last one is an unfounded allegation, I'd like to ask MezzoMezzo or other editors how to make Shabiha comply with Wiki etiquettes? Is there free-ride to accuse anyone you disagree with? Abureem 21:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) My edit back on the 25th you posted there was the removal of POV and the standardization of the article to get it in line with WP:MOSISLAM. A good-faith edit attempting to remove POV isn't disruptive editing.
 * 2) The article had numerous changes previously even on that same day, so your claim that there had been no major change for two months is clearly false.
 * 3) Barelwism is the noun form of the adjective Barelwi; this is basic in the English language. As has been noted by numerous other editors on multiple articles, your English is not particularly good; this isn't a shot at you, it's simply pointing out that you do tend to make mistakes regarding the English language, this accusation that "Barelwism" is a derogatory term being one of them.
 * 4) I replaced Islam with Sufism because, while it is a movement within both, Sufism is more specific and exact. That's just good editing.
 * 5) I removed the copy edited quote from the Times Online citation. That's an issue of article style, not any sort of "Biased Editing".  Please Assume good faith, as you have no basis for thinking I have anything against Barelwis.
 * 6) Of what relevance is my removal of verb tense from a subsection title to supposed disruptive editing?
 * 7) I asked Abureem to come on as a mediator as seeking third party assistance is part of the dispute resolution process. You've been editing long enough to where you should really already know that.
 * 8) You have once again launched in a blatant personal attack on Abureem here. How can you possibly justify that in the face of the official No personal attacks policy and then turn around and accuse someone else of violating site policy?
 * 9) It's not an issue of not letting you "do your work". You do not own this article.  Ownership of articles is relevant here. MezzoMezzo 00:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally believe Mezzomezzo should be banned from wiki. He is not making genuine contributions instead only spreading his sectarian POV in every article he goes by. He is practically censoring anything that does not seem to show his particular sect in good light no matter how strong the evidence is, even from his own sect’s books. I wonder what sort of religion needs such crutches.

Some amdin should take matters in their hands and give Mezzomezzo warning to calm down and start respecting edits by others.
 * 1) Your assertion that my contributions are not genuine is a violation of Assume good faith. You have no information that would indicate I am not being sincere other than disagreeing with your edits.
 * 2) You have accused me of both sectarianism and POV but not provided any proof. I also find it funny that removing content you add is somehow adding POV; I think you need to actually read the official Neutral point of view policy before you start throwing accusations around.
 * 3) While you're at it, please read the official No personal attacks policy as you've already violated it several times.
 * 4) You don't even know what my sect is or if I even have one, so please drop the silly insults for now and say specifically what you take issue with.
 * As for your edits, you have consistently inserted a YouTube link as a citation. This is in violation of both the official Reliable sources guideline and the official Verifiability policy.  The statement you're using the citation for is also a criticism of the Deobandis, in which case it belongs in their article, not this one (that is assuming you can find a suitable reference).


 * Personal attacks and blatant disregard for official site policy will not be tolerated. Please read the above mentioned policies and guidelines as I feel it will help you improve your style of editing greatly. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why can't Add Akhtar Raza
In present days the great grand son of Aala Hazrat Moulana As-shah Ahmed Raza, Hazrat Tajushshariya Allama Akhtar Raza Khan is there. Why you can not add name and detailed biography of present Sufi in this column. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.244.83 (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Mezzo's Biased editing in Controversy
You're only saying it lacks 'credentials' because it doesn't conform to your POV. You've proven to myself and others that you are unable to be objective regarding this article, as you are a hardline Barelwi yourself and have opposed efforts at neutrality in this article multiple times. If you take issue with it, let's bring it to mediation. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC) .''' Shabiha (t 06:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Mezzo stop Neither You can not  delete all the articles from Barelwi page nor will be successful in inserting wahabi Propganda in this page .The news report You cited is lacking credentials and full report if you accept will not be digestable by You.Shabiha (t • c) 05:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You have only accused me here and no explanation is given for Inserting report in bad light. Do I need to compromise on Your POV to be Objective ?Never!
 * Your second link itself tells the whole story which says that Tuesday’s violence comes in the aftermath of an incident on Sunday night when Markazi Jamiat Ahle Hadith Sindh Amir and MMA leader Mufti Muhammad Yousuf Kasuri was arrested under the Blasphemy Act.
 * Your first link also says that they are regaining mosques,'''Experts believe that the bombers targeted Abbas Qadri, Amir or supreme leader of the Sunni Tehreek, a Barelvi organisation fighting since 1992 to regain mosques which it claims were usurped by the sect's opponents. Sunni Tehreek leaders claim to have seized at least 62 Deobandi and Salafi mosques between 1992 and 2002 in ways that have on occasion sparked violence
 * I have no Problem ever if complete truth is brought but You always bring what suits to You and this POV will not be there ok.
 * MoreOver if these reports with full Version of truth are added on Barelwi page then Youhave to show same Objectivity there on Deobandi page where You feel uneasy when i tried to add Times Online link claiming that Deobandis are extremist and have wrested control of Barelwi Mosques.
 * I'm not exactly sure why you posted clips from those articles. This is the article on Barelwis, and as such the portion of those sources relating to the Barelwi movement are relevant.  Information on the other groups is not.  Please don't try changing the subject or clouding the issue.  As for the Deobandi article, that's an entirely separate issue but it is interesting to note that you attempted to use the news story I brought here from The Hindu as a source there.  So much for it unreliable.


 * As for The Times report, we already went through this several months ago and the consensus was against you bringing it here and you even backed down then. The Times article was an editorial, and opinion page, and as an opinion it was not appropriate as a citation for factual information.  The report from the Daily Times, however, is an actual news report and is quite appropriate; it would indeed appear that Barelwi groups in their own words are forcibly taking over Salafi and Deobandi mosques.  You have no right to whitewash this fact.  The same goes for the other article as well.


 * Rather than provide any explanation as to why these sources are not acceptable, you have simply launched a personal attack on myself. Since you haven't provided anything substantial, i'm going to restore the article again as it is not appropriate for you to barge in here, insult me personally and expect me to be bullied into letting you have your way based on that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So it has to added if u r adding it which is actual reason of Violence.
 * These links will be there if full reporting without half truth is added, about first one which says about Violence Outside Ahle hadith mosque also says thatMarkazi Jamiat Ahle Hadith Sindh Amir and MMA leader Mufti Muhammad Yousuf Kasuri was arrested under the Blasphemy Act.

