Talk:Barelvi movement/Archive 2

Unreliable source
This source does not seem reliable. It appears to carry with it a political agenda. I think it should be removed or, at the very least, attributed.Bless sins (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Hindu is one of the most widely circulated newspapers in the world. It is, as a source, both reliable and verifiable.  If you take issue with it, then more evidence than accusations of "a political agenda" should be provided. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit
I took this line out because it sounds one sided and biased "These people elevate the position of prophet Muhammed to a very high status which he does not have. Like the way Christians believe Jesus to be the son of god. [1]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.37.243 (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Aqidah
I have removed the part where it says barelwis commit shirk because this is simply not true and should be removed at once if this is written again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcrossdromeo (talk • contribs) 16:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with You i have to again removed that Line which says barelwis commits Shirk.. Mezzo mezzo plz stop Now without Neutral Proof and Evidence dont Insert your POV.zabiha akhtar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.205.220 (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Improvement
I have removed highly biased langugae on which no other editor was paying attention. which was not only unrefrenced and partisan but was poorely composed. I have added some very neutral third party refs to show their Presence in various parts of the world. Editors are welcomed to Comment here for the Improvement of Article. Shabiha (t) 21:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey Shabiha I have added some contents from the most comprehensive research done by Usha Sanyal on this great Movement.

I have also added Info about the Movement against Taliban from various reliable sources.

I hope this Page will present the clear pic of Ahle Sunnat. Thanks Msoamu (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalized
This article seems to have been vandalized by Anti-Barelwi Wahhabi Muslims who consider Barelwis and Sufis to be Kuffar. It contains words which seem to have been perverted (by vandalism) to the exact opposite meaning of their original intention. I do not know the appropriate tag for such an issue, so I have put up a general issues tag.Cygnus_hansa (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have restored some headings which were removed earlier and inserted wiki liked articles again about scholars.

Anti Barelwi Editors are Vandalizing this Page again and again.I urged them to either refrain from it or discuss it here.

User Magical Saumy I appreciate Your efforts. Please be here for some time to help maintain this Article. Shabiha 07:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Why don't you file for page protection (Protection policy) to keep IP editors from vandalising the page? A further option:  rather than try and revert individual edits or change text, why not revert all the way back to the cleanest copy, and then continue to do so each time it's vandalsied?  If you click the History tab, you can select any previous edit from the life of the page;  just go into the cleanest one, hit edit, save it (with a comment like "reverting to cleanest previous edit), and that version will become the new current page.  Much easier than trying to track each individual point of vandalism.  Hope this helps. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, I have no idea what you folks need, so I've listed your issues at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Assalaam alykum.Please please please undrestand Quraan o hadith with pure heart.Please read and UNDERSTAND the quraan o hadith,you'll see that beliefs of sahaba and there followers i.e.Sunni(brailwi for opponents) Are true. AlhamduliLLAH ,All of sunnis(brailwi for opponents),any of School like Hanfi,Shafai have same faith as of sahaba.


 * Don't be absurd, it's an encyclopedia page, so religious enlightenment isn't a factor. You should be able to clearly, concisely explain the features of Barelwi and what makes it different from other branches of Islam.  If you can't it shouldn't be a Wikipedia article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Propose we move this article to Barelvi
'''Someone has already made the mode. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Barelwi → Barelvi — The spelling "Barelvi" appears more common, with 75,000 Google hits vice 27,000 for "Barelwi". Any objections to moving it? MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Most RS use Barelvi as the spelling and the transliterated spelling is also Barelvi, so the move makes sense. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 18:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent major edits to improve POV

 * Hi .I praise your Contributions to the Article and finds most your edits as neutral but i would like to submit following Points for you -
 * In the Notable scholars section ,The Mawlana or Syed are Included in their names so they should be there like St.Paul,St.Thomas.

Barelwis have only lost the shrines and their Innocent Scholars by the terrorists.
 * The Barelwis have not Killed any Taliban leaders and are not gighting by forming their groups so a sentence which says that Islamic scholars are killed in the fighting between barelwi and Taliban group is not Justified.


 * The External Link area is neither POV nor is in excess . It is their from a very long time .It is Proving the notability of Movement presenting those organizations and Institutions on which there is no wiki Article.They are addition Info for Users so It is a request to just keep it there.


 * I will Provide You some Info via third Party reference about this Movement.You are requested to help me in Improving this Article.


 * We need not to show only the difference as what you said earlier but there is misconception about this movement that they represent a different Aqida and faith which should be made Clear.

thanks Msoamu (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Greetings, I'm glad you agree on the need to pull the article back into neutrality. In response to your points

Hope all this helps, and that we can work together with other serious editors to keep the page objective, clear, and properly copyedited. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Removing the titles was not hasty, but done after reading all appropriate WP policies. The only cases where religious titles are used, per WP policy, is in cases where the title is part of a completely new name a religious figure assumes (such as is done for popes and orthodox metropolitans), and for saints that are simply not known by any other name (such as St. Patrick).  Note however that almost all other saints are filed by name and feature or location.  For example, [[Paul of Tarsus (not "Saint Paul"), who is probably historically the most important saint of all.  So no disrespect is meant in it, it is meant instead to focus on the person-hood of the individual, with their accomplishments and titles being mentioned in the article as part of their notability.
 * So far as Barelvi violence, another editor has added news-referenced accounts of Barelvis attacking Deobandi sites. Maybe it was justified, maybe not, but to an objective eye it appears there was some fighting both ways by at least some people in each movement.
 * The external links were indeed excessive, as over a dozen were just about mosques/schools, which themselves don't appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY, or at least don't have articles. The next 20 or so were from entities affiliated with the Barelwi, but not necessarily about Barelwis as a movement.  External links should be very tightly focused on better explaining the article.  For example, check out Baptist, note that all the links are very specifically sources of information about the Baptists church (though I'd still say there are a bit too many).  The problem with having lots of ELs is that people always want to add more, so it's best to strictly choose which ELs help explain the article, and trim the rest.
 * I think the Beliefs section as it stands now does a great job of that, showing with school of jurisprudence, etc. the Barelwi follow, and the intro paragraph basically says "a movement of Sunni Islam in South Asia", so that covers that.

person who is notable?. They are no less than St.John or St.Pual for their followers. Syed is not honorific here.The Honorific may be Hazrat,Janab,Mr etc.
 * Let me say very Positively that most of the articles you have changed were their full names.Like Syed Ameen Mian Qaudri is his full name .Can You change a full name of a living

The Sheikh Aboobacker Ahmad is his full name which he has Used in all his Personal details and biodatas.

Pakistan- India- U.K or Institutions Organizations Shrines abroad etc.
 * I would like to divide the external link section with some special headings may be like

I am of the View that Article should display some of very prominent links referring Various Important Barelwi Institutions ,Organizations and Shrines. Please Keep up the good work.Msoamu (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that you are doing a good Job.

Serious encyclopedic editing needed
For about two years, I have seen this article consistently turned into a soapbox for missionaries of various religious movements. Anyone who attempts to bring neutral language, remove unreliable sources, and in some cases simply copyedit is branded as an extremist Wahhabi Muslim who must hate the Barelwi movement. I took a break from Wikipedia and found a large amount of material removed (mainly about controversy) and a lot of unreliable, unacceptable missionary links added as sources. Wikipedia is not a battleground for missionaries with poor English to push certain agendas. We need to get some serious attention here to simply presenting factually information instead of trying to make the readers' minds up for them. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent removal of the "Deobandi and Salafis call Barelvi kufr" section
Greetings, one thing I wanted to make clear is that the question is not whether the Fatwa Online site is POV or not (it is, clearly). The question is whether it accurately represents Deobandi/Salafi opinion. If, for example, a reputable newspaper quotes the Mufti of Egypt as declaring Barelvis kufr, that would certainly be notable and worth including. The statement is POV, but the fact that someone notable stated XYZ is not POV. So I will hesitantly support your removal of the section stating that Deobanis/Salafis call Barelvis kufr, but only because the cited source is not clearly reliable, and/or does not necessarily represent another existing Islamic group. It is totally appropriate to mention that X, Y, and Z group oppose Barelvis for A, B, C, reasons, just the footnote must be reliable. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the Non reliable and biased article written in the Hindu News paper,which was many times removed by various authors citing non reliable and just a personal opinion.Also the language written in the section is highly biased and present only One side of the story.


 * I have added ref for name Ahle Sunnat from a very reliable source i.e of Cambridge Uni Journal which has a research on this Subject.

Moreover the terminology was removed by the biased editor who says that it is disputed terminology.This is not fact.The term is always Used by the Followers of Imam Ahmed Raza Khan who are Known as Barelwis by others. You will not find a site or a book stating that they are barelwi but by stating that they are Ahle Sunnat whether in India or Pakistan or in United kingdom.

