Talk:Deobandi movement/Archive 1

Inappropriate tone
This article needs work. Statements like 'Insha’Allah, these beliefs will be analyzed point by point.' don't belong in an encyclopaedia. Also, there's the problem with honorifics.--Nkv 17:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Salafis
So, are the deobandis a sub-group of Salafis? --Striver 12:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope. However, the Deobandis and the Salafis agree on some points of Fiqh which the rest of the Sunnis don't. This has led to them (the Deobandis) being called Wahabis (or Salafis). --Nkv 15:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope. Deobandies and Salfis do not agree on Fiqh.  Deobandies are Hanafi by Fiqh like Barelvies while Salafies follow Ibn Abdul Wahhab in not following any Imam of Fiqh.  Deobandi/Barelvi rivalry started when some Deobandi Ulema got under Wahhabi influence and Barelvies declared (wrongly in my opinion) as Wahhabies.  e.g. Ubaidullah Sindhi and Maulvi Ismail promoted a book of Ibn Abdul Wahhab translated as Taqwiyatul Iman.
 * The funny thing is, an Ahmed editor seems to be on a mission to prove Deobandies in general and mr. Sindhi in particular as Qadiani influenced. Who knows? Maybe the rivalry was a conpiracy of Ahmedies/British :) Hassanfarooqi 22:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate a section dedicated to some deeper info in this subject. --Striver 15:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It might be useful but I'm really not upto doing it. Source hunting for wikipedia, rabid editors have all gotten me down. These days, I just revert vandalism. --Nkv 17:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation
Large sections of this article have been lifted wholesale from. They need to be excised. --Nkv 07:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the edits later than. Ibn Saeed's edits are almost wholly lifted from the (apparently Salafi from what I can tell) site mentioned above. This biasses the article and also perhaps violated copyright issues. --Nkv 07:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good job. I do not think they would mind copyright as it is a propoganda website and would love to see their propoganda going thru for free!  In my view, the problem is biases.  I am definitely not Deobandi but you can see that I am disturbed when Ahemdies editors are trying to cook up a Deoband-Qadian connection.  There should be ATLEAST SOME neutrality and factuality in Wikipedia :) Hassanfarooqi 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent disruptive edits
Recently, User:Shabiha made this edit in which information on the ties of Deobandi thought to traditional Sufism were removed, and factual inaccuracies about Deobandi-Barelwi relations were inserted in front of an already existing reference confirming the version of the article before their revision. This is not only a violation of the official Neutral point of view policy, but also the Citing sources style guideline. In addition, the refusal to discuss or justify this edit in any way is a source of both disruptive editing and edit warring. To top it all off, the edit summary in the above diff is a violation of the official No personal attacks policy. I ask that all editors please have the clarity and maturity to discuss edits here rather than edit warring and launching insults at one another. Consider this a warning. MezzoMezzo 03:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Deobandis don't follow Sufism and Differences have not declined
Don't Cite one or Two Mixed Ideology scholars regarding Sufism. Now where in the world people saying themselves deo's are practising or associating with any authentic Sufi Order like Qaudri, Suharwardi ,Chisti etc. The lines in the articles Shows that sufi people are Deo's or Deo's are Sufis. It is Totally Incorrect. Don't try to make Wikipedia a Blog of Own Ideology.

Who says that differenes have been declined Where they are declining. Don't u know Mufti Abdul Mannan Karimis Fatwa? Recently Times of India reported that Gujrat Barelwis have put up Boards all over State out sie their Msjids to restrict the Entry of deobandis and Tablighis. Both Sentences are here to Confuse New Generation. All Barelwi scholar alleges that differences are on the Basis of Nabi Kareem's Personality on which they can't Compromise.Read any Site of Barelwis. Shabiha 17:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * While I understand you have your own perspective on this, for the purposes of Wikipedia Deobandis are Sufis because they consider themselves to be. You are free to disagree but to base article content off of those opinions is, once again, a violation of the official Neutral point of view policy.  This has been brought to your attention numerous times yet you have not explained why it doesn't apply here; your own personal point of view on Deobandis is not actual proof, just an opinion.  I'm not saying it isn't a valid opinion, but I am saying it isn't valid to base this article off of your own subjective opinion.  As for the differences declining, there is already a reference for that so please stop editing the text in front of that reference to say something else. MezzoMezzo 20:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, this edit was pushed through and with an edit summary that constitutes both a personal attack and trolling. This is really getting ridiculous and the refusal to discuss the issue here on the talk page leaves little options. Shabiha, since you are the one removing both sourced content and adding your own POV, the Burden of proof lies on you; I have already explained via official site policy why your own personal opinion of Deobandis is not a valid basis for any article, please do not call this "absurd" as it is based on objective site policy. You are free to disagree, but I have warned you multiple times about both the personal attacks you have launched on me and your refusal to justify your insertion of your own POV here and elsewhere. Please work with me on this and understand that Wikipedia is not some sort of internet forum for flaming people who don't agree with you, we're supposed to work together to ultimately improve the articles that we edit. MezzoMezzo 02:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Shabiha, this needs to stop. Despite your claim in your most recent edit summary that I didn't explain why I am reverting your edits, the explanation is clearly written above.  I'll rewrite it again here because I have some free time and maybe you'll understand if I repeat myself.