This story itself in the samelink tells that a Barelvi organisation fighting since 1992 to regain mosques which it claims were usurped by the sect's opponents. This fact can't be escaped if violence of barelwi Organization is be discussed. It will be fact and truth.You inserted this half truth and you Own the responsibility to add full story with correct facts Otherwise I am removing it.
 * And Your edit- '''Between 1992 and 2002, Barelwi organizations have claimed to have forcibly taken over dozens of Deobandi and Salafi Mosques in incidents that have often sparked violence.
 * This 'anything substantial will not be Your point of View ok.

The fact that you're attempting to "bargain" over the edits to this article based on our edits on another article doesn't bode well for your case; it seems a bit insincere. The Barelwi article has nothing to do with the Deobandi article, they're two entirely different things. And that you would accuse me of showing Barelwis in a negative light for going against your own POV speaks volumes.
 * Now in the end I will say that You Yourself started to edit Barelwi page in the Negative light. You now wish to avoid same thing forthe page of Your liking .I think if You are ready to not revert those reports I am ready to Compromise there on Deobandi.So I am now not reverting on Deobandi Page again for some time to see your response. Shabiha (t 19:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the citation from the Daily Times, your claim that the reason for the violence was the arrest of an Ahle Hadith leader is absolutely, 100% false. The violence was due to an attempted takeover of the mosque; the article makes it very clear that the arrest of the Ahle Hadith leader was a separate incident. Furthermore, it has no relevance to this article as that incident has nothing to do with Barelwis.

As far Barelwis claiming that they are retaking mosques they claim were once theirs, then submit a version that includes this fact here and we'll look at it. You should really try to suggest changes rather than jumping to accusations as you have done with me in nearly every encounter we've had over the past few months; not only is it more likely to get you some cooperation, but it also makes your case look more like a serious suggestion than flaming.

Also, you have continuously deleted the information I have added while claiming to be editing according to consensus, when you clearly have none. That is not only mistaken but dishonest. Please discuss like a mature adult here first rather than jumping right into edit warring, in the long term this will actually help you get your say in. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

1.The barelwis were fighting to recapture their usurped Mosques. 2.The Violence Outside Ahlehadith mosque came in the aftermath of arrest of its leader.so complete truth I have added and it is not from any Other Source but from same links. I accept Your Version but with those few Modifications hope You will Cooperate here and there also.Shabiha (t 05:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been told many times here that You are avoiding complete Story
 * Yes, you have said many times that I am avoiding the complete story but you haven't provided any proof.


 * Regarding your suggestions. First and foremost, as I said, the Ahle Hadith leader's arrest was unrelated to the incident with the Barelwis in that article so it's irrelevant.  As for them retaking usurped mosques, I would insert the adjective "claimed", as this is just their position; obviously, the people they take the mosques from don't feel the same way. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I can show even Proofs and  references that Deobandis /Ahlekhabis have Captured Sunni[Barelwi] communities Mosques.What ever is in report against All these terrorist associated groups is True.Shabiha (t 21:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Aftermath ,written in report so most relevant ..
 * The People who Robs the innocent and law abiding civilians all think that they are doing Justice but law has to work from there okay.There  are thousand of Cases in India and Pakistan in the courts and many have been Decided.
 * I honestly don't even understand what you're trying to say here. Everyone has the right to edit Wikipedia regardless of language skills, but if you can't put together a coherent comment in English then your edits will not stand.  Please consider rephrasing what you said above, as it appears incomprehensible. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Posts incorrectly above table of contents moved here.
In case, cogent reasons are not there for existence of two pages for the same topic with different spellings, pages should be merged by creating a redirection link. --Bhadani 15:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge Merge is appropriate. Lots of other spellings for this group, Brelvis, Bareilawis, etc.