MatthewVanitas Keep up the good work and Protect the Page from Biased editors. Shabiha 20:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the term Ahle Sunnat being mentioned as what the Barelvis call themselves, which is accurate and documentable. Still the overall article should reflect the term Barelvi, commonly used to describe them.  I agree that the editorial from The Hindu is an opinion piece and thus not citeable, but the Pakistani news article about the fight at a mosque is indeed citeable.  I agree that footnote notability is important, but it does appear to be fact that formal bodies of competing Islamic groups have negative opinions on Barelvis, and properly footnoted comments to that effect should not be whitewashed out of the article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and regards ,I think You got some Idea about the Movement from various sources.It will help us.

I have removed the The Hindu section due to non notability, Its disputed Character in the History of article,and it removed by Various neutral editors in the Past. In addition it is submitted that there are hundreds of disputes Which are occurring day by day.Can they be added? The Islamarticle is not displaying its thoudands of Wars fought with the oppositions.Yes of course most Important events may be Inserted here but they must be sourced to notable and varifiable links. The article is not shwoing the Complete history of Barelwi Movement/Ahle Sunnat Movement but the editors in the oppositions are hell bent on displaying its minor fights with other groups.

Yes ,I agree that it can be written here that there are difference between Salafi ,wahabi/Deobandi organizations on the one hand and Ahle Sunnat organization on the other hand.And Ahle Sunnat have suffered a heavy loss due to their Peaceful and moderate behaviour.

Like-Killing of Sunni leaders by wahabis during Mawlid.

 Shabiha 22:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While the Hindu article is an editorial, it contains factual/historical information regarding some of the attacks. As for the other articles, none of them have ever been removed by neutral editors.  I have been watching this page for roughly two years; every few months, Barelwi missionaries remove anything that may cast their movement in a remotely negative light.  The fact that you, Shabiha - and this is not a personal attack on you but rather a call to recognize that you may have some unintentional bias on this subect - mention only the possibility of Barelwi's suffering attacks and cast other editors (most likely myself, as you have done previously) as only being "hell bent" on displaying "minor fights."  If you are from the South Asia region, you know the fighting is not minor (the cited articles speak about conflicts having over a long period of time) and that members of the Barelwi movement can be just as violent and dangerous as other groups in Pakistan who take their beliefs to the extreme.


 * Regarding the views of other groups, Fatwa Online itself isn't important. The Permanent Committee is the main theological body in Saudi Arabia, the country with Islam's two holy cities.  This is a body that is renowned around the world; it is not our job in this article to say they are right or wrong, but that they made a public criticism of the movement is certainly notable.  It is simple to also simply cite the volume of the statement itself rather than a page from Fatwa Online, but it is clearly indicative of another movement's views of the Barelwi movement.


 * I would also like to point out that for you (Shabiha, and again this isn't a personal attack but a comment on the discussion) to constantly refer only to the Barelwi movement as Ahlus Sunnah - and thus insinuating that Deobandis or Salafis are not - is highly POV and biased. The general term "Ahlus Sunnah" means all Muslims except for the Shia.  The Barelwis do not have a monopoly on this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As a non-Muslim/Hindu and non-Indian/Pakistani, I'm inclined to agree with MezzoMezzo that editors are working just a little too hard to avoid any mention of criticism against the Barelvi. I also agree that, though the fact that they use the term Ahle Sunnah is important to note, its use within the article in place of Barelwi doesn't seem appropriate.  Similar to an article on Southern Baptists using the term "Christian" interchangeably, as though to imply that Lutherans and Catholics aren't Christian.  I further agree that, unless Fatwa Online is somehow lying about the Permanent Committee's fatwa, that the fact that the Saudi PC issued the fatwa is definitely notable. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The term Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamat is not monopoly of any One but does that mean that, Majority of Muslims who have Identified themselves with that movement Cant not Use that term beacause some new groups minority are Claiming the terminology for for themselves.  Mathhew ,I ask When It has been Clearly established that  huge majority of South Asian Muslims (Known by Opposite groups as Barelwis) have formed and Identified themselves with a Movement named Ahle Sunnat wala Jammat means ( people of the [Prophet’s] way, and the majority community ) Movement is asserting to regain the glory of prophetic traditions in the background of New Movement as Deobandi and Ahle Hadith ,then tell me Should that Majority Community drop the name because it has been Used by Other Opposite groups?  *When this Majority Community has Used and Spread this term Ahle Sunnat See Instead Barelwis in their all events from the starting and and the Official Website of Present home of the Movement in India Clearly shows  that it is Centre of Ahle Sunnat in India then in that situation will You say that term is Used by Others as well so barelwis cant Use  that term.  * You have very authentic Neutral research done by Usha Sanyal stating the Use of the term Ahle Sunnat then I think No One should have any Problem with the Usage of this term in this Article Which is on the Majority Community among Muslims.  * Moreover the Barelwi term is never used by Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat or Ahmad Raza Khan's followers in the World.The term was also not in Use in the British India. Deobandis  and Ahle Hadiths  Uses this term for Movement which is in their Opposition .  Here is a big difference between Usage of the term Deobandi and Ahle Hadith on the one hand and Barelwis on the Other.The Ahle Hadith specifically and Proudly uses this term. Similarly deobandi name is also Used by the graduates of Deoband and followers of Deoband Movement.They are not in Opposition of this term but Ahle Sunnat rejects this term and Identify with the term Ahle Sunnat see What Prominent Ahle Sunnat site says about themselves.  Many in South Asia are more familiar with the term ‘Barelwi’ than Ahle Sunnat wa Jamaat and Barelwis are to be found today in Pakistan, India as well as Britain. The term Barelwi is, however, rejected by those who identify themselves with the Ahle Sunnat wa Jamaat movement, and has therefore not been used.   * You will not find any source Claiming that Ahle Sunnat of Asia have either using this term or are not in Opposition to this term.  So this article must show what the followers of the Imam Ahmad Raza Khan says about themselves.  *When all Muslims are Using the term Muslim and all Sunnis  uses the term Sunni then Article about Majority of Asian Sunnis must be allowed to Use the term Ahle Sunnat.  * It is another matter that Other World Scholars of Ahle Sunnnat does not consider Deobandi and Ahle Hadith (Indian Wahabis) the Part of Ahle Sunnat,Which I will prove later.   Shabiha  11:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sabiha, you're obfuscating on several points. First, the point is not whether AeS should stop referring to themselves as AeS and call themselves Barelwi.  The point is whether the article should refer to them as the term they claim for themselves which many other groups do not support, or by the term by which they are widely known which is exclusive to them.  Secondly, the point is not calling Barelvis kufr is POV (which is true), the point is recognising that a major Sunni legislative body declares Barelvis kufr (which appears to be true).  The point is not whether Fatwa Online is POV (it's sectarian, of course it is), the point is whether it accurately states a major, recognised Saudi fatwa.  Your arguments above are leaning too much towards clearly taking the side of the movement ("glory"?), as opposed to simply accurately depicting its role.  As to notability, the current version has a sizeable section which only exists to argue that Barelvis are peaceful and admirable for opposing the Taliban, but the very important fact that Barelvis are controversal and criticised is barely mentioned outside the introduction.  The fact that the Barelvis have been controversial throughout their existence is far more important than self-promotional statements about how they're morally superior to the Taliban. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there is a disconnect here. Nobody is disputing that Barelwis refer to themselves as Ahlus Sunnah.  The issue is, so do other movements - the Deobandis and Ahle Hadith included.  The term itself predates all three movements, and was used as early as the third generation of Muslims.  The article can note that Barelwis refer to themselves as such; the problem so far has been that previous edits referred to Barelwis as Ahlus Sunnah - a disputed term - rather than noting that Barelwis refer to themselves as such.


 * Speaking of bias, the section regarding conflicts and violence with other groups was removed. The validity of the section as a whole has been established already; blanking the page is tantamount to an immature flame war.  It can simply be inserted again, and deleting it will not get us anywhere.  Comments such as the one I removed in the Taliban section, however - which claimed that the Deobandi and Salafi movements use violence for their goals - are gross generalizations not supported by any valid news sources.  This is not a place for original research; this is an encyclopedia.  We report who, what, where, when, why, and how.  Readers should have all information available to them without the editors trying to come to conclusions on the readers' behalves.


 * Also, as MatthewVanitas mentioned, a public statement about a Muslim religious movement by the highest religious body in the country where the Muslim religion came from is significant. We need to sort this out soon as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, if a fatwa from a major, recognised religious body exists, which represents common objections to the Barelvis from competing schools, it should certainly be included in the article, probably under the "relations with other schools" section. It'd be very unbalanced to quote an Barelvi anti-Deobandi fatwa and not mention a similar Salafi/Saudi anti-Barelvi fatwa. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Hindu-I am not Opposing the Insertion of any Material which is written from the Neutral Point but the Language Used in the Section is written by editor from Non Neutral point.

First of all It is Just an editorial piece and the does not establishes NPOV.

The Fatawa Section is not Sourced to a Verifiable Link.I am time and again Just Saying that This is not the matter of Removing a section .The article may have a properly framed para written from a neutral Point linked to a verifiabel source.