 * First, you removed the Sunni Islam template from the article. This is POV, as you have said on numerous occasions on the talk pages for other articles that you don't consider Deobandis and other Islamic movements you disagree with to be Sunni.  With that in mind, i'm having a difficult time giving you the benefit of the doubt here and this looks very much like a blatant violation of the official Neutral point of view policy.


 * Second, you removed the fact that Deobandis are Sufis from the introduction paragraph which is once again a personal opinion of yours that has already been dealt with. It doesn't matter who does or doesn't consider Deobandis to be Sufis on here, the fact of the matter is that they consider themselves adherents of Sufism and their history is rooted in it; that is reason enough for them to be considered within Sufism by Wiki standards.  In the same sense, many Sunnis do not consider Shia to be "true" Muslims, but the fact of the matter is that they call themselves Muslims and thus by Wiki standards that is enough.  Deobandis are Sufis.  Don't remove that again.


 * Third, you are taking a reference provided for the statement that animosity between Deobandis and Barelwis has died down recently, deleted the text in front of it, and changed it to say that the animosity hasn't died down. You didn't even try to get a different reference to try to back up this claim, which is so foolish that it's almost confusing.  I really don't know why you thought nobody would call you out on that, it's borderline dishonesty.  Furthermore, just because you feel animosity toward Deobandis doesn't mean that all other Barelwis do and you need to stop violating WP:NPOV.


 * Lastly, you have continuously inserted that Times article - which has been dealt with ad nauseum by several editors on the talk page for the Barelwi article - to again justify the insertion of the opinion that Deobandis are a hard line group. This has been explained to you here and there.  Stop putting it in, you know why it's a POV violation, I don't know how many times i've had to say this.


 * Your continued refusal to discuss here on the talk page and simply engage in edit warring, making very rude comments in your edit summaries where you acknowledge your refusal to discuss the issue, is absolutely not acceptable. If you don't stop this now I will be forced to take further action as you're compromising the quality of several articles across this site now.  I'm giving you fair warning here based on the above named behavior, so please read the policies I have shown you and give what I have said a fair chance before simply reverting again without so much as a comment. MezzoMezzo 19:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that deobandis are not Sufis because the Reason Mentioned by Shabiha is Important that we on't findthem with any authentic Sufi Order.They also have difference regarding Istighasa which is BsicFeature of Deobandis. Mere writing in the Article is not Enough .Tomorrow if Ahle Hadith will start writing that they are Sufi will u accept without any Proof of practice.It needs some Proofthat they do so. Msoamu 23:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your opinion of them is valid and I am not disparaging it, but the bottom line is that it is still an opinion. Because Deobandis consider themselves Sufi - in their own words, "Accordingly, before long, students desirous of studying the Holy Book and the Sunnah, the Shari'ah and the Tariqah (the spiritual path)..." - then by Wikipedia standards they are Sufi.  Like I said before, if a group considers themselves a part of a religion then it is not for editors to say they are "wrong" or "incorrect" as that is just our points of view.


 * Beyond that, we also know that founders of the movement such as Maulana Muhammad Qasim Nanotwi and Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi were most definitely adherents of Sufism, as are modern day Deobandis such as Taqi Usmani.


 * As far as the comments on the Salafi group Ahl-e-Hadith, that's sort of beyond the point. We don't need "proof" of practice because, in regard to organized religion, we're talking about opinions which Wikipedia does not regard as objective fact.  It's not for us to judge who is right or wrong in article content; this is for the readers to decide themselves.  We absolutely do not need any proof at all that the group is Sufi, because the definition of that depends on who you ask, as Nkv pointed out the last time Shabiha brought this issue up. MezzoMezzo 04:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Answer Me
to Mezzomezzo,''Because Deobandis consider themselves Sufi - in their own words, ..." - then by Wikipedia standards they are Sufi.
 * If Barelwi considers themselves in Majority then.....they are.


 * if Tablighi/Wahabis says that they are not Extremist then what should be on their Page...?


 * FROM WIKI .Ahmadis consider themselves Muslims and claim to practice the Islam that was taught and practiced by Muhammad and his companions, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad termed his movement the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat (community) envisioning it to be a revitalization of Islam. However, Ahmadis are not considered to be Muslims by Sunnis and Shias.[4][5][6].[]


 * Even when they have the same beliefs as Qasam Nanutwee; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sw6Qyqjh04 ? :s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik07 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally i sum up by Saying that deobandi Page Must have Line like They Claim to follow Sufism ...However Their Main Rival Barelwi don't Considers them as Sufi. If u are not agree. U SHOULD Agree on What Barelwis Agree in their Page that they are in Huge Majority in Indian Sub Continent.Proofs are not needed. Shabiha 18:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Shabiha, there is a fundamental point in reasoning that you seem to be missing entirely, which I felt I already pointed out. I never said that ANY claim a group makes about itself is true...I said in regard to opinions about organized religion, because they are merely opinions.  There is no objective "wrong" or "right" as far as Wikipedia is concerned.  Claims about demographics and numerical majority, however, do have a definite wrong or right as they are quantitative and measurable.  As far as the Ahmadiyya, I would check the talk page for the Sunni Islam template you kept removing from this article.  For all intensive purposes, Ahmadiyya are Muslims by Wiki standards.