 * Merge, but merge TO this article. Most of the English-language works that mention Barelwis use this spelling; Brelvi is a close second. BTW, we need much fuller descriptions of Barelwis and Deobandis and the rivalry between them. Zora 12:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge, but it needs much deeper description (not only diferences wuth Deoban) Abdullah mk 00:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This page includes less facts about Barelwies and more Wahhabi propoganda. It is full of POV by Wahhabies.  While the Fatwa by Barelwies against Wahhabies is shown as their bigotry, the fatwa of Wahhabies against them is shown as some kind of a fact.  The main disagreement between Wahhabies and Barelwies is celebration of Maulood and my news link of Wahhabi suicide bomber killing Barewlies celebrating maulood is removed by a Wahhabi editor.Hassanfarooqi 19:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Removed vandalism by User:ItaqallahHassanfarooqi 05:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * you may wish to worry about your own vandalism first, such as on my user talk page which was accompanied by a personal attack. if you continue like that in the future, although you have a long history of personal attacks and incivility, you will be reported. you should cease tendentious editing and attempting to purge all criticism from this page except when using pejorative terms to describe opposition.  ITAQALLAH   17:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You reap what you sow. If you continue to vandalize pages that do not confirm to Wahhabi ideology, then you will be called a vandal.Hassanfarooqi 22:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * if "vandalsm" equates to undoing blatant whitewashing, then yes i am a vandal, as are the majority of Wikipedians. you may wish to tone down your aggressive rhetoric before you are reprimanded for it.  ITAQALLAH   22:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oil power speaks, I have been reprimanded. Congratulations for your victory.  You got to remember the history.  You people had hijcked Islam before and it was temporary.  This time again you have won but time will agains show a Nejdi victory against Hejaz as temporary againHassanfarooqi 01:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Had to remove Wahhabi propoganda by User:Itaqallah once again. He seems to be fanatically obsessed against Barelwis.  Retains his propoganda links though Hassanfarooqi 23:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Defence of peacful schools of thought against Wahhabi jihad continues. Quote from Allama Shami's Radd-ul-Mukhtar about the first Wahhabi wave, "The state of the followers of Ibn Abdul Wahhab was like this, they rose from Nejd and attacked our holy cities Mecca and Medina in Hejaz.  They killed everyone who did not confirm to Ibn Abdul Wahhab.  Then Allah send the Armies of Muslims to push them back to Nejd".  Rest assured it seems until oil runs dry in Saudi Arabia, the second wave of violent Wahhabi jihad against peaceful muslims would continue.Hassanfarooqi 01:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * so much for that secularism you claim to uphold.. :/  ITAQALLAH   02:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think User:Itaqallah's version is more NPOV as it clearly states what each side thinks of the other. The links need classification though. Right now, it's an amorphous mass of pro and anti sites.--Nkv 17:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is still full of Wahhabi POV and anti-Barelwi propoganda. It has very little secular information for the readers about the Barelwi movement. Watch out for the POV words like "Self Proclaimed".
 * Perhaps you should edit them out then? --Nkv 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you see much words in the article "Wahhabism"?
 * In spirit, yes. "The Wahhabis claim to hold to the way of the Salaf as-Salih, the pious predecessors..." which is self proclamation. Perhaps it's more mildly worded.--Nkv 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No way, all reference that I made about Wahhabies coming into power with the help of British was removed without giving any reason. Those references were from western pro Arab historians/biographers like David Holden. See his book "The House of Saud".
 * Reinstate them and if you have concrete references, we'll put them in there. --Nkv 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about anti-Wahhabies like Stephen Schwartz or Pipes. Also watch quotation marks around words blasphemous when quoting Barelwis. These quotes do not appear around words coming from Wahhabies.
 * I see quotes around the work Shirk in the Wahabi page. But really, I think you're overreacting. Let's separate concerns. I can't stand Wahabi ideology one bit but in the interest of keeping wikipedia accurate, let's just state everyones views as accurately as possible (using the talk pages to resolve disputes) and leave it at that rather than accusing people of editorial slant. --Nkv 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I tell you man, Wahhabies are brain washed to not tolerate any Non-Wahhabi. They can not be secular. It is against their very basic training.170.35.208.22 13:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No "religious" person can be "secular". I expect the wahabi minded editors on wikipedia to defend their points of view on all articles and I expect the non wahabis (traditional sunni muslims if you prefer) to defend theirs. There will be a little ruckus and then things will settle down to something which both parties (perhaps grudgingly agree upon). --Nkv 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you have said so far except this one. I have been with people of many religions and found their intellectuals are always secular in research e.g. Jehovah's witness are very very fundamentalist Christians.  However their research about Islam is very secular as printed in their paper.  Their conclusion is not secular ofcourse.  Then you can read "Christian Science Monitor" which is also a very fundamentalist organization's paper.  You can not point a finger on their secular research.  Again, their POV appears seperately.  I am a staunch fundamentalist Muslim (fundamentalist meaning sticking to fundamentals as foundation and building over it, not sticking to fundamentals and destroy all construction over it).  However I am certified in studies of Old Testament and the new Testaments and have done a lot of faith sharing to form my own knowledge about Jews and Christians, not what the Mullah told me when I was a kid.Hassanfarooqi 19:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

With respect to this article, can you list down all the items which you think compromise it's NPOV? We'll then work on them one by one and try to come up with a neutral and good article. If you do this, I'll invite  ITAQALLAH   to take part in the discussion. Above all, let's try to keep a cool head and just neutrally state the facts as best we can. Wassalam. --Nkv 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a perfect example. You have categorized AFSA people as Barelvies. It is because you consider all non-Wahhabies as Barelvies. AFSA people are by no means Barelvies. Shaikh Hasham probable can not even tell where in the world Bareli is!Hassanfarooqi 15:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The User who is removing Concepts and Aqedda links should Know that he may be Blocked from Editing wikipedia.! shabiha

Archive all current discussions
I plan to archive all the discussions currently on this page by 31 January. Please let me know if you have any questions or issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor2020 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello
This Incident is most significant in their conflict in pakistan.Shabiha (t 14:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * plz come to Original point I have discussed it what i see is full and complete Picture of Barelwi Movmnts Criticism,i support that same is the case with Deobandi page..see my edits...plz sign ur comments on every page.Shabiha (t 06:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * MY point is that please add it to article in also Controversy heading..
 * In additionIn May 2001, riots broke out in Pakistan after the assassination of a leader of the Barelwi movement by Sipah Sahaba Pakistan, a Deoband-affiliated group. 
 * That's a good suggestion actually. Feel free to add it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The event isn't disputed; it is a reported event that we know for a fact took place. As for it not being necessary, that is only your own POV. It is properly cited and relevant to a known conflict among religious sects. Furthermore, as we did discuss before the fact that it occurred in the aftermath of another incident is completely irrelevant.
 * I have added it and will cooperate in future too if You will try to build a Consensus.Shabiha (t 18:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed what was unnecessary and disputed ,we can find hundreds of these types of incidents against any Movements .Moreover i have discussed earlier that incident Occurred in the aftermath of some other Incident .so better to avoid it.Shabiha (t 15:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because you yourself support the Barelwi movement doesn't mean that you can remove the truth if it bothers you. There are acts of violence being committed and it will not be whitewashed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Full Story
The report you have Mentioned and trying to Insert here is associated with Your Salafi Movements Leaders Arrest I have mentioned Several times that in Report itself it is written that Tuesday’s violence comes in the aftermath of an incident on Sunday night when Markazi Jamiat Ahle Hadith Sindh Amir and MMA leader Mufti Muhammad Yousuf Kasuri was arrested under the Blasphemy Act . Now im ready to suuport Your Version if You agree to Accept this Complete Version .If not then this Half Story will not Exist.Shabiha (t 20:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, it is not "my" movement and for you to assert that is not only petty and immature but also teetering on the edge of WP:NPA. Second of all, you have failed across the board to prove how it is a half truth.  There is one sentence at the end of the article that mentions a separate incident involving the victims of Barelwi violence; it is not related to the topic of this article.  Furthermore, the source is not being cited for that anyway as is clear in the text.  You simply pointing out that the article contains some information not related to Barelwis does not discredit it as a source or necessitate the inclusion of material unrelated to this article itself.  Your assertion does not hold up under scrutiny. MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What, exactly, is wrong with the site? You have accused it of being non-neutral, but you have not explained why. Simply stating your opinion does not constitute proof, you need to give us some sort of explanation so we're not left in the dark.
 * I removed Pro/Salafi Voice site 's Criticism bcoz it is totally Non Neutral and not Supported by unbiased proofs.You can't just add any thing from Your personal sites and tried to insert.
 * Also Mezzo's Version is still on same footing and not full truth as i proved earlier.
 * Now I advice you to Mezzo go and relax.Shabiha (t 18:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As for my own edits, you claim to have proved it isn't the full truth however you have not even responded to any of the issues I brought up with that accusation. In fact, if I am not mistaken in your last few edits you simply reverted without even replying to my concerns here on the talk page. Again, stating your opinion is not the same as proving something. Please discussed your concerns rationally with myself and the other concerned editors here, it really shouldn't be this difficult to sort this out. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What more You want?
The Incident show that Barelwi fired out side masjid and police run out and tell after why it occurred that Ahle hadith leader was arrested arrested on charges of Blasphemy which is a Serious Crime under Pakistan and Islam as well .Truth is Clear. How can You hide it ? Either remove whole story or accept it in full.As You are trying to insert Your own POV in Controversy Section again and again and making article look in bad light. Please edit for Positive just Criticising will not be fruitful.Shabiha (t 05:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What truth is it that I am hiding? We have an article here where the first part of it directly related to this article - Barelwis - and the second part has nothing to do with them.  It is not relevant to this article at all and you simply that "the truth is clear" is not a legitimate explanation as to why unrelated material should be included in this article.