 * I also submit that Fatwaonline has misinterpreted the Fatwa.

It is again submitted that Saudi Committe of fatwa is not at all a represented body of Muslims.It is a saudi state government body which representative of Minority Salafi Movement.So If linked to a Neutral and Verifiable source ,the Saudi fatwa may be cited in the neutral language. Shabiha 18:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait, what exactly are you claiming is inaccurate about this fatwa: http://www.fatwa-online.com/fataawa/creed/deviants/0010517_5.htm ?  How "misinterpreted"?  How is the Saudi Committee not a representative body, or not worthy of noticing?  If a single fatwa by Ahmad Riza Khan against Deobandis is worth noting, then why is a fatwa from a major Saudi body not worth noting?  Further, the fatwa is pretty interesting because it labels the specific practices which the orthodox Salafis consider improper.  As I've said earlier, an unfamiliar reader should be able to read this article and understand exactly what features of Barelvi Islam are controversial, which is not the case currently. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Shabiha, once again, the Hindu article is not being quoted for the opinion in the editorial. I believe we are all clear that an editorial is merely the editors opinion.  What it is being quoted for is the factual reference to some of the violence.


 * Even if we do remove the Hindu as a source - and I am not agreeing to that at this moment, I am only playing the Devil's advocate here - the comment itself is still sourced as is the entire section. There is no reason to remove factual information, as the sectarian violence in Pakistan is known and has been felt by thousands.


 * Also, regarding the Saudi committee, it doesn't matter if this committee is formed by any government. What matters is that millions of Muslims around the world look to the Permanent Committee, or Al Azhar, or Deoband, or a plethora of other scholarly bodies for guidance.  If one of these bodies makes comments such as this, then it is notable whether we agree with it or not. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi! I have added some Info about the Violence between barelwis and other groups from very Neutral and reliable sources which makes the complete Picture without any bias.You may add some more Info relating to the above Violence with neutral language.

Msoamu (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call those sources neutral. What I would suggest is going over each one of them here with bullet points and discussing their legitimacy per WP:V.  Obviously the violence is a big issue in the news and the Barelwis have been both perpetrators and victims, but we need to have things properly sourced. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed lengthy paragaph of attacks on Barelvis. Article still lacks proper coverage of objections to Barelvis
I reverted a number of edits, which comprised a lengthy paragraph on violence against Barelvis by other sects in Pakistan. I do not dispute that the attacks occurred, and a condensed mention of them would be appropriate in the previous section which mentions deaths during sectarian violence. However, the paragraphs appeared deliberately inserted to replace accounts of attacks by Barelvis, warping the article to make the Barelvis appear eternally victims of violence as opposed to participants in ongoing dispute. To mention attacks on Barelvis and not mention attacks by Barelvis is decidedly POV and unacceptable. Further, I am still very concerned that this article contains almost no mention of why various groups (Salafi, Deobandi, etc) object to Barelvis. That's a very basic question of primary interest to readers unfamiliar with regional/religious politics.MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Mathhew ,I have Inserted the attack by Barelwis on Ahle Hadith Mosque which was earlier removed by me because the attacks i have mentioned are not simple attacks on Common People but Barelwis had lost their Leaders and Mosques in these attacks while the attacks by barelwis outside Ahle Hadith Mosque was Just a attack on common People which may be a Barelwi Mosque in the Past.I am not denying that Barelwis have not Killed the Members of Rival groups but they have lost their Influential leaders in these attacks and on the other hand You will hardly find an Evidence or neutral source which Claims that Rival groups have lost their Prominent men by the hands of Barelwis.

Let me Inform You that minor fighting between both groups is common and we cant add each and every Incident here but Prominence should be given to major Incidents of this Violence.
 * I have also removed those POV words and have tried to Present a very Clear and Complete Picture of the Violence.
 * It is a undeniable fact that they are Victim of this Violence and have lost leaders while on the other hand rival group has suffered no loss or very minor loss.Just search Barelwi Mosques taken by Deobandis and Wahabis.You will come to Know the facts.


 * I will very soon Present You the actual Points of difference between these groups .Msoamu (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, that the Barelwis have been both the perpetrators of violence and the victims of it is known. Nobody is here to dispute that and information like that could be a good edition to the article.  We need proper sources, however.  What we should do is take the sources in the edits in question and go over them with bullet points.  This way, if we do decide to use them then in the future it will be more difficult for someone else to come along and just delete the whole thing.  This is a group effort here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Take some structural ideas from Shia Islam?
Looking at the article Shia Islam, I'm seeing ways that the article structure could be improved upon (not saying Barelvis are Shia, just saying that article is clearer than this one). As it stands, the current intro says very little about what Barelvis actually believe and why it's distinctive. Plus the whole second paragraph is just about etymology and could be it' own section, with Ahle- Sunnah given as an alternate name in the first sentence of the intro. Note how organised and complete the "Beliefs" section is in Shia Islam, and how it explains the contrast with Sunni Islam. Further, at this point like half the article is basically just there to say "Barelvis are more moderate than Salafis", with a somewhat congratulatory implication. Yes, the disputes and violence between sects is important to note, but I think that the practical (vice theological) disputes can all fit into one "Sectarian violence" section, and that a bit about the controversy over specific points of Barelvi theology ("Mohammed is noor" vs. ???) would be really helpful in the "Beliefs" section.


 * You have totally removed the facts of barelwis leaders killing by other group but preferred to add single ahle hadith killing.I ask You to search on Google the barelwi violence in the world.last edit of mine was showing both groups fight but I dont know why You did not like to add major killing of barelwi Leaders even the infamous Karachi blast Incident.

The Zia-ul-Haq Policies can also be read on various sites just read them if You have doubt.I have established them beyond doubt.The sources are not also very much neutral but are reliable too.Moreover the facts of killings of Barelwi Leaders should be in the Article though language may be neutralised.Msoamu (talk) 05:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't know who wrote this section. The first paragraph appears to be the same as what Matthew wrote below, then the second two fall into broken English and the third is signed by Msoamu.  I'm a but confused. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding "Barelvis are always pacifists" comments
Please help prevent any editor from re-adding the sentences like: "As Barelwis believe in Sufi Islam, they deeply condemn violence in every possible way. Barelwi philosophy is totally against the contemporary violent strategy of Salafis". Three references are cited, and one is a Barelvi site, and the two Times articles just say that Barelvis are more moderate than Deobandis. Given that Sunni Tehreek and other groups have gotten into violence (whether justified or no), it's not accurate to depict Barelvis as pacifists. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please expand this article
It seems that the quality of this article is poorer compared to Wahhabi and Salafi (Islamic sects opposite of Barlevi; each of them contains 40-50 references). For Wikipedia to be neutral, please research further about the subject and rewrite it to the same quality as of the article of the opposing sect. I cannot do it alone since web-based sources are scarce and I don't have any access to books about the subject. Alexius08 (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Added some
I have added some more information on the article today, please review. Cygnus_hansa (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Biased and Self Claimed Notions
There are many controversial points in this article. It is stated that only Barelvis are alternatively called Ahl-e-Sunnat. It is a claim of Barelvis. Deobandis also claim that they are Ahl-e-Sunnat. It is claimed that Ahl-e-Sunnat are different from Deobandis, Ahle Hadith and people related to Nadwa movement. This is a biased claim, as Deobandis, Ahle Hadith and people related to Nadwa movement always refute it, and they claim that they all are Ahl-e-Sunnat.

The sub-article “Distinctive Practices” is not correct. It is claimed that “praise of Muhammad (PBUH) in poetry” is a distinctive practice of Barelvis. This is not correct opinion. Deobandis, Ahle Hadith and people related to Nadwa movement all praise Muhammad (PBUH) in poetry. References may be produced. Similarly celeberation of Miraj, Shab-e-Bara’t and Laylat-ul-Qadr, is common to Deobandis, Ahle Hadith and people related to Nadwa movement.

These Errors must be corrected. Bhaur (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wahabi and Deobandis have fatwas against Milad,birthdayof Holy Prohpet Muhammad sallahoalaihiwassalam.The Public may celebrates some thing but the scholls does nt approves these Practices. The Shab-e-Barat,Shab-e-Qadr and death and birth annivarsaries are not looked by them as good.59.180.9.8 (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wahabi and Deobandi Ulema:

 * claim that they are ahl-e-sunnat;
 * write na'ts and listen na'ts;
 * celeberate Shab-e-Miraaj by offering nawafil etc. in that night;
 * celeberate Shab-e-Bara'at by offering nawafil etc. in that night; and
 * celeberate shab-e-Qadr by offering nawafil etc. in that night.