 * Specially since Qasam Nanutwee has same beliefs on Kahtam e Nabuwat as Ahmadiyyas; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sw6Qyqjh04. Strange that one is declared Kafir for the same beliefs while other is not. Time to correct the oversight.


 * As far as including information about what the Barelwis consider, whether or not the Barelwis are the Deobandis "main rivals" and what they consider to be Sufi is not only mere opinion but also irrelevant to the article on Deoband; the Barelwis already have their own article. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.


 * Bottom line, just to make myself clear, as perhaps I was not choosing my words wisely: organized religion is mere opinion by Wiki standards; therefore, a claim of adherence to one group stays. Numerical claims including number of people following religious movements are not opinion, and are subject to quantitative measurements just like any other statistic.  This is very basic stuff. MezzoMezzo 03:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism

 * I have added Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorismit in article and this is most relevant article on the main deobandi organization Shabiha (t • c) 21:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Old Posts Moved Here
[I didn't want to delete the old messages that were incorrectly placed above the contents box, so I moved them here.]--Editor2020 (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The Taliban do not follow a 'severe' form of the Deoband school. It is the normal form, inshAllah. There is a difference between fundamentalism and extremism. The Taliban are not considered extremists, despite what Western media would like to portray.

I hate to remove honorifics ("PBUH", etc) that were placed by a devout Muslim, but they seem inappropriate for a neutral encyclopaedia. Of course, this person has a nasty habit of censoring articles on Islaam, to the point that maveric149 banned their IP, so I'm not too inclined to be sympathetic. &mdash; Toby 19:09 Aug 4, 2002 (PDT)

Also, we need to get that Arabic properly transliterated. Wikipedia is Latin-1 by default, and this isn't. We have to use HTML character entities (&amp;...;) instead. But I have no idea what the Arabic letters are supposed to be, so I can't do it. &mdash; Toby 19:09 Aug 4, 2002 (PDT)

There are way too many links here. Most of them are irrelevant to this specific subject. I'm inclined to remove all but the first few to be added. Wikipedia is not a link depository. -- Toby 13:34 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

I removed the honorifics, and most of the links. A lot of them seemed to be anti-Shia in nature, and this would question the POV of the article. DigiBullet 21:56, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Deobandies do not have Wahhabi tendencies, Wahabbi's are way different than Deobandies and are not to be confused as the same at all. The Wahabbi's are also know as Ahl-e-Hadith but the Deobandis are Ahl-e-Sunnat.

Most of the links were to websites of Deobandi Madaris, so I dont see how they were anti-shia. There was however 1 link to an anti-shia organization.

Their beliefs led to the devlopment of an antagonism with an opposition Indian Islamic movement, who became known as the Barelvis, after Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi. The Barelvis opposed the Deobandis for their opposition to several practices common in the Indian subcontinent at the time such as the celebration of Mawlid an-Nabi (the birthday of Muhammad), seeking intercession from saints and various other practices, all of which the Deobandis considered to be bidˤa "innovation". The Barelvis supported a more traditional Islam and was more receptive to Sufi folk-Islam of rural India. Such differences led to the Barelvis making takfīr (declaring to be non-Muslim) on the Deobandis, accusing them of being Wahhabis. This rivalry and antagonism has, however, declined in recent decades and generally consider each other to be part of Ahlu s-Sunnat wa l-Jāmaˤa. --- I dont understand how Barelvi is traditional Islam??

Shabiha's edits
Shabiha, If you wish to contribute to this English language page, please have someone who can write English correctly fix your spelling, grammar and usage before posting.

Please don't just paste your old changes back in. You are wiping out relevant information. If you want to accuse the Deobandi of terrorism, I would suggest you start a new "Terrorism" section and post referenced material there.--Editor2020 (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Part of it is a language barrier, part of it is from more desire to paint a negative picture of Deobandis than to present the truth. I'm not Deobandi myself, in fact i'm personally not fond over them, but over the past few months i've noticed a definite biased trend in this individuals editing toward the Deobandi movement within Islam and anything associated with it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

On the Other hand everything correct has been deleted. I also have noticed more than You that You are distorting Ahle Sunnah pages right from the begigning, from sufism to Dawat e islami and from Milad to Barelwi. First and foremost Shabiha, your mimicking of my comment almost word for word is trolling. I will give you only one warning not to do his again, as you have already had to been temporarily blocked by site admins once for harassing me and you've already done it again here and on other pages. This is your one warning, be mature and do not harass other editors.
 * Part of it is biased attitude and part of it is from more desire to paint a negative Picture of Barelwi.Every thing has been tried from attempt to delete scholars pages to Inserting Bigoted/Half Stories/half truth in barelwi article.
 * Now the Report added by me is most relevant criticism of deobandi Movement which was widely circulated in the Media .Shabiha (t 09:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Second of all, this article isn't about Barelwis so your comments on that topic aren't relevant at all.