 * As for accusations of POV on my part, all I have done is provided more relevant information on a conflict (between Barelwis and Deobandis) that was already being delved into a bit; I found more information and enhanced the article with it. If you feel that presenting all the information on this conflict for the benefit of the readers is showing the article in a bad light then i'm sorry that it doesn't jive with your POV specifically, as you've made very clear over the past six or so months. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

and must be mentioned there otherwise story will not be complete.stop now Inserting your POV. Shabiha (t 11:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The above incident is directly related to later Violence
 * You say that it is directly related, yet you have failed categorically to prove how. The Ahle Hadith leader was convicted of a crime before the incident.  Then the incident with a mob of a Barelwi group physically attacking an Ahle Hadith mosque occurred.  The article simply mentions the two and does not draw any connections at all.  Thus your insinuation is either a violation of WP:NPOV or WP:OR.  Please cease your edit warring over this when you know that the dispute has not been resolved.  Bring definitive proof - not your opinion, but proof - that the two incidents are related; otherwise, please stop your disruptive behavior. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

when we are adding some incident in the criticism section and it is covering four lines then the reason of such story must be there. plz see WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Firtst u added half truth and avoided that most Important line and now are demanding from me proof ...Proof for what ? i need not to bring Proof for ur satisfaction. U have aaded that burden is on u not on me.Shabiha (t 07:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You have time and again inserted and story which is not onlu half and but showing the Incident in totally bad light .By hiding complete story which is ,already mentioned in the news reeport that the Incident ocurred in aftermath of.......
 * The incident occurred in the aftermath...and what exactly is your point? News stories corroborate incidents.  The mob of Barelwi followers weren't seizing the mosque for that reason as made apparent in the story.  So that isn't the reason, and your misuse of policies is a bit confusing.  My position is based on analysis of the story, so right there WP:NPOV isn't even relevant here.  I am not surprised at your misuse of it though as in the past you have also accused me of vandalism due to simple editing disputes and have demonstrated that you will say just about anything to get your way.  As far as WP:OR, you agree that the incident did happen so this isn't original research, it's an editing dispute.  I am not inserting anything not already in the cited source.  Please don't misuse site policy as we discussed on other talk pages as well.


 * Also, your trolling is very apparent here so don't think that will slide. You've posted some policies as I tend to do (though unlike when I do it, yours aren't actually relevant to this situation) and you mentioned Burden of proof as I often do (except you don't seem to grasp what that is at all).


 * We both agree that the news story is accurate. That is why it is in there.  You have claimed that the last line about a completely unrelated incident - coming in the aftermath of something does not illustrate a correlation - and thus the burden of proof is on YOU because YOU are making the claim. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You have inserted story and burden lies on u dont make excuses. I am not supporting that half truth if u accept full version then it is ok otherwise i will remove it .last line is most relevant and dont be so smart to teach me Policies .16:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabiha (talk • contribs)
 * No, it doesn't lie on me. The reason for its insertion was explained long ago and you consented to its place in the article; your issue was with the wording and what information was included.  If you now want to remove it entirely, then you are backtracking on your former position that the story is sound and this is in need of some explanation.  All you keep saying is that it is a half truth, but up until now you have failed to explain how two completely unrelated incidents are somehow connected and them being reported from the same source doesn't cut it.


 * Also, if you have a disagreement over its presentation then you should insist in putting the line in; bargaining over deleting properly sourced material that even you agreed was relevant is not only improper but also intellectually dishonest; Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is relevant here as deleting sourced content is not a way to settle disputes. Also, please stop insulting and accusing other editors in your edit summaries, it's not only a violation of the official No personal attacks policy but it's also inconsiderate. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

i was never agree on ur this half truth so immediately responded by removing and discussing it and I am agree if this aftermath issue is added ad this last line tell complete Story.I need not to satisfy u to Prove a Point I have Said many times read by earlier Discussion and u seems to just ignore all explanations to show this Movement in Bad Light.Shabiha (t 11:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You aren't really discussing it though, you just keep calling it a half truth and you won't explain why. I understand that there is a bit of a language barrier, and I am explaining to you, that coming in the aftermath of something is not a connection; it is simply a chronological progression of current events.  You simply stating your opinion that it is a half truth does not constitute proof, and your continued refusal to explain your position politely has damaged it so to speak.  Comments such as "I need not to satisfy u to Prove a Point" are irresponsible as if another editor takes issue with your edits then you should clarify and come to a compromise decision with them.  You've just been throwing out insults left and right and have stated multiple times that you feel no need to clarify your actions.