Bhaur (talk) 07:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Claim to term "Ahle Sunnat"
Certain editors have consistently worked to label Barelvis "Ahle Sunnat" or similar in the article. As a neutral person who is neither Barelvi nor a member of a competing group, I have yet to seen any evidence that Barelvis have any exclusive claim to this term. Please refrain from including such, except perhaps as a mention of "self-referred to as..." in the Etymology section, until such point as verifiable proof is given that the term is generally agreed to refer to, and only to, Barelvis. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing tagline of Disputed character
All the Content Must be Discussed here. This page is Not property of Any One. MSOAMU XXX.XX.XX.XXX (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC) (unknown date,Adde aproximately)

Sunni Tehreek
Sunni Tehreek is a Barelvi organization based in Karachi, Pakistan and is working for the cause of sunnis through peaceful measures. But this Organization is subject to atrocities from government, Wahabi Jihadi organizations and ruling political party. All of its founding leadership have beem martyred, including Chief and Founder Maulana Saleem Qadri, and Central Leaders Saleem Raza, Abudul Waheed Qadri, Second Chief Maulana Abbas Qadri, Maulana Iftikhar Ahmad Bhatti, Akram Qadri and hundreds of workers. Currently it is working under the leadership of Sarwat Ejaz Qadri to preach the teachings of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan, which are real Islamic Teachings opposed to extremist Wahabi.XXX.XX.XX.XXX (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC) (unknown date,Added aproximately)

Rename Category:AhleSunnat (Barelwi)?
User and date and time unknown,added approximately. XXX.XX.XX.XXX (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coercorash (talk • contribs)

how is this line reliable ? there is no link to it to prove it . it feels like someones personal opinion.
The mainstream Muslims of the world consider this sect as gumrah (off the right path), and think of it to be a product of shirk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohi212 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Distinctive beliefs
Distinctive beliefs

Several Barelvi beliefs are more unique to that group, and are considered flawed by many other Muslim denominations.[citation needed]

How do you justify this ? All the Hanfi Muslims Who follow Brelvi movement believe in that and there are countless Aima e Deen Has Mentioned it in their Renowned Books so This Belief is not dominant to Barelvis only.
 * The prophet Muhammad is made out of noor (light), and can be present at all places and at all times with the will of Allah, despite his physical death.
 * Muslim saints (the Sufi aulias or, in Farsi pīrs ) are able to intercede to Allah on behalf of the living

(Ahmad Shah Bukhari (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

Haq it is??
In the section: 'BELIEFS' ,it's said sunnis (barelwi as per article) belive that Prophet PBUH is light which is A LIE,SUNNIS DON'T BELIVE LIKE THIS!!

'''And in DISTINCTIVE BELIEFS,It's implied that only the recite na'at/Salam,which actualy most of ummah do excluding many najdis and deobandis. (Actually they exposed themselves!)

That's almost totally biased AND DON'T MEET WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES

117.98.37.156 (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Corrected The Article Section Beliefs
I changed The Section Beliefs because I'm a Hanafi Barelvi Muslim And This section has been under the Hands Of Najdis and Deobandis who are not even 10% of Global Muslim Population They're just trying to ruin it I would suggest all of those Najdis and Deobandis to restrain themselves from editing this article they're just editing to ruin it thats it so stop it !!!(Ahmad Shah Bukhari (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC))

Reply to the two above complaints
From the comments, it appears that neither editor understood the section. The entire point is that the section does not refer to all Sunnis, but specifically to the Barelvi movement within Sunnism. The term "distinctive" in this case means "beliefs common to the Barelvis, but to all Sunni groups". MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually you are unable to understan what the editors mean.They want to say that the barelwi sunnis don't belive the beliefs states like that of Noor.And if you think the only barelwi have have of Considering Holy Prophet PBUH As Noori Basher,than you should call these peoples barelwi TOO:
 * Abu Bakr RA
 * Umar ibn Khattab RA
 * Uthman RA
 * Ali Ibn Abi Talib RA
 * Abdullah Ibn Umar RA.
 * Salman the Persian RA
 * Imam Ghazali RA
 * Abu Hanifah RA
 * Ahmad ibn Hanbal RA

All Sahabah and Salafa RAAj. Are in the list. the list is highly incomplet,my request to all sunni brothers to expand it,better with reference. Kuffar,any more you want than?

110.226.51.87 (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Barelvi
In this article in the section entitled " Notable otganizations" may we also add Jamiyat Tabligh ul Islam, Bradford, UK. Established in the early 60's by Pir Syed Mahroof Hussain Shah Noshahi, the organization has been the main champion of Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamat in UK and Europe. Presently, the organization has 18 Masajid in Bradford alone as well as influential links and connections with Masajids in other UK cities and towns -Leeds, Nottingham, Birmmingham, London, Manchester-and Europe- Holland, France, Germany ...-. Under the leadership of Pir Syed Mahroof Hussain Shah Noshai, Jamiyat Tabligh ul Islam is unreservedly regarded by Bralevi Ulama and scholars as the bedrock of the Breilavi Movement in UK and Europe.

Jamiyat Tabligh ul Islam was also the principal architect of the World Islamic Mission in UK. This organization was inaugrated in Bradford by the late Shah Ahmed Noorani at the request of Pir Syed Mahroof Hussain Shah.

The British Muslim Forum and the recently formed Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board were also established with the principal support from Jamiyat TAbligh ul Islam and backing of Pir Mahroof Hussain Shah Noshahi.

Over the last decades, Jamiyat Tabligh ul Islam has provided a viberant launching platform for scholars and ulama of Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamat in UK and Europe including some of the cited in your article-Syed Abdul Wahab Siddiqi, Muhammed Imdad Hussain Pirzada

I suggest that Pir Syed Mahroof Hussain Shah Noshahi names needs to the list of precesent scholars and Jamiyat Tabligh ul Islam name to the organizations.

Ishtiaq Ahmed Media and Information Officer Bradford Council for Mosques —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.113.246 (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Overusage of generic "Wahabbi" and "Salafi" terms, inappropriate use of Qadianism
Over the last few months quite a few mentions of "Wahabbi" and "Salafi" have snuck into the article where previously it only said "Deobandi". Barring any evidence to the contrary, I'm assuming that the addition of terms does not actually indicate a wider variety of opposition groups, but simply the use of "Wahabbi" and "Deobandi" as slurs implying that Deobandis are zealots. This is inappropriate, and also warps the references (which just use the term Deobandi) to claim they say things they do not. I have removed the terms where they appear inappropriate, as it seems awfully like replacing the term "Socialists" with "Socialists, Marxists, and atheist Communists" in a clumsy effort to drive home a point. Further, the term "Qadianism", outside of quotes, is not appropriate as the accepted scholarly term for that sect is Ahmadiyya. I don't care to support either side of this argument, but this is a page about Barelvis, not for Barelvis to self-promote. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL!Than you should consider term 'barelvi' a slur too cause they don't call themselves barelvi but Sunni!That hypocrity!Double standard set by some so-called neutral editors.

Remember what i said on you talk?

"Sir,

if you want to start an edit war than you should know that you are not welcome.As per the content which is added and citated by me,which you think is biased,than you should know that the citations i given are considered as the greatest books of sunni islam in modern time.(wahabi-deobandi copy-paste fatawa from these and use as source,i know cause i'm ex-deobandi.)

Second thing ,according to you(and wahabis),wahabi is a degradory term,because they don't use that and use salafi,that's why it's allowed,because followers of wahabism want that. This formula doesnt apply to -majority of people who identifie themselves as Muslim-;Sunni who are called barelvi even if they identifie themselve almost usually as Sunni. (This hypocrity is called as double standard!) Atleast,,,now you accept that wikipedia articles should be neutral,it mean we must remove the wahabi PoV on every article.(this may make you unhappy!LOL!)

Third thing ,barelvi is not a sect but a wahabis made it,,,it's ahle sunnah......The orthodox ahle sunnah.If you think it PoV Than i can prove it dude!"  Coercorash Talk Contr. 12:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) I'm not against using the term "Wahabi" when it's used correctly to describe groups claiming some descent from the teaching of Ibn Abdul Wahab.  What is not appropriate, however, is to paint everyone you dislike as "Wahabi";  didn't you see my example about how referring to all Marxists as "Communists" would be inappropriate?  2)  "Barelvi" is a commonly-accepted term in neutral/academic publications.  I realise they like to call themselves just "Sunni" or "Ahle-Sunnah", but unfortunately that name is claimed by all kinds of groups, so the name unique to that sect is "Barelvi".  Again, this is kin to a Christian group claiming "We're not Baptists, we're Christian, and we're the only group that has the right to use that term, and the Lutherans and Catholics have to go by those names because they aren't true Christians."  3)  Barelvis claim to be "true Muslims", Salafis claim to be "true Muslims", Ismailis claim to be "true Muslims":  why on earth would you expect neutral editors to somehow agree that your sect happens to be the one true "orthodox" religion?  Claiming that the Barelvis are the true standard from which all other Islamic sects are flawed deviations is most definitely POV. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * First thing ,Sunnis sometimes call themselves Salafi too and don't consider wahabis as salafi.    Why do you call them salafis than?Rename that to wahabi due to name dispute.


 * Second What marxist politics have to do with Islam?And catholic and baptist are happy with the name given to them.