As for the three links you've provided, lets look at them: We've gone over this a hundred times before it seems. You are free to dislike Deobandis, but you have no right to make the article negative in tone. I kept my mouth shut for what seems like almost six months I think giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming good faith, but after so long of seeing you flame other editors and post blatantly biased material it had to be said. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The first is an editorial from The Times which you already tried to insert month ago and, as was the consensus reached back then - you even backed down when you tried to insert it a few months ago - since it is an editorial and therefore just opinion and not actual reporting, it isn't a valid citation for factual information.
 * The second one looks like a new link of yours, but regardless is from the same publication and of the same nature. It's very obvious why you would post negative opinion pages about the Deobandi movement, as you seem determined to have Wikipedia reflect your personal POV on the movement.
 * The third is an article from The Hindu which, to begin with, when I used in another article you told me was biased and not an acceptable source. Second of all, it's the same exact article I used about the incident described in it and the information you put into the article here is NOT accurately taken from the source; you clipped out part of the story again to present your own POV, and inaccurate sourcing will not be allowed.

Shabiha (t 19:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * what a eyewash about Times report it was a Survey based on facts and site itself Claims it read it again.So it has full Value plus relevancy .Please accept the truth.Silence does not meant Consensus was reached.
 * Your Second argument lacks Objectivity it is nothing but escaping truth by preventing that You will not accept same publication.
 * I presented in third link what was in it I will Support it and all those Stories which are presented in true form.
 * Now in the end I will say that You Yourself started to edit Barelwi page in the Negative light. You now wish to avoid same thing for page of Your liking .I think if You are ready to remove those reports I am ready to Compromise here.So I am now not adding it again for some time to see your response.
 * 1) Bringing up the Barelwi article doesn't bode well for your case. That is an entirely different article and that you would bring it up sort of bolsters my observation that you take this as some kind of competition between Barelwis and Deobandis rather than efforts to improve informative articles for readers of Wikipedia.
 * 2) The Times article, as was explained to you by myself and others, is an EDITORIAL. Please learn what an Editorial so you understand why myself and others dismissed it as simple opinion rather than an actual news report.
 * 3) Accusing me of trying to be "escaping truth", that my argument "lacks Objectivity", that your position is "in true form" (whatever that means), that I am trying to avoid negative editing for a page of my "liking", doesn't actually prove anything. It certainly establishes that you feel my edits are in poor form, but it doesn't actually explain what your backing is.  Thus, your comment here isn't justification for edit warring without a coherent explanation.
 * 4) That you would offer to compromise here based on the Barelwi article is another evidence that you see this as some competition, as I mentioned above. You have to date failed to justify your edits beyond the same tired arguments that were already shot down by multiple users regarding the use of editorials for citations, especially of controversial material.  As such, your edits still don't have a leg to stand on and will be removed.  Please provide a relevant explanation here before simply edit warring some more. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As has been explained to you, multiple times by myself and others, the Times Article is an EDITORIAL and is not acceptable as a factual citation, especially for such a controversial claim. It will not be allowed in the article - period. You'd best drop the subject now.
 * I have edited again my Version of Deobandi Criticism and which is based on 1.News Report which clearly Claims that Sipah sahaba was behind the ghastly attack on Milad function and second One is Survey based on facts and datas widely Published.these are truths of Deobandi Movements which can't be hide from public eyes.Shabiha (t 06:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As for your other reference, I changed the wording to it and fixing your footnote, other than that it's fine. However, if we mention the issue of the conflict with Sunni Tehreek is must also be mentioned that many Deobandi mosques have been forcibly taken by such groups as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Main Controversy between Barelwi and Deobandi

 * I have added those sayings of books on which Imam ahmad raza khan gave the fatawa of Kufr and these books became the backbone of Controversy.The Conflict with barelwis must have this main point of difference.Content is Sourced and can be easily checked by third party evidence.

Shabiha (t 14:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The source is allowable, however the content you've added is POV as your version of the article is taking sides. If readers would like to see specifically the point of view of Barelwis then that is fine, but what Barelwis accuse Deobandis of is just their opinion; mudslinging and accusations should not be presented as fact, just opinion.


 * In addition, you also deleted consensus material without explanation, bordering on vandalism. Don't do that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Same editor and different Stands on the Same Issue.I found You Supporting and Inserting again and again Salafi View Point on Barelwi page .You Supported and restored here on Deobandi page Salafi Criticism Which is Unfairly Long.

But Your argument of Obvious biasedness are not applicable here as I added on the Similar Lines of Salafi Criticism of Deobandi Movement. Here I need not to Say that You know wiki Policies in this regard. Don't again remove Valid sourced Conrent.Msoamu (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, you have blatantly violated the official No personal attacks policy here by questioning my objective simply over an editing dispute.


 * Second of all, my position here on this page is the same as my position on the Barelwi page. Criticism from the Salafi and Deobandi viewpoint have been presented as the opinions of those two groups on the Barelwi page.  However, you've presented your criticism of the Deobandi movement here as objective fact rather than just the opinion of Barelwi scholars; even a cursory glance will show that the wording and presentation you've given here is in violation of the official Neutral point of view policy.