 * Also, you have still continued with your personal attacks in consistently accusing me of ill intentions without any proof at all. You, however, have been accused by multiple editors - i'm just one of many - of consistently inserting your own POV, as you are a member of the Barelwi movement, into any relating articles.  Considering how many other users have taken issue with your style of editing, it would be safe to say that you view any neutral reporting of criticism of the movement as showing "this Movement in Bad Light".  You would do much better if you simply left off that issue entirely. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

After reading this discussion, I'd come to conclude that MezzoMezzo has demonstrated significant objectively in this article while maintaining substantial neutrality. Scythian1 (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

ofcourse Mezzo demonstrated objectivity in keeping ur Personal agendas as u added salafi sites links and total lies about this Movements.Shabiha (t 07:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Shabiha, this is honestly getting to be ridiculous. You seem to have no regard for behavioral guidelines or official site policies at all.  You've just outright accused another editor of having a personal agenda and lying without any proof at all, and then reverted his edits.  This is completely unacceptable.  Either discuss the issue here in a mature fashion, take it to mediation, or just take a break and cool off for a bit. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What, exactly, is wrong with the site? You have accused it of being non-neutral, but you have not explained why. Simply stating your opinion does not constitute proof, you need to give us some sort of explanation so we're not left in the dark.
 * I removed Pro Salafi site's Criticism bcoz it is totally Non Neutral and not Supported by unbiased proofs.You can't just add any thing from Your personal sites and tried to insert.
 * Also Mezzo's Version is still on same footing and not full truth as i proved earlier.
 * Now I advice you to Mezzo go and relax.Shabiha (t 18:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As for my own edits, you claim to have proved it isn't the full truth however you have not even responded to any of the issues I brought up with that accusation. In fact, if I am not mistaken in your last few edits you simply reverted without even replying to my concerns here on the talk page. Again, stating your opinion is not the same as proving something. Please discussed your concerns rationally with myself and the other concerned editors here, it really shouldn't be this difficult to sort this out. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahya is simply a Salafi teachings site and you su[pport all which is against this Movement and Oppose all which is i Favour of it. Actually your editing has Proved that you are Just here to Prove Your Personal Opinions. Can a highly pro barelwi link be added as criticism in the Page of Salafi Article? surely u will just try to remove if it is added. you will say bring Neutral source but here is Story different You Supports all and on this Irrational basis you say Consensus is Reached? 02:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, you don't like the website Ahya because you feel it's just a "Salafi teachings site". Once again, we hit the same road block as before - just because you state your opinion Shabiha, doesn't make it a fact.  You're not actually providing any proof for anything here that you're saying.  You're not giving us anything to go on or telling us why you have reached these conclusions.  We're totally left in the dark.


 * As for your personal attacks on my editing, I will once again ask you to review the official No personal attacks policy. This is really getting old.  You're even putting words in my mouth and setting up straw men now.  This ends now.  You can still have your own position, but if you attack me or anyone else again, I will have to bring this to the administration's attention immediately.  This has gone on far enough and is not necessary to resolve the editing dispute. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The recent edits of Yours Violates Official Wiki policies of NPOV and Reliable sources.The Links and Sources are not qualified as they represent Salafi View which is obviously non Neutral for other Muslim Movement.
 * Moreover nothing has been discussed by You before adding this criticism and you have either just supported or edited what u think fit.Shabiha (t 12:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you've finally figured out how to display policies, that's very good. You don't seem to grasp them entirely, however. You claim that since the references are from Salafi sites they breach WP:NPOV, and this is incorrect. The articles themselves which we write must be neutral at all times, and of course this is non-negotiable. Sources, however, may be from a certain POV as long as they are presented as opinion and not fact - in the case of organized religion, this is inevitable. If we didn't allow sources that were of a certain religious view, most of the Islam-related articles on Wikipedia would be reduced to stubs.

You also have to understand that this is a section for CRITICISM. Shabiha, you are a Barelwi, obviously. So you have to understand that you aren't going to agree with the criticism of your movement. However, you have no right to remove it simply because you find it offensive and wrong in your opinion - and it is very obvious to anyone else who sees your editing behavior that this is the case. Wikipedia readers have the right to a balanced article which makes all information available to them. There is criticism of the Barelwi movement - i'm sure you will agree that it exists, even if you don't agree with it - and thus readers have a right to know. If you feel the source is POV, then the protocol is simply to make sure that the article isn't, and simply states: "group A has a problem with group B" without taking sides. For you, however, to simply remove all criticism of your group itself is a violation of WP:NPOV.

As for there being a consensus, the fact that both I myself and other editors have reverted your POV-based deletions of sources material is proof enough of that. If that isn't enough, your earlier acceptance here of the general insertion of that material is also proof of that. You are always free to change your mind, but you don't have the right to whitewash known criticism of a group you belong to just because it makes you mad. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

New edits
The recent edits in this article are totally supported by NON Neutral sites and are not verified by reliable sources either Prove them here One by One as they are Just claims by Pro Salafi sites or take rest to support them. Shabiha (t 11:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You aren't in any position to be demanding that. You simply stating that a site is not reliable doesn't make it so.  It's just your opinion, and your continued refusal to explain why - as I have asked you almost a dozen times now to explain and you just keep restating your opinion - doesn't bode well for you.


 * As far as the sites being Salafi, that isn't a problem. This is a section for criticism of Barelwis, so obviously the sources won't be Barelwi.  And obviously they will be sources you don't agree with personally, but that doesn't mean that including the criticism for the benefit of the readers is POV.  You removing it because you don't agree with it, however, is bad editing and an example of breaching both WP:NPOV and WP:DE.


 * You should realize by now that I and the several other editors watching this article will not allow you to simply delete material that you disagree with. It's quite obvious that your goal here is simply to whitewash anything remotely negative about your sect, so you really need to qualify any claims you make.  That the sites might represent one view or another is irrelevant and if you can't come up with a legitimate issue against them, then your disruptive pattern of deletions will not be allowed, period. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

here barelwis links with Hinduism is totally baseless on the basis of salafi report which is obviously against this Movement. Ahya site is salafi site which is just targeting Other groups like tabligi jamat and barelwi.
 * first of all this site demands all claims must be verified by Neutral Sources and must be linked to verifiable sources.

o One can deny fair and Just Criticism if it comes from Neutral sources but www.fatwa-online.com /ahya like other sites cannot be Used to show Other Movement in bad light without verification. These are only claims and WP:NOVapplies here.