 * Third, i'm telling so called barelvis/sunnis orthodox cause we've proof of it.See the line beliefs,it's said Prophet is made of light.See the reference,it's said Noori Basher.Which right.The wahabis changed the meaning to just light.That's not fair.Why this not a PoV...Twisting the meaning for own beliefs?Now,please,don't add you own PoV.


 *  Coercorash Talk Contr. 06:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(deindent) You're being deliberately obtuse, and your edits are unhelpful and biased, your references misleading, and your proofreading very poor. When text is footnoted it has to actually agree with the footnote. You are repeatedly changing text while leaving the footnote in place, so that the text no longer agrees with the footnote yet still looks like it's properly cited, which is very deceptive. For example, the footnote you "cite" to prove that Barelvi is orthodox explicitly says that Barelvi is fused with Sufistic traditions. You repeatedly, obviously slant the article to imply that anyone who criticises Barelvis is a zealot, to make Barelvi seem like the "one true Islam", and, ludicrously blatantly, you remove any mentions of violence perpetrated by Barelvi sectarian groups. You cannot keep doing what you're doing, and I've reverted your edits and further proofread the article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop attacking me.If you think i'm presenting than "barelvi" is orthodox,than what's wrong if i have proofs?Just see salafi,there're many claims that they're orthodox.What about that?

 Coercorash Talk Contr. 16:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(deindent) The Salafi page is a good example of NPOV (not entirely throughout, but largely):  note that when it presents Salafi beliefs, it notes "Salafis say", "Salafis claim", "Religious scholar so-and-so once said...", etc. rather than stating their beliefs as objective truth. The article does not, however, do what you're attempting to do to the Barelvi article, which is champion the cause of Salafism, or whitewash away criticism of them. What exactly is it that you find non-neutral in the Salafi article, or in the current Barelvi article? In all honesty, it appears you're defining "neutral" as "agrees with my beliefs, and I know that I am right" rather than "generally agreed upon by opposite sides of the argument and/or uninvolved parties." MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Improving the article and adding better sources
I am trying to improve the article by making it more NPOV, adding better independent and third-party sources, and adding the Template:fact wherever citation is needed to back up a claim. So far all of my changes have been reverted by User:Coercorash without any explanation of what the problem is. Although I think I am justified in reverting the changes, in the interest of avoiding an edit war and assuming good faith (though I am beginning to doubt that), I am listing my proposed changes below before making the edits to the article. I request User:Coercorash to explain what the problem is with the changes.

1. Currently, the opening paragraph edited by User:Coercorash has this POV, incoherent and grammatically incorrect sentence: "deobandis claim that The Barelvi movement was started in 1880 to protect orthodox Islam including."

My suggested change is to make that sentence this (references included): "The Barelvi movement was started in 1880 to defend contemporary traditionalist Islamic beliefs and practices at the time from the criticism of reformist movements like the Deobandi and Ahl-e-Hadith movements. [Ref:Kenneth W. Jones, Socio-Religious Reform Movements in British India, The New Cambridge History of India, III, 1 (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 70] This included a defence of many traditional practices and rites associated with popular Sufism.[Ref: ]"

2. The second paragraph of the introduction reads: "In India, the Grand Mufti is traditionally from the Barelvi school of Sunni Islam."

I believe that a claim such as this needs to be backed up by a citation, so I added Template:cn to it, however User:Coercorash deleted it. Unless someone can provide a source to backup the claim I will add the template again. And eventually the whole sentence may be deleted if a valid source can not be found.

3. The Etymology section currently has no references and makes no mention of where the term barelvi comes from: "The movement is known to its followers as Ahle Sunnat ('People of the traditions of Mohammed'), differentiating it from Deobandi, Ahle Hadith and Nadwa movements. However, the term Ahle Sunnat is also used by wahabi and deobandis. Followers of this movement usually don't identifie themselves by barelvi but only Sunni or Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'at and consider barelvi a rude slur.[Ref: Fatawa Rizwiya]"

I suggest changing it to: "To its followers, the movement is known as Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat ('People of the traditions of Mohammed and the broad community'), as a means to claim to be the legitimate form of Sunni Islam, in opposition to its reformist rivals like the Deobandi, Ahle Hadith and Nadwa movements.[Ref: Ron Geaves, Learning the lessons from the neo-revivalist and Wahhabi movements: the counterattack of the new Sufi movements in the UK in Sufism in the West, eds Jamal Malik and John R. Hinnells, Routledge, 2006, pg 148] This is a contested claim however and outside of the movement it is commonly referred to as the Barelvi movement,[Ref: Ali Riaz, Faithful Education: Madrassahs in South Asia, Rutgers University Press, 2008, pg 75] derived from Bareilly, the name of the hometown of the movement's founder Ahmed Raza Khan."

4. In the Sectarian violence section, User:Coercorash has blanked the following sourced statement.

"In the 1990s and 2000s, sporadic violence resulted from disputes over control of Pakistani mosques between Barelwi and Deobandi.[Ref: ' Serious threat to Pakistan's civil society' The Hindu, April 18, 2006] In May 2001, sectarian riots broke out after Sunni Tehreek leader Saleem Qadri was assassinated by the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan, a Deoband-affiliated terrorist group.[Ref: The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : Serious threat to Pakistan's civil society] In April 2007, Sunni Tehreek activists attempted to forcibly gain control of a mosque in Karachi, opening fire on the mosque and those inside, resulting in one death and three injuries.[Ref: 'One dead as ST tries to take control of Ahle Hadith mosque' Daily Times (Pakistan), April 11, 2007]|undefined"

I suggest re-inserting the above statements as it is well sourced and is an important aspect of the article.

Please explain what problems there may be in my suggested changes above, and propose alternates edits if so. I hope we can avoid an edit-war here.

There are many other POV and accuracy issues in this article that need to be resolved, but for now I am suggesting just these four edits for now. --Urduboy (talk) 08:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Full protection:Another shamefull act
It an another shamefull act of wahabis and so-called neutralists.If you wanted to make the article neutral than why did you protected (in proper word,freezed) on one of the most biased wahabish edit?If you think i wrote non-neural article than what the hell it is?Just full of wahabi claims and twisted statements?

No mention of these. And may more missing. That's just wahabi PoV approved by "owners of NPoV observing org."!
 * No mention of Sahabah(R.A.)and salaf(Reh. A.)--wahabi's article:salafi is full of that.
 * Ahmad Raza(Reh. A.),whom Muslims consider reformer and wahabis "founder" of barelvi,said "I want to save the orthodox islam from wahabi invaders."

 Coercorash Talk Contr. 11:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting point, note the huge difference in terms of objectivity:


 * NPOV: ''Ahmad Raza initiated what later became the Barelvi movement, saying "I want to save the orthodox Islam from Wahabi invaders."


 * POV: Ahmad Raza worked to protect orthodox Islam from Wahabi invaders.


 * You simply must understand the difference between the two if you want to contribute positively to Wikipedia. So far as your other allegations:  Salafi contains mention of Salaf?  That sounds awfully logical to me.  So far as the Sabahah, given that most Muslim groups claim some linkage to Sabahah, you would have to note (and footnote) particularly distinct relationships between Barelvi and Sabahah other than what is simply common to Sunnism overall.  If you want to contribute positively to the article when it reopens, I suggest that you (as I intend to) read up on some neutral, academic coverage of Barelvi history and beliefs, and add footnoted, unbiased content.  Do you at least agree that it is inappopriate to remove footnoted examples of attacks by Barelvis while leaving accounts of attacks on Barelvis? MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * have you read the whole salafi page or just saw heading?If yes,Than what's this?Names of Sunni Imams like Ahmad ibn Hanbal,Muhammad al-Bukhari etc etc.When did they followed wahabi "movement"??

Haven't i told you,shamefull act....By cowards.All you do is accuse me of non-neutral PoV.Can't you see what you brothers are doing?  Coercorash Talk Contr. 16:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @Coercrash It's a shame that the page had to be protected but you were the one that requested the help of a third-party admin. Anyway, first, you need to get a hold of yourself and stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being a vandal or a wahhabi.


 * Second, please suggest some useful edits on this talk page that we can agree on and add to the article when it is unlocked. But edits need to be NPOV and well sourced with secondary sources -- see WP:SECONDARY. That means that simply typing "Fatawa Rizviya" as your source is not good enough. You have to provide the full citation of the document giving the date and location of publishing and preferably a page number also. Even then, it seems to me that citing a Fatawa would be a primary source which in most cases would fail to meet the requirements of WP:SECONDARY. Rather, you would need to find a source that discusses the Fatawa.


 * Finally, if you have a problem with the Salafi or Wahhabi page then change it yourself! But again you would have to back up your arguments with good sources. But regardless, just because another page is POV does not mean we should allow this one to be also.