 * You also need to pay more attention to what I say rather than engaging in edit warring and flame warring. I think the source you've brought is fine as is the material.  You just need to change the wording.  As for the Salafi criticism of the Deobandi movement, you're correct on it being a tad bit too long.  So if you support perhaps trimming that subsection down than so do I.  But don't come in here throwing out personal accusations simply because of an editing dispute - you and I have gone through this before and I thought we had moved beyond that point. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Salafis view Deobandis to be Mushrik
I am not going to delete the bit that reads 'Salafis thus maintain that the Deobandis are Mushrik and that the prayer offered as a Deobandi is not correct and must be repeated.' - I am new to the wiki, can I ask someone who is responsible or looking over this page to delete it until evidence is supplied. I am a Salafi and have not heard any respected scholar make such a judgement???. e.g., thousands of Salafis are praying in Deobandi mosques every day in UK...Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.100.243 (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
Sources 6 through 15 in this version don't seem reliable. Unless they are replaced with more reliable ones, or their reliability is shown, I will begin removing content sourced to them.Bless sins (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The section looks quite long and bloated, however I am curious as to what makes the sources unreliable? I haven't looked into them much yet. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed allegations that the Deobandi have been declared un-Muslim like three times now. It is allegedly sourced, but the page in question is not only in incomprehensible English, it also doesn't appear to discuss the issue at hand nor does it demonstrate any citation. The thing is, the Deobandi may well have been declared un-Muslim in 1900. If you want to add this information, please find a coherent and viable source. Also, PROVIDE EDIT SUMMARIES. Thankee kindleh. em zilch (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some background info. The Deobani and Barelwi sects are both from the India/Pakistan area.  They're both from the Sufi tradition and have had a long rivalry against each other for followers, as they have a lot of differing views.  The Barelwis on the whole carry a lot of beliefs over from Hinduism and other pre-Islamic religions, to the point that many Muslim scholars (not most Deobandis though, interestingly enough) consider them to be an entirely separate religion.  They only exist in Pakistan really, and have many beliefs more grounded in South Asian cultural tradition than the Qur'an and they often turn violent.  The Deobandis on the whole are a little more traditional in the Islamic sense (not the South Asian sense) though there have been extremists on their end as well, such as the Taliban.


 * Anyway, that rivalry has spread here to Wikipedia. In my experience, there's more Barelwi editors than Deobandi editors and they're usually more aggressive, quicker to launch personal attacks, and less mindful of policies.  So you'll see them throwing in a lot of unreliable sources from Barelwi sites as though they're neutral, scholastic sources and then flaming people via anon. IPs when they get reverted.  So prepare for a big fight, ha ha.  Seriously though, that has been my experience.  I hope that summary makes sense. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I actually did some research after the second time I had to revert and discovered many anon attacks and warned people. Nonetheless, thanks for writing something here. I hate when people don't write anything on the talk page or in the edit summaries, particuarly when it's revertable materials. I always hope to stimulate people to step forward with better sources - as I mentioned above, I actually think that the fatwa in question might be true, but we cannot write something so unbalanced without a scholarly source. em zilch (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and the spamming continues... em zilch (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if the fatwa is true, there would also need to be proof of notability from a third party source, some sort of a media source or something. I've watched this article get hit by POV for almost a year and since it legitimately seems to be different individuals each time all you can really do is watchlist it.  You're not alone and i'm glad i'm not the only one tending to articles relating to this conflict. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the exact same paragraph each time, though. em zilch (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in this case it looks to be the same person. But i'm talking over the past year, there have been a lot of separate individuals of Barelwi persuasion disrupting this article a lot. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Deobandis Don't Follow Sufism

 * As They dont beleive in Istighasa celebrating Urs Calling wali or Sheikhs with 'ya' also practiced by Major Walisand Sufis Which is common in Sufis,Sama, Chadarposhi, Dua by his Intercession etc.
 * None of those are compulsory. Istigatha is not a must to be Sufi.


 * They never Promoted it rather accused of asking people to give up it.
 * They might have discouraged certain aspects of folk Islam but they were never against Tasawwuf itself.


 * How many Deobandis and Where Practices main straem Sufism silsilah?
 * I already showed you Mufti Taqi Uthmani. There are probably lots more like him


 * When They don't beleive in the Aliveness of Wali or saint then How can they Ask him Something?
 * This is not an issue.


 * neither their literature nor their Scholar ever Remember or discusses about its qualities .or Something About WaliAllah.
 * They very much have the concept of Wilayah but it might be different from the Barelwi understanding. --Nkv 14:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

--Shabiha 08:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Same is true for opposite 90.196.3.220 (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Proganda against Barelwi
i have removed those lines which shows Ahmed Raza Khan in Bad light also those lines which says that this rivalry is declined.This Weblink is Pro-deobandis and if it will be added again  im free to add any link against Them from other sites  on Barelwi Page. The antagonism and rivalry between two is not declined Shabiha 17:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Read The Complete Recent timesonline View.
 * Not Even a single Reputed Scholar or Alim of Barelwis has accepted it any Where Ever.It is mere Deo+Bandis Propganda to disguise People ofOther faith.
 * The bigger problem with the statement was that it was referenced with what looks like a web forum or some type of torrent site, which to begin with is a questionable source at best. I think the citation and the associated text should just be removed entirely.


 * You aren't, however, free to add any link "against Them" on any article Shabiha; you have consistently violated the official Neutral point of view policy in regard to both the Barelwi and Deobandi articles to shape them to your own personal opinions; you should review the official Ownership of articles policy in addition to this. Just because you have animosity toward Deobandis doesn't mean all Barelwis feel the same as you and you need to stop speaking for entire groups of people. MezzoMezzo 18:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

New Heading
i have added new heading with references .as these are the main point of Contention between Barelwis and Deobandis. so they Must be there..Shabiha 18:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The heading title itself is good, the paragraph underneath it however is completely in violation of the official No original research policy; you haven't provided a single reference for it.