But few salafis cant get support majority of Sufi/barelwi .This claims is made in such a language to show that fatwa is issued by Muslims as a whole. Bitter truth is that Majority of Muslims dont ffer namaz behind these fatwa Issuer's i.e salafi nand their creed Wahabi/Ahle Hadiths and there are hundreds of fatwa against these NEOMUSLIMS.Shabiha (t 12:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The fatawa is given by One salafi Organization which is headed by BIN BAZ and all the claims made in this fatwa are not supported by Muslims.These are Once again just Claims that they do so they do so.Not Supported by anyneutral source.


 * Just see and Read Shabiha (t 12:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahya is a site that showcases some criticism of different Islaamic movements; this is pertinent information, and since you won't deny that there is criticism of the Barelwis then there is no problem here. Readers should be made aware of the criticism; that isn't a lack of neutrality, that's just making information available to the public. Your claim it should be removed because it is a Salafi site, however, IS definately non-neutral. In your view, it appears that no criticism of the Barelwi movement is legitimate and this is extremely biased.

Take the claim on Hinduism, for example. You may think it's baseless, but others probably don't. That you would say it should be removed because you feel it is baseless is intellectually dishonest, as you don't have to agree with information on Wikipedia; we just put up what exists, and what exists is that accusation.

You're also trolling and you need to stop. "WP:NPOV applies here" is something I say to you frequently; unlike this instance, however, I say that when it is actually relevant and you're just mimicking my words because you're upset that some people criticize your movement. Do not do that again, it's immature and damages your position.

As for Fatwa Online, your claim that it is "non supported by all the Muslims" is not quantifiable and irrelevant anyway. Bin Baz, who can't be heading the site because he's dead, was a renowned scholar of Islam whether you like it or not. You are once again showing your bias here; any movement other than the Barelwis is non-neutral in your point of view. It's so obvious to anyone else reading your comments that stating it openly is almost redundant. Look at your attack on the Salafi movement without reason here; you claim that most Muslims don't agree with them, which again is not quantifiable and not relevant. There is criticism against various different Islamic movements; you just claimed that criticism against the Barelwis should be removed and part of your reasoning was criticism against another movement? Honestly, do you even sit and think about what you're saying for a moment? \ This has gone on long enough. I show you policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:V so you might actually learn something, not so you may troll the discussion pages when it suits your needs. If you cannot explain why the sites are not reliable - and simply saying that they follow a religious movement you disagree with isn't justifiable by any means - then your deletions will not be allowed. I don't know how many times this needs to be explained to you before you understand that Wikipedia is not a place for you to spread your ideology. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just making people Confuse
I have clearly told here that claims like that Muslims should not Offer Namaz behind them and their Practices are Like Hindus are too big claims to be Supported by Your favourite site which are actually clearly Just without proof have done Criticism .These Charges must be Verified by Neutral sorces and neutral sites.These claims appears lies as there are hunbdreds of websites which criticize ecah Others Movement but here on wiki we are not going to add them because it needs verifiablity See verifiable and NPOV.
 * Do u think that writing a Long paragraph will make Your Weak position Strong which is based on Just reverting my edits.
 * Dont be so Smart to say that You only here are eligible to cite Official policies.You are Just reverting My edits without proving How these Sites are not Biased, when actually they are !see WP:EW.
 * BIN BAZ' may be respectable among you but he had no followings among large sections of Muslim Community as majority even has not heard his name too.
 * Now your accusations about this Movement will not be allowed till when they are not Supported by neutral Sources and Verified by third party.Shabiha (t 10:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost, please don't accuse me of things or question my motives; that is a violation of WP:NPA. Were I to follow your reasoning, I could argue that you're trying to confuse people by creating a new section on the talk page every other time you comment (though I wouldn't do that because your reasoning is obviously faulty). I wrote a long paragraph because it took me that long to express my thoughts, I can't help that. Secondly, my edits aren't simply reverts on yours; they're a defense of the content of this article which is being deleted because you don't agree with it. Now, there are a number of issues here. The Barelwis are a religious movement, obviously. Since there are other religious movements, there will be criticism as well, obviously. That criticism needs to be made available to Wikipedia readers so that they may reach their own conclusions, obviously. That criticism is not going to come from a source you agree with since you are Barelwi, obviously. You're trying to whitewash criticism of your group by claiming that any criticism is not neutral. It's a dishonest, underhanded thing to do and it will not stand. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The site makes what you feel are big claims...so what? You're Barelwi, like I said you aren't going to agree with the criticism against your movement.  That doesn't give you the right to delete it.
 * 2) It's not my favorite site. Please stop trolling.
 * 3) The site does bring proof. It's proof that you disagree with, but still proof.
 * 4) I really don't care how you feel about neutral sources as you have demonstrated through the past six months of editing that your view is anything but. Neutral to you is only showing religious movements you agree with in a whitewashed positive light and showing religious movements you disagree with in an extremely negative light.  I am not the only editor who feels this way as well.
 * 5) You keep bringing up verifiability and POV, which is a form of trolling as you're almost verbatim quoting my manner of speaking when I remind you of those policies. I say this because you haven't even explained why they're relevant here and I highly suspect you haven't even read those policies, given your editing patterns.  It seems like you're just mocking me.
 * 6) I never claimed that only I am able to interpret site policies, so please stop with the personal attacks and straw men. I simply pointed out a fact which Scythian1, Abureem, and a plethora of other users have complained about you: you make no attempts to abide by site policies and when you quote them such as here I have a hard time taking it seriously.  You're not even explaining what violations there supposedly are.
 * 7) The edit warring is clearly on your part; the current version of this article has been at a consensus for a while, as seen by the fact that several other users have reverted your gross deletions as well. You, however, stubbornly revert any attempts to restore the content of this article and haven't even attempted to discuss the issue rationally; all your comments consist of wild accusations and personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with you.
 * 8) You say verified as neutral by a third party, but where is your basis for saying this? That isn't anywhere in site policy.  Don't think I don't know what you're doing.