 * I hope this is helpful and look forward to your suggestions.--Urduboy (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Odd you should cite WP:NPA, given that it specifically prohibits religious and political epithets (such as the "stone worshipper", "nadji", and "kuffar" you are prone to using). Nobody is objecting to you, we are objecting to your edits, and this is made more problematic by your insistence on offensive epithets, and using your Userspace to specifically cite opposition to "Wahabi" edits as your goal of editorship.  I fail to see how I or Urduboy have exhibited similar suspect leanings, despite your accusations such as "Can't you see what you brothers are doing?".  If you believe that your NPOV edits are being reverted to POV, please give concrete examples of material you find objectionable, backed up by neutral fact.  "Facts" do not include stating biased individuals' opinions as objective (though they may be cited as examples of a notable individual's beliefs), or such truisms as "my group is right, we even say so ourselves!"  There have to be a good number of books on Barelvi belief that you can find online;  using neutral, academic sources to expand the article would be a great use of your time and enthusiasm. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Untrustworthy site for "belief"
As it can be seen that belief section is partially based on unreliable websites.We muslims have our own websites to define & defend our faith,we don't need any pegan/hindu/wahabi site.

Sectarian violance
How can it be here,if "Owners of NPoV" are editing it?Why it's not on salafi/wahabi page cause about 96% of terrorism comes from this group?

Re:Matthew
when did i called you kuffar/wahabi/najdi? You just want to move the attention.I never defined neutral to be agree with my beliefs.I define neutral to be what's true,even if it have any opposition from minority,it'll not alter the truth,sometimes,truth is bitter.And that's it. We can mention views of minorty which are against truth,but can't use them as defination

According to you:


 * POV=Ahmad Raza(R.A.) defended orthodox islam.
 * NPOV='salafis' strictly follows islam and Salaf(R.A.).

 Coercorash Talk Contr. 17:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) All the footnotes in the "Beliefs" section come from a "Muslim website."  And in actuality it'd be preferably to cite those from a non-religious academic source.  Disparaging non-Muslim sources is not a good way for you to emphasise your interest in NPOV.
 * 2) How is it POV to have a footnoted "Sectarian violence" section?  And per your edits, you don't seem to object to that section mentioning Deobandi attacks on Barelvis, but object to it mentioning Barelvis shooting people in fights over control of Pakistani mosques.  You don't think that's POV, to deliberately remove the other side of the story?
 * 3) You can take up personal stuff on my Talk page, but you are simply not reading what others are saying, and refusing to accept input on neutrality.  You respond be accusing others of vandalism and personal attacks, and then giving strawman arguments to claim that others are expressing blatantly pro-Salafi/Wahabi/Deobandi arguments when they are not doing so.  It is indeed POV to say "Ahmad Raza defended orthodox Islam", and likewise POV to say "Salafis strictly follow Islam";  what is NPOV, once again, is to say "Ahmad Raza claimed XYZ ", "Salafis have objected to XYZ ."  You have to put out some basic effort to see these issues through eyes other than your own. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to repeat
But what it makes if the statemets from that muslim site are twisted?

And yes it's an OPEN PoV To have a SV Section if rival group don't have that,even it is extrem PoV As the rival group is source of about 96% terrorism,the group which was born to terrorise.

 Coercorash Talk Contr. 18:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the reference links given in the Beliefs section links don't even work. This needs to be changed, however the references should be independent and secondary (WP:SECONDARY) -- not from unreliable Islamic website. Preferably academic sources. Please suggest some good sources if you have them so that they can be added to the article. Here is a good place to start:


 * As to your comment about the Sectarian Violence section, it is NOT okay to make one article POV just because another article is POV. If you have a problem with the Salafi article, go and make the changes or argue for it on that page. It has no bearing on the the requirements for this page to be POV also. --Urduboy (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't this be vise versa?


 *  Coercorash Talk Contr. 11:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course it cannot be vice versa! Please go and read WP:NPOV before commenting on this point again. All articles have to NPOV, not POV. --Urduboy (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Coercorash
This is an example of one of the worst non-neutral articles on Wikipedia. Just see name,Barelvi,it was name given to Sunnis by recent wahabis.Even some imams of wahabi movement in past openly writes in books eg. "80 years before,everyone known as muslim had the same belief which what we call 'barelvi'-hanfis had."

Contribs   Muslim Editor     Talk  11:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The name "Barelvi" is a standard term used by academics to describe the movement. Go to http://books.google.com or http://news.google.com and search for "Barelvi" or "Barelwi" and then see the results. Instead of just complaining, please list suggested edits that you would like to done to this article, with proper sources. You will not win your argument just by complaining. --Urduboy (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What title would you prefer? Might it be Ahle-Sunnat?  You don't think that might offend other "Sunni Muslims" who are not from the Barelvi school?    Further, quotes to physical books that we can't access, written by a clergyman that I can't find a lot about on Google, with a quote where we can't see the context, is not compelling evidence that the Barelvi are the purest of branches of Sunni Islam who have only been given a specific sectarian name by their enemies. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't you know the 'Salafi' term used by wahabi offend non-wahabis?Than why are you asking?About Half of wikipedia reference consist of 3rd party publications/physical books,and typicaly most of featured articles contains alot of physical book references.


 * and when i searched google books with Barelwi and Barelvi,i got nothing.This proves that Barelvi/Barelvi terms are uncommon in academics.


 * Contribs    Muslim Editor     Talk  16:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There must be something wrong with your computer then, because when I click on the links you pasted above, google books returned "About 6,000 results (0.29 seconds)" for Barelvi and "About 3,820 results (0.27 seconds)" for Barelwi. I hope it is just a problem with your computer and nothing else. --Urduboy (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The term 'Barelvi' meets notability requirements. The content is a different matter. I suggest any and all of you read the excellent user essay, WP:TIGER. Please make constructive, policy/guideline-based suggested edits. Note, I am able to easily remain totally neutral in this matter, mostly because I do not know anything about the topic.  Chzz  ► 13:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Coercash.The term barelwi is given by Opposite camp so it has no value at all.The Orginal research done by usha Sanyal and others on this Ahle Sunnah Movement described it as Ahle Sunnat Movement not with the term Barelwi.

If we are using this term of Opposite camp here then wahabism is most used term for so called salafis who have created separate page with the name salafi.which is total Non neutral.salafis are only that group of Pious Muslims who were the companions of Prophet of Islam. I strongly Oppose the term and suggest Ahle Sunnat or Ahle Sunnat wal Jamat. Others are not opposing their names like deobandis have accepted this name which was used by themselves but Followers of Ahmed raza khan always recognized themselves with the term Ahle Sunnat that is the basic difference.  Shabiha 17:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keen to know some agree with me otherwise "owners of neutrality" were accusing me of non-neural PoV.Muslim Editor's reference is awesome.
 * Shabiha, LOL!Renaming of so called salafi will be almost immediataly reverted and you may get banned for that because "owner of NPoV" thinks that so called salafi page is very neutral!(See above).

 Coercorash Talk Contr. 18:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm still honestly baffled as to exactly what you consider to be so POV. What do you actually want to see in this article? I looked at the version you created as a content fork of this article, old version of Ahle Sunnat Wal Jama'at, and if that's what you're hoping this article will become that's simply not doable. The POV-fork version is barely referenced, promotes the Barelvis as the only true Muslims, is poorly formatted and proofread, and uses insulting terms to derogate other beliefs. Can you not see how that version of the article was unacceptable? I'm beginning to get the feeling that you will not approve of any content in the article which fails to state that the "Ahle Sunnat" are the only true Muslims, are in no way a denomination of a larger Islamic religion, have perfectly orthodox beliefs, and are opposed by terrible, evil, and simply incorrect people. Confirm/deny? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm still baffled as to exactly what you consider to be so POV.Look at current version of article,which is poorly written with few reference from a wahabi PoV who wanna prove that "barelvi" is an offshoot from early Islam.

 Coercorash Talk Contr. 03:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Barelvi

 * 1)  Has 20 references, most of them from respected academic institutions and mainstream newspapers, with the only references to religious sites being citations as to beliefs.
 * 2)  Generally decently proofread (barring a messed-up reference link at the end), and tagged where needed
 * 3)  Properly categorised, formatted.  Lede clearly indicates the where, when, what, why of the movement

Ahle Sunnat Wal Jama'at

 * 1)  Lede fails to mention anything about South Asia, the distinctiveness of Barelvi beliefs, etc. and basically just implies that they're "orthodox Muslims", and vaguely mentions a few Sufi leaders with no context.
 * 2)  Has only seven references:  four to mainstream news sites, one to another Wikipedia article (improper), one broken link, and one to "indianmuslims.com"
 * 3)  Fails to include categories or other essentials of wiki formatting
 * 4)  Here is a short list of unacceptably POV phrases from the article, just at a glance:
 * Ahle Sunnat Wal Jama'ah is the The followers Sunnah of Holy Prophet Sal ALLAHu Alyhi wa Sallam and his companions radi ALLAHu Anhu (implies exclusive claim to be Mohammed's followers, and inapporiate use of honorific per WP:MOSISLAM)
 * They accept orthodox beliefer of sahaba
 * are Considered as Sunnis due to their veneration of Holy Prophet Muhammad
 * Sunnis highly condemes evil innovations i.e. Innovations that harm islam.
 * Ahmad Raza Khan particularly wrote against insulters of The GOD and Prophet Sal ALLAHu Alyhi wa sallam like Maulana Ismail Dehalvi
 * As Sunnis believe in Islam, they deeply condemn violence in every possible way. (Using "Sunni" to define your group despite the fact that opposing groups are also Sunni, and glossing over Barelvi involvement in sectarian violence in South Asia. The Barelvis appear, objectively, far less involved in violent acts than Deobandis, but certainly don't appear pacifist)
 * totally against the contemporary violent strategy of ghair muqallids ("those outside the tradition", a term to insult competing sects)

Conclusion: The "ASWJ" article uses inappopriate honorifics, praise, claims of orthodoxy, and continually implies or states that competing groups are essentially heretics. It has no neutral academic footnotes, and even what citations it uses are mostly used to indirectly support claims that other beliefs are heresies, note deceptive use of footnotes to verify a conclusion not reached in the source material. Seriously, your version calls Deobandi scholars "haters of god". How is anything in the current Barelvi article anywhere near that offensive?