 * As for the references for quotes on Deobandi beliefs, these claims seem dubious at best, more likely to appear from material critical of them. Until it can be checked for authenticity, it should not be up there due to its highly contentious nature. MezzoMezzo 23:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

i will post links to some of these Books which has scan copies of these Controversial writings.Shabiha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.140.112 (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That can prove the authenticity of the quotes from the books (if they're in English). However, that doesn't prove the controversy in and of itself - for criticism, you'll need a prominent secondary source, which is both reliable and verifiable. MezzoMezzo 13:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The edit has been inserted again, this time without so much of a comment on here. This has now crossed over into both disruptive editing and edit warring. Until reliable sources can be provided to support the notability of the criticism, and until the dubious claims below can be verified, this disruption will not be allowed. Please be reasonable and work to find reliable secondhand sources for the claims of controversy. MezzoMezzo 19:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Deobandi / Wahabbi
What are the differences except ethnicity, between wahabbi ad Deobandi, since both are sunni extemists? Deobandi are from idea and Wahabbi from arabia, but are there other differences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.124.218 (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree both are extremist and they have no differences actually they work with each Others assistance in asia and Britain.
 * I have added what was actually a criticism the Bomb Blasts Culture the Real Face of Deobandi religion which has Claimed lives of thousands of Innocents.Shabiha (t • c) 20:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey idiot, Deobandi's aren't extremist... You are a bunch of fucking kaffirs, munafiqs, fuck u. --212.76.64.4 (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Deobandists are not considered extremist if you agree with the promotion of hate, violence, intolerance, and dehumanization of women. If you don't agree with these principals, then one would view Deobandists as extremists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.90.19 (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we
Can we get a specific paragraph on clear differences among this sect from other sunnis please? Someone65 (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion or deletion of "Controvery Section"
After I supported the removal of the Controversy section, Fragma posted a follow-up on my talk page; it seems to me that this discussion is relevant to other editors, so I'm copy-pasting that discussion here:


 * I don't agree with your revert. First, this is not a BLP so it can't fall under WP:BLP which is more strict, secondly, the purpose of tagging a section for lack of references means reasonable time is allowed to find and add refs (by anybody) and I have personally referenced many articles even though I never added the information, finally you may want to check the contribution history of the user I reverted, who has consistently been section blanking (vandalism when unexplained and repeatedly) the article which indicates POV. A BOT applied the July tag on 1 August so removing it 4 days later is hardly reasonable. This article is subject to repeated section blanking if you review the history and this user has been reverted before. You can reply here if you have comments.Fragma08 (talk) 07:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * First, WP:BLP applies to all articles on Wikipedia--you may want to have a look at the policy. Any time a claim is made about a living person, that claim must be sourced.  This claim, in particular, is very contentious, arguing that a person committed blasphemy, which is quite a serious claim and thus needs sources.  Additionally, as a general rule, my opinion is that Wikipedia articles should be sourced now, not at some hypothetical time in the future (this makes me a immediatist).  I often allow unsourced claims to sit in articles, but the more contentious/extraordinary the claim is, the faster it needs to be sourced.  In my interpretation of policy, the correct thing to do is to first find references to support the claim, then add the claim to the article.  Otherwise, I could go add any claim I wanted to any article, mark it with references needed, then defend it's inclusion for an indefinite period of time on the grounds that "I'm still looking for sources, why don't you look, too?"  So, I still believe this section must be deleted.  Yes, it would have been better if the deleter had used clearer, better arguments, but policy trumps both of your arguments in this case. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well you may want to look closer at the WP:BLP, as it refers to Biographies of Living People. Deobandi is not a living person let alone a person. That said, of course claims should be referenced but do allow reasonable time, which is general practice on here. So policy in fact does not agree quite with your view on this. But our views as individuals don't really count here. I find that usually a month is allowed for such tags and not infinete time. Although I have come across 2007 tags in the past. It's bit concerning that you refer to a vandalist user who has deleted unreferenced and referenced sections (only "Criticism" and "Controversy" as a deleter who should have "had used clearer, better arguments". They don't have any. They simply want two sections removed. Again, look at their history of contributions to fully understand their edits. It's vandalism. And the fact that this user has been reverted by other users, should also point to this. You are free to remove this tag by the end of the month but for now it stays. Fragma08 (talk) 07:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am willing to accept that BLP doesn't clearly apply here; my thought process was that since the article talks as if there are still Deobandi now, the labelling of anyone following that schism as a heretic was a BLP issue. But perhaps that's a stretch, so I accept that this issue does not have the urgency I thought it did.  Since me adjusting the article would be odd, could you do one thing, just so that this conforms with every other article I've seen on WP?  At least in my experience, Controversy sections always come after main explanatory sections--in this article, History and UK.  Also, is there a reason to have both a controversy and a Criticism section?  Shouldn't these be combined, perhaps with sub-headings?  Qwyrxian (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