 * You should write a whole Story about Our discussions but You are off the track Not even a Single Line in Your arguments is adressing my primary Concern about the Verifiability and Neutrality See again verifiable,reliable sources. and NPOV.
 * You are Just accusing me time and again that I dont Know policies and You are Just teaching me,actually You have read the Site Policies but you are finding hard to adjust Your Mentality of Salafism with them that's Why You have
 * Tried Hard to Delete major articles on Barelwi page though You were failed badly'.
 * All your edits on this article and articles like Dawat-e-Islami ,Ahmed Raza Khan are just adding Criticism only and You accuse me of the same Intention while You are exactly doing the Same from the existence of Yours on wikipedia.See No personal attacks.I hope it will help You.Shabiha (t 08:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Your last comment here not only consisted almost entirely of personal attacks on myself, but you also entirely dodged the issue at hand here, and that is that your demands regarding WP:V and WP:NPOV make no sense at all and you haven't even explained what sort of violations you feel there are. You are essentially spitting on the Gaming the system and Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point behavioral guidelines.

This is the bottom line now. You haven't explained why readers of Wikipedia shouldn't be made aware of the criticism of this movement. Therefore, the edits stay. Period. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Salam
The Criticism section in Opinion should be edited in Order to make it more Neutral.whatever is going on between Shabiha and Mezzo should be resolved in a Peaceful manner.I am just editing for Improvement give your Comments. The Images of Dargah which are Linked to this Section have nothing to do with Practice of Hinduism.A large number of Muslims Practice Sufism and many practices are associated with Dargahs, which may not be Understood by some.There can't be a general line accusing this Popular Practice Influenced by Hinduism. Acts of worship is totally personal opinion, clearly written on page that They Worship only Allah. Yes,It is Bidah as Contended by salafis but for them only ,Deobandis have been Criticized in their Own page on the charge of practising Tawassul and Following Sufism.The claim is about Ahmed Raza's teachings but link is Just associated with images of Dargahs which clearly doesnot Prove at all how the teachings are Bidah? So the Source and Mention of Deobandi is removed.

Fatwa para is neutralized because the Organization is not at all a representative of Muslims and belongs to salafi group Only.The Call for not Offering prayer with barelwis is Only Applicable to its followers and not applied to all Muslims. I also neutralize and edited for Positive the last para. Msoamu (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wiki isn't here to decide whether the Barelwis or Deobandis or Salafis are right or wrong, just to make the differences which are notable available to readers. You feel that the charges of similarities to Hinduism are unfounded, but obviously some Deobandis and Salafis don't.  You don't have to agree with it, but again readers have a right to know.


 * Also, your edits had a lot of spelling and grammatical errors and I really couldn't understand what you were trying to say in them. Your English seems fairly good so I was a bit confused. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

2.The permanent Fatwa committee belongs to Salafia Movement then I think it should be Mentioned here because the Fatwa is a Very Sensitive Issue and Fatwa of Kufr/Shirk is Very serious so readers have also right to Know that to Which group this Organization belongs to? 3.In the Last if there is need of any Copy editing Your cooperation is required.Msoamu (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree readers have a right to Know but the source in Which there are Images does not Prove that teachings of Ahmad raza khan are kufr and shirk?

I fully agreeed with MSOAMU and as he said that the org. is not for all it is dominated salfi and deobandies only........... Wiki is here to decide............... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.240.110.2 (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Wiki is fully here to decide what there should be................. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunny Alig (talk • contribs) 18:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think MSOAMU is right becoz said org.... is dominated by salfi's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunny Alig (talk • contribs) 18:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would actually be a good thing to mention where those groups are coming from as far as ideology. More information is always better for the reader.


 * As far as "proving" that any movement has kufr or shirk, again, in the eyes of Wikipedia that's subjective. Deobandis or Salafis might say yes, Barelwis might say no.  The readers can make their own decision as to who is right.  But yeah, I agree, readers should be made aware specifically that the criticism is from Deobandis and Salafis.  Nothing wrong with that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think You should now Cooperate me if there is any grammatical error. Msoamu (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok.fatwa Committee should have Identity with its Movement.
 * Another thing please tell me in what manner Image Source tells that it is Ahmed Raza Khan's teaching or the People at dargah are Barelwi.There is neither Proof nor relation of Dargah Images to show that they are Barelwi.
 * I'm guessing you're referring to Ahya. The site says that those pictures are of Barelwi graves, Ahya also has other similar disagreements with the Barelwis on their site.  AS for the grammar, the reason I bring it up is because your edit honestly didn't make sense to me.  I couldn't understand what it was you were trying to say in it.  I'm not trying to be a jerk, i'm just expressing that a native English speaker won't understand it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am editing on Which You are agree .Other Paragraph will be taken by Me One by One.Msoamu (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Now I am removing Ahya link.
 * Firstly both deobandi/Salafi are not Linked to that Single Ahya Source.Additionaly Source is not proving how Images are related to Kufr/Hindu Practices.The Images have no relation to Barelwi Movement.


 * An established news source is a reliable source. Religious partisan websites are not reliable sources.
 * Please Consider these claims in godd Faith.Msoamu (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Ahya link does provide the Salafi viewpoint as to how the pics are related to non-Muslim practices; you may not agree with it, that's why the article makes it clear that this is just a viewpoint. As for the site being partisan, again, there is a section in this article for criticism of the Barelwi movement.  This requires a source giving that criticism.  You call it partisan, but you fail to explain exactly how this violates rules regarding reliable sources.  As far as criticism of the Barelwi movement, Ahya is completely reliable and accurate; and this isn't a problem as long as the article just presents this as their view and not definite fact. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have amended the edits made by both of u.No More to Say Just Understand them and Calm down.Msoamu (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC) You removed the sourced content yet again, though. Also, let me apologize up front for my last edit summary, I hit enter on accident and the page saved before I could finish it.
 * I think for the Sake of Mutual Cooperation and developing Consensus

Now, on to my point. "Controversy" is not a basis to remove sourced content. Keep in mind that even if some editors are upset, that does not change the consensus in and of itself; WP:PRACTICAL is a good explanation of that.

What we have here is the stated fact that Salafis and Deobandis accuse Barelwis of kufr and influence from Hinduism in some of their practices. You know this is true, i'm sure you hear it from Salafis and Deobandis all the time. The source is a Salafi site referencing the fact that Salafis level this accusation.