It seems pretty obvious that you are not interested in writing a neutral, academically verifiable article, but instead are pushing for an article that demonises other sects and promotes yours as the correct one. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Working on a userspace draft of this article at User:MatthewVanitas/Barelvi_draft
While the article is frozen, I'd like to make some progress improving the article, so have copied the source code to my userspace to do some riffing on it here: User:MatthewVanitas/Barelvi_draft. I've removed non-footnoted and biased material, and am looking to expand the article with verifiable, neutral information. Particularly hoping to clarify the Barelvi belief system and practices, and to give a neutral take on their objections to the Deobandis and vice-versa. I'd welcome input from anyone who is interested in adding academically-cited info, and also in-line comments, such as NEED TO PUT INFO ON NAQSHBANDI ORDER HERE or THIS QUOTE NEEDS TO GO FURTHER DOWN THE PAGE, etc. For those editors who disagree with my version, I'd suggest you make a different version on another user's userspace, and maybe after a week or two we can go to some neutral arbitrators and ask them which version is more Wikipedia-appopriate, and then unlock this article and sub in the agreed version. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * you forgot to add Sahabah (R.A.) and Salaf (R.A.) in scholar section of your article!

 Coercorash Talk Contr. 13:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * How about you make your awesome ultimate Ahle Sunnat article, and I'll make mine, and then we'll just get some outside, uninvolved editors to take a look? I'm not aware of any particularly close relationship between Barelvis and the Sahabah and Salaf outside that which is common to all Sunni groups. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Acc. To your PoV, they're common with sunnis, than what their names are doing on salafi,why not on "barelvi."


 * Wikipedia is not private property of wahabi and allias and nor does of Sunnis,so lets make a wahabish free wikipedia,starting this with cleaning salfi article!If i'll edit that article,you'll accuse me of PoV,why don't you edit that while "Barelvi" article is frozen due to your 'grace'!

 Coercorash Talk Contr. 05:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the Salafi article, as I cover South/Central Asia topics, not Arabian Peninsula topics. You're totally free to make edits to the Salafi article, but your edits have to be based on netural/academic published materials, while your edits to Barelvi were not, so they were removed by two different editors, upon which you cried "edit war" and the article was frozen. Again, I have yet to see you explain what "wahabish" bias you're seeing, other than to insist that your branch of Islam is the only true branch of Islam, and holds the rights to the terms "Sunni" and "Ahle Sunnat", and is "orthodox" in every way, despite the fact that there are many schools and branches within Sunnism with distinct beliefs. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * than you go and edit and rama seeta and ravan articles,as they are under your interest.And maybe you don't know but Islam was preached from hejaz arabia.So you should leave the article instead of adding you (h)induish PoV IN THIS ISLAMIC ARTICLE.And edit your ramayana related to south india/asia.

 Coercorash Talk Contr. 06:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha!Can't hypocrites do more than this?
This is probably the second time. They just wanna ruin the article!

That's why the reputation of wikipedia is declining. Just because of these hypocrites.

Prosedure of hypocrites:


 * 1) Make sure the victim article full of lies or make it if it is not.
 * 2) Use slogans like be neutral etc to become known as neutral editor.
 * 3) If someone tries to neutralise the article,call him/her non-neutral,make fun of him/her.
 * 4) Revert to the non-neutral version and  IMMEDIATELY  protect (or in better words seal) it.
 * 5) *cheers*.
 * 6) Get a barnstar for "helping" wikipedia(??)

 Coercorash Talk Contr. 06:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is ALWAYS the Wrong Version (copyright) every single time. There has never been a fully protected article that did not have at least someone think that the wrong version was protected. I would highly prefer you stay here to edit because having editors of multiple viewpoints tends to make the article better in the end but if you wish to continue editing here I strongly encourage you to calm down. The vitriol and anger that you are spewing can not be accepted.  James  ( T   C )  08:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Change in etymology
"To its followers the movement is known as Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat ("People of the traditions of Mohammed and the broad community"), as a means to lay exclusive claim to be the legitimate form of Sunni Islam, in opposition to its reformist rivals like the Deobandi, Ahle Hadith and Nadwa movements. This is a contested claim and outside of the movement it is commonly referred to as the Barelvi movement, derived from Ahmad Raza's home city of Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India. "

This section should be changed to

The movement is known to its followers as Ahl-e Sunnat wa Jama‘at ("People of the traditions of Mohammed"), differentiating it from Deobandi, Ahle Hadith and Nadwa movements. However, the term Ahle Sunnat is also used by Sunnis in general, many of whom do not recognise an exclusive claim to the term by the Barelvi movement. The term Barelvi is also used pejoratively by some orthodox Islamic groups which disapprove of the Barelvi's adherence to heterodox practices, many of which are derived from Sufism.The name is also variously spelled as Barelwi, Barelavi, or Bareillwi.

Reference http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=9AEFFA6C9E69AE72AE9006B6078D5438.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=69414 (Ahmad Shah Bukhari (talk) 09:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC))

Noor vs. Noori bashar
I've noted the several editors have wanted to change the section of Muhammad-related Barelvi beliefs to say noori bashar (both light and flesh) as opposed to noor (light). However, several references (discoverable in the link in the footnote) explicitly state that Barelvis believe Muhammad to be noor and not bashar. If you believe these references are incorrect, then that's definitely something worth looking into. However, we can't just favour uncited changes over clearly footnoted ones, and we positively cannot completely change the text while leaving the footnote the same even though the footnote and the text are now in contradiction. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Been searching a reliable source for it but couldn't find except the Original Research lets see i'm searching hope we find it soon.(ASB (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

Urgh, what bullocks
Who said Mohammed Kaif IS BARELVI? What the heck is this bullshit, enough with twatness. I am removing some names from the Notable section cos they do have not any sources let alone credible. --188.55.6.54 (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Victims of Violence
The Ahle Sunnat masses is mainly associated with Sufism and regularly visit the Shrines of Sufi Saint for the blessings but the Continous attacks on this Institution of Peace and brotherhood has shattered the very foundation of the society. The Talibani Ideology according to the Ahle Sunnat scholars is similar to Kharjites and they are waging fasad not Jehad ,killing Innocents ,Bombing the Masajids and shrines.

Dear Matthew lets discuss-


 * you should have neutralised this para if You think it contains non neutral language.

I have retained external links as Most of the Islamic Articles/Wikipages contains balanced Info through External links area.Moreoever these links are diverse and Provides the Info/Knowledge about belief and faith  of this Movement.I dont think there is any wrong in it. 'The Pakistani Taliban have launched a series of attacks on Sufi shrines around the whole country  by adopting puritan Takfiri'' ideology that have been linked to a campaign to impose a puritan code of religious conduct. The Sufi Shrines of  Pious ,Rehman Baba Mausoleum ,400-year-old Shrine of Abu Saeed Baba,Shrine of Abdullah Shah Ghazi R.A at  Karachi,Data  R.A Darbar Lahore ,Baba farid Ganj R.A Shakar at pakpattan have been attacked in the name of Jehad  .'''

This is most Important part and which must be there,whatever the heading may be.