So, any thoughts on the combining of the two sections and the movement after "History"?Qwyrxian (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello again, already replied on your talkpage, but no worries. In brief, I concur with you, hence I have moved the section below. You are welcome to suggest any heading you find will comprise the two or a main heading appropriately as no need for two, IMO. Fragma08 (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I combined the two sections together, introducing subheadings on "Claims of Blasphemy" and "Fatwas." The first doesn't sound exactly right, but the title could easily change after/when references are found and the section is more polished.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Cash for fatwas

 * Also, I took a look at the references and expanded where I could. I changed the reference on the Cash for fatwas section--Wikipedia articles are, oddly enough, not considered reliable sources. Instead, I just brought over one of the reference that the target page used.  I didn't use one of the references (the one from the Times of India) because it doesn't mention Deobandi; the only cleric it mentions by name is "Ahmed Nadir Al Qasmi, an official of Delhi-based Islamic Fiqh Academy."  If that Academy is linked to the Deobandi by a reliable source, then we could add that here as well it.


 * I definitely welcome changes to what I did or comments; everything I did was working directly off the sources and this topic is new for me, so there may be nuances that I missed. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not bad at all. Subheadings make it more reader friendly - IMO. (I divided this talk into a new heading fors same reason) The reference for cash for fatwas [Times of India] does indeed not mention the Deoband, although they could still be linked as Deobandis are also attached more broader to general sunni Muslim associations and networks, but as it doesn't mention it specifically, we probably should not use it. However, a different reference contains more details, which I will add i.e. Hindustan Times. Fragma08 (talk) 06:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Who gutted this article?
At one point this article had a detailed and objective lead, in addition to more info on the historical development of this group and a section on controversies and disagreements with other Muslim groups. It looks like that material has been outright deleted for a while, leaving the article much shorter and more vague. What happened? MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked into this allegation from two years ago, and glancing at various versions as far back as mid-2008, I'm not seeing any large amount of good-quality, properly referenced material that's been lost over time. The article, at this point, pretty much just needs expansion with a strict adherence to RSs and NPOV. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Mosques
The gallery is beginning to get excessive. This is an article about a religious movement, not about an architectural style. A few picture are okay, but we passed that abut 5 pictures ago. Pictures should enhance our understanding, not just decorate the article. Please trim the gallery down to just a few of the most important pictures, and list the rest in prose. Even that list should not be excessive--our job is not to list every possible fact associated with the Deobandi movement, but to provide an encyclopedic overview. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing on the Criticism Section
So, we're still getting regular blanking. Because it's occurring so often, I'm going to ask for semi-protection, so that IP addresses can't edit it. However, I still feel that the IP editors are in the right--they're removing unsourced material, which is technically legitimate. While we're under no deadline, this is material that is fairly strong, negative towards the subject of the article, and completely unsourced. Can we agree that, say, by the end of the week, if the info hasn't been sourced, it stays removed? Again, I have no problem with the statements themselves as long as they are sourced and the arguments don't have undue weight. And I will certainly help defend the article from blanking once it is sourced. But I can understand why someone from this group might want the information removed until it is verified. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As you can see, I declined to revert the blanking; and no User:Exciral has re-blanked as well. I thought the info had just come in this week; Exciral is right to point out that if this was added on July 23, it's time to get it out.  Again, as soon as sources are found, we can easily re-add. Qwyrxian (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

why you are putting fatwa scandals on whole deobandi movement ? you can place it under the page of "darul uloom Deoband". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqibsandhu (talk • contribs) 08:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is actually a good point. Unless there is evidence of criticism of the wider movement, I think this info should probably be moved to the other article. Anyone else have an opinion on the matter? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Or even you can make a separate article about the person who took the cash. just for the act of one person you can't criticized all the movement. Plus the section Fatwas under Criticism doesn't make any sense as on those issues e.g Hijab and proper dressing while working all Islamic schools are 100% agree, I have read the sources in which they mentioned only one female politician who criticized the fatwa. is that enough to spark out about a such big school. If there was a fatwa in favouring of terrorism then it was controversial but the others are pure and daily life Islamic topics on which every one is agree. as I raised this issue here about four months ago and no body is favouring that section. I am waiting for the suggestion from other guys otherwise after one week I will remove it or merge it into some other page because 4 moths are enough to solve a dispute.--Sandhu 17:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to accept the merger. Since you put up the tag, we should probably wait 1 more week, but then, feel free to strip it out and add it over there. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've completed the merge, since there have been no objections. 01:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Google books source
Recently, this link was posted as a source for the section on the movement in Pakistan, with no details provided. The link simply leads to a page about the book, not the actual book itself. While this book could and probably should still be sought out as the author is notable and can provide insight to the topic, I have suggested a more complete citation as a substitute. In the future, it should be possible to find more sources for the subsection; given that this movement started in South Asia, the section probably deserves a bit more attention. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right. Regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

why is ahle hadiths mentioned? i dont think its important in this article that saudi funding now has changed gears Baboon43 (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's quite relevant; the subject of this article was receiving funding, and said funding was diverted to another subject. The obvious question the reader will have is: "well, to where was the funding diverted?" The fact that it was diverted to a rival group within the same region makes it all the more relevant. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Deobandi Movements
Mentioning of prominent Deobandi movements was missing from the page.I tried to add them.I have taken them from Deobandi template and it seems page looks informative after this information.I removed dead links information and corrected number of Madarsas.I also added source to Deobandi-Barelvi difference.Sunnibarelvi (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome work, and much needed - especially on the newer group. Do you think there are enough sources to even make an entry for it? MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Deobandi
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Deobandi's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "abbash": From Hafiz Gul Bahadur:  From Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan:  From Baitullah Mehsud: Abbas, Hassan."A Profile of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan". CTC Sentinel 1 (2): 1–4. January 2008. 