Obviously, since you seem to be a follower of the Barelwi movement, I wouldn't expect you to agree with that. Which is fine, that's your right. But so far your argument against the sentence has been that it doesn't prove the accusations, which reveals a conflict of interest here; as a Barelwi, you obviously don't agree with the Salafis and Deobandis.

You feeling that the latter two groups are wrong, however, is not grounds to remove the content. Readers of Wikipedia have a right to know about the disagreements among Muslim groups. The article doesn't say the Salafis and Deobandis are right; it just makes note of the criticism. The link supports the fact that they make this criticism, not the claim that it is correct. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And I alreayd explained that your earlier reasons are faulty. You have said that the claims are biased despite the fact that they clearly are not. The article simply notes the criticism; it is not validating the claim. Given your editing history, it is rather clear that you're simply trying to whitewash any criticism of your movement. I can tell you right now that that isn't going to fly. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For all my earlier reasons which I said above this Heading...after watching the efforts of Msoamu I extend My support for his edits and Now Other Should Support these edits. Shabiha (t) 08:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also Msoamu regarding your "trimming" of one of the sentences, the version you put in doesn't make sense in English. I'm not saying that to be rude, but there seems to be a bit of a language gap.  You inserted a few spelling and grammatical errors.  There also is no need for trimming, in fact it looked like almost the same length save a few words. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism/controversy section
Ideally, the article can do without a criticism section. See this section for the reasons. If there are any controversies to note, they should be mentioned in the relevant section. For example, criticism about certain beliefs of Barelwi's may in principle be covered in the "Beliefs" section. Any controversies, if they are genuinely significant to the history of the Barelwi movement, may be included in the activities section. This is all presuming that reliable sources are available to warrant such coverage. If not, they shouldn't really be in this article.

I have requested full protection of the article so that things can be discussed properly on the talk page. The burden of proof lies upon the editor(s) inserting content, so it'd be best if we started off by listing the sources, explaining how they are reliable and how they are significant to the Barelwi movement.  ITAQALLAH  16:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I full Support Your Views and I am agree If You take the Stand to remove all Criticism from not Only this Section but from all Articles Similar to this Movement.


 * I am of the View that Certain reports are either totally Insignificant because there are Numerous Such Incidents right from the Begining of the Movement .The accusations are totally Just accusations biased Unverified and Not Supported by Neutral Sources.

Shabiha (t) 19:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that Controversies in any article must be limited to few Lines and should not be extended Unwarrantly to show Article in bad Light.
 * I'm not saying any relevant, reliably sourced criticism/controversy should be removed.
 * I'm simply saying that it doesn't need to be under its own heading, it may be incorporated into other sections.  ITAQALLAH   20:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we can come to the talk page and hammer these things out.


 * There is one primary factor that, on my part, led to the addition of the critical material in the article (Scythian has also contributed). It's that the majority of English-language material I have found regarding this movement in internet searches has been of this nature.  There is a great deal of material available in Urdu, which I and the majority of English Wikipedia readers cannot read.


 * But regarding the disputes with other sects - both in the sense of ideological and physical conflict - then this forms the bulk of what I could find period.


 * Regarding the specific sources, I will try to get to those tomorrow morning perhaps. I work the night shift and just got home, and don't quite have the energy at the moment to go into each source given at this current moment. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the section to a more neutral tone, by trying to make it clear that the newly added material was an accusation only. I still have a concern though: is ahya.org a reliable site? The reference has all the looks of a propaganda "attack page". A better source for Salafi criticisms of the Barelvis would be preferable. rudra (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahya certainly has a certain POV, but in this case since the information being sourced is information on the Salafi POV I saw now issue as long as the article itself remained neutral. Fatwa-Online and The Righteous Path are also Salafi sites with similar information if you would prefer those. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest that ahya.org and similar websites not be used. The kind of sources I'm suggesting are print material of good quality such as publications discussing the Barelwi movement and associated objections or encyclopedia articles about the topic. You can have a look around on google books as there is some decent material available (e.g., ). You can also look around on JSTOR, Britannica, or other reliable resources. But it's only fair that we maintain consistency in the standards we demand of our sources, and these are outlined on WP:V and WP:RS.  ITAQALLAH   17:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a fair suggestion. Regarding fataawaa from well known bodies such as the Permanent Committee, how should we regard those?  I believe it isn't difficult to find information from places like that in English. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Shabiha, with regards to your recent revert, you can't just make wholesale reversions of edits which clearly improve the encyclopedicity of the article. This is supposed to be a neutral, verifiable and ultimately encyclopedic article, not a propaganda piece for or against. If you can't accept edits like these, then we have a problem. You can't just claim consensus when there exists anything but on this article.  ITAQALLAH  21:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Shabiha, you once again reverted without explanation or reply here. This constitutes both edit warring and disruptive editing. You have been warned repeatedly by site administrators about this - do it again and i'm reporting it at the noticeboard. You've been editing long enough to know better. This stops now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You have removed the Content of Article which u think is not suitable and unsourced but You cant remove that on the basis of not sourced as this is not Sole criteria.Moreover the Material was there for more than months and without discussion you Start removing it.The article is itself fine and encyclopedic with that Content.
 * Also dont remove my sourced and neutral content in criticism section.go and verify them by their sources. Shabiha (t) 18:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the content I removed fundamentally violates Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Secondly, with regards to the content you just inserted, "islam786.org" is not a reliable source.
 * If you want a policy-based discussion, Shabiha, I request that you first familiarise yourself with the policies mentioned.  ITAQALLAH   18:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The content isn't neutral, that was the point. He HAS challenged the source as have I, please don't tell others what they can and cannot do and don't accuse someone of disruptive editing for simply removing unreliable sources; this is dishonest on your part. You also need to stop with the personal accusations; this is getting really old. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Itaqallah removed a neutral content You removed relavant lines of Criticism section which were sourced to neutral and verified links.First of all You are doing disruptive editing without explaning and accusing me later.You cant challenge the source which i added to this Criticism section.
 * Attempt by Salafi editors to reduce the Importance of this article and to show it in bad light will never be achievable. Shabiha (t) 13:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)