Reply

 * I appreciate your coming here to discuss your edits, but I am reverting again and explain in detail below the reasons:


 * You changed Ahl-e Hadith to Wahabbi,Deobandi. No clear reason for change, and the source appears to use the prior term, which seems more technically correct in this case.
 * At several points you use the term Ahl-e Sunnat. The article already notes that the Barelvi self-designate themselves by this name, but that others claim the same name.  The article is entitled Barelvi and there's no need to change up terms other than the first discussion over the debated use of the name.
 * Not necessary to add the word "Prophet" in front of Muhammad, as it's really clear from context. Plus you'd have to say "Islamic prophet Muhammad" to be NPOV, and that takes up unnecessary space.
 * So far as nur and bashar and whether it's one, the other, or both: we've had editors constantly changing it to and, and as I've said earlier in Discussion I'd love to keep that if anyone has an actual footnote. However, every single editor has consistently failed to footnote this claim, and the current footnote explicitly says "rather than".  So until someone takes the minimal effort to dig up a reputable reference stating otherwise, "rather than" it is.  And you definitely can't change the sentence and leave the footnote which says the exact opposite, making it look like the footnote supports you.  I honestly don't understand why people are so adamant on this point yet can't find a reference for it.
 * Attacks on Sufi shrines: Several issues here.  It's improperly formatted with random bolding, many misspellings and poor punctuation, honorific (R.A.), describes the Taliban as "puritan Takfiri" with no footnote for who's using that phrase.  The whole thing is footnoted to what appears to be a news compilation site instead of a real news site.  And last of all, the shrine in question is for a man who died hundreds of years before the Barelvi movement kicked off, so barring any explicit mention in sources as to this being a Barelvi issue, there's not an immediately clear connection.


 * Hope this helps clarify my concerns. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Ahle Sunnat Movement considers Prophet Muhammad Human as well as Light.115.240.20.198 (talk) 03:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

On removal of Naturi/Arya Samaj, etc. Also questioning mosque gallery
Reverted some of Shabiha's recent edits, as he added opposition to several groups within a sentence saying the Barelvi movement began in order to oppose X, Y, and Z groups. His source (which is also a sectarian site that's not a good NPOV source for history) doesn't at all indicate that opposing groups other than Deobandi was a major factor in the founding, it just says that ARK wrote against them. I could definitely see mention of opposition to the Naturi, Arya Samaj, Christianity, etc. going in the "Relations with other movements" section, but not in the lede at this point. Further, if it was mainly ARK who opposed them, mention should go in his bio rather than the overall Barelvi article.

Regarding other edits: we now have a gallery of various Barelvi mosques. If this article were Barelvi mosques that would certainly make sense, but given the topic I'd suggest that a good picture of one mosque would be sufficient. The same way a pic of ARK would be good, but a gallery of pics of Barelvi scholars would be excessive. Thoughts? MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The point which i tried to mention here is that ''Barelwi movement was founded to check these movements which, according to them were dangerous to Muslims.This is opinion of official site of this movement.According to them ''The period of Imam Ahmad Raza (1856-1921) was a murderer era for the Muslims of united India. Besides British injustice various religious, political, educational, Social & cultural thoughts &     movements were attacking on Muslims & Islam. '' We are here discussing here why Imam Ahmed Raza had to write against other movements and what are those movements? The site gives us the answers that these were X, Y, Z groups and he had to write because these groups according to Ala hazrat ,were dangerous to muslims.
 * First of all receive many thanks for dedicating yourself improving this page.

The basic point which i wish to tell here is that movement started only when IARK wrote against these groups and moreover it was in starting based on books/fatwas/magazines/papers written by IARK.Before his opposition to these groups it was not in existence .So he was the sole whisteleblower against these groups so it is obvious the Article must tell that why it was in existence.

i will give detailed on the reasons after some time but i think here the official version of the movement is imp.The readers may not understand well if dont give the facts from this site. Additionally Usha sanyal who has written extensively has also given the above said point.


 * The Notable mosques may have pics of few mosques around the world as it will give reader the impression about the presence of this movement but it should not be removed.I hope to make this article a rich one which may have overall view with bful pics .You are right that a separate article on Masjids will be alright but this is  global movement of Islam and like Islam article, pics showing its Institution around the world will be relevant and  very helpful to readers. Shabiha  05:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Fir

Suggest removal of "Opposition of Qur'an Burning Plan"
This section doesn't seem to add much, given that practically every Muslim organisation opposed the burning (as did pretty much 90% of everybody). The info and even the quote could apply to practically any Muslim group, so there's not anything particularly Barelvi-ish about them that helps clarify who the Barelvis are in comparison with other Muslim groups. I suggest that section be removed and other sections expanded. Objections? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 30 days, no objections raised, removing section. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Composition Of Sunni Sects in Pakistan
Salam, Can i be informed about the composition percentage of sunni sects,i.e, barelvi nd deobandi in Pakistan. Which faction is in majority? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.159.220.244 (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Nur/Bashar
"Prophet Mohammad is Noor in the form of Bashar and He is Abd of Allah Ta'ala" If this is the belief of barelvi sect than refer this statement with a Barelvi Scholar's book or a Barelvi website.If you can't than visit Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi's article.The category of his Beliefs in the article,reflects his and his sects' belief on 'nur/bashar' nature of Prophet, with reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArsalanAli1991 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * At the moment, it is clearly cited to a third-party book. It is entirely possible that book is incorrect, as has been brought up at Ahmad Raza Khan. If the cite is incorrect, please bring in other neutral thirdy party cites which outweigh it. No, we are not compelled to look at a Barelvi site for the resolution; the ideal would be to find a non-Barelvi academic who says "the Barelvis believe XYZ". All we're asking for is a couple references which state what the Barelvi stance on nur/bashar is, rather than people endlessly dropping in to complain or erase it and never giving a shred of evidence to correct it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I recognise multiple editors' concerns here, but take a look at these gBook hits: it appears a lot of books mention "nur rather than bashar". Is this a common misperception, or a debated issue?
 * GoogleBooks "Barelvi noor bashar"
 * GoogleBooks "Barelvi nur bashar"
 * MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Mosques
Why are some of the masjids on this. I'm sure that some of these mosque's are not 'barelvi', such as Salaheddin, which is a so-called 'salafi mosque'. Someone fix that please 99.226.37.176 (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello. Thanks for your question. If you can find links showing that any mosques on this page, or any individuals on it, do not identify themselves as Barelvi or actually identify as something different, I will gladly remove them. I am quite concerned myself that there are almost no citations showing that these scholars are Barelvi. Best wishes,George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes really a good point most of those mosques are not affiliated with barelvi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqibsandhu (talk • contribs) 08:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Shrine and grave worshipping
Dear fellow editors, I have never personally believed that Barelvi Muslims "worship" shrines and graves. Yet my personal opinion should not be the basis for adding or removing Wikipedia statements on this issue. Nor should anyone else's opinion serve as that basis. EVIDENCE is the vital thing. If Barelvis do NOT worship shrines and graves, there should be citations to reliable and neutral (third-party) sources saying that. Given that the claim that they do worship shrines and graves has two citations to sources, I have felt duty bound to protect the integrity of Wikipedia by upholding the principle of verifiability. Please don't just delete, add or modify things you don't like without providing sources. Thanks and best wishes, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


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

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


 * Sorry, but it cannot be used as a source. It is not a neutral and third-party source as defined by WP:SOURCES. Best wishes, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


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


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


 * Dear MatthewVanitas, I think your judgement is spot-on. Let's try to create a more balanced section using your recommendations. Excellent work. If we try to steer a neutral and source-based path, we should be able to enhance clarity and prevent excessive excitement and un-constructive edits. Best wishes, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


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

Actually, this sentence -- "Veneration of, or intercessional prayers offered at, shrines and the graves of saints, a practice which opponents call “shrine-worshipping” and “grave-worshiping” and consider to be un-Islamic" -- is a well referenced and neutral statement that does NOT say that Barelvis worship shrines. It says that they pray AT the shrines, which some opponents object to and characterize (wrongly or rightly) as the wrong thing to do. Best wishes, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Hello again. I think you are mistaken to believe that the line above should be moved into a new "Criticism" section. It is certainly not "problematic" where it is, and moving it will actually (a) give the issue more prominence; (b) leave the "Criticism" section looking unnecessary; and (c) possibly entice opponents of the Barelvis to add a whole raft of other criticisms. Please read back through the edit log. This article used to be far more controversial (and far more often vandalised or unhelpfully edited) than it currently is. For all these reasons I strongly recommend leaving the sentence where it is. Best wishes, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 06:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Hello. We both need to be careful not to get into an edit war, or violate the three-revert rule, so I will ask a few seasoned, senior editors to take a look at the Barelvi page and its recent edits. Best wishes,George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 07:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Personal attacks are very undignified and unnecessary. You do not know my religion. I have made over 1,000 edits on Islamic (and esp Pakistani) topics. And note: I am both an Urdu and Arabic speaker. So please reflect on why that might be. I think you will find you have already now violated the three-revert rule, not me. In a spirit of fairness, I will wait and see what other editors think. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Assalamolaikum/Hello to all,Please stay away personal war.I have tried to neutralize the section ,Hope it is now according to Wiki rules.Time to cool down.Msoamu (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, Msoamu. I believe in the editors' consensus, so let's see what other editors think in coming days. I never mind being wrong about my own edits. Best wishes, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 08:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


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


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

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


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


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


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


 * I totally agree with MatthewVanitas. The tension between Barelvis and other Muslims who represent a different view of Islam cannot be ignored. We should not take sides in any claims of theological "truth", of course, but we should not hide the different viewpoints. I therefore fully support MatthewVanitas' reversions. Regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


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