Reference named "satp": From Lashkar-e-Jhangvi:  From Lashkar-e-Taiba:  From Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan:  From Haq Nawaz Jhangvi:

</li> <li>From Islamic terrorism: Jama'atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB), from South Asia Terrorism Portal</li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

i want to edit it.
there are many things to edit here i want to edit this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Am Not New (talk • contribs) 17 April 2013
 * Your contribution history indicates that your account should be autoconfirmed now, so you should be able to edit this article. If you cannot do so please visit the help desk or contact any administrator. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Explanation of what Darul Uloom Deoband is
The last sentence of the introduction reads "The movement was inspired by the spirit of scholar Shah Waliullah (1703–1762), while the foundation of Darul Uloom Deoband was laid on 30 May 1866."

The novice is not going to know what the Darul Uloom Deoband is. Although it links to the school's article, a brief description in the sentence would be easier.

69.204.91.53 (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent additions
I've reverted the additions by User:Sarashee1; I didn't review every single change, but each one I checked had significant problems. For example, we can't use claims from the Nadwatu Ululama website to verify claims about how important the group is--we need independent sources that discuss them. Also, the book summary found here 1) is not independent, since it's press from the book, and 2) doesn't explicitly talk about Deobandi--it just talks about Islamic scholars from India. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Qwyrxian for your review. I'm new at Wikipedia so I appreciate your help. Let me explain the edits I wanted to make on this article. For starters, I wanted the "Scholars" section to be thoroughly revised. There are thousands of Deobandi scholars today and through history. By what criteria do we judge who to list in this article? I propose that the "Scholar" heading be diversified. One sub-heading can deal with the founders of the early Deobandi madrasas. Another sub-heading can deal with later Deobandis who were influential. A third sub-heading can list some prominent modern-day Deobandis. What does everyone think? Sarashee1 173.219.86.196 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the first most important thing is that we restrict the discussion only to those people who are 1) clearly self-identified as Deobandi, and 2) are discussed by independent reliable sources as being important to the movement. If there is more good, sourced info, though, adding it should not be a problem. If necessary, we can even spin off a separate page about Deobandi scholars, if, for example, this page becomes to long. But we have to start with only good, sourced info. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In this case, I think it is appropriate to cite the website of Darul Ulum Deoband in regards to the scholars that Deoband itself considers to be its founders. It should be reasonable to cite the website as a source in my opinion, yes? Sarashee1 (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Sarashee1
 * I have started the process of editing the the "Scholars" section. I have divided them into sub-sections, and I will continue by adding citations indicating self-identification as Deobandi and significance to the movement. Sarashee1 (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed the following scholars that were previously listed in the "Scholars" heading because I did not find their names prevalent in most general sources that list the names of Deobandi Akabir (though some may show up in the more detailed lists) -- these can be included in a separate article on List of Deobandi scholars if anyone cares to create it in the future. A'la Hadrat Maulana Shah Abdul Wahab (Founder of Madrasa Al-Baqiyat As-Salihat, Vellore, Tamil Nadu); Maulana Habib-ur-Rehman Ludhianvi; Syed Abuzar Bukhari; Syed Ata-ul-Mohsin Bukhari; Syed Ata-ul-Muhaimin Bukhari; Ubaidullah Sindhi; Sarfaraz Khan Safdar; Allama Shah Ahmad Shafi; Sami ul Haq (Chancellor of Darul Uloom Haqqania)
 * As for these two, they are alumni of Nadwat al-Ulama, and not affiliated with Deoband. Syed Sulaiman Nadvi; Abul Hasan Ali Hasani Nadwi. As for Inaam ul Hasan and Muhammad Yusuf Kandhlawi, they were the second and third Ameers of the Tablighi Jamaat. Although he was a prominent Deobandi, they are affiliated more with Tablighi Jamaat than Deoband. I don't believe their names should be on this particular list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarashee1 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Among the contemporary deobandies, I am removing the following names from the list: Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat (though a graduate of Deoband, he is not considered a primary representative of the Deobandi ideology in the sources I surveyed), Abdul Latif Khalid Cheema (not influential), Yousuf Ludhianvi (not influential). I have included some contemporary Deobandis as well as a reason or two to justify their being on this list. Sarashee1 (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The next section I'd like us to work on is "Notable Institutions." First, I'd like to organize all the institutions based on country, just to add neatness. Then, we'll have to include a few sentences explaining -- supported by independent references -- why each madrasa listed is 1) Deobandi, and 2) notable enough to be listed here. (similar to what we did in the "Scholars" heading). Any thoughts? --Sarashee1 (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I worked on the South Africa section just now. It had previously listed In'amiyyah and Zakariyya only. I added to the list Azaadville and Newcastle. Also for all four, I listed the significance of them. How does everyone like it? If South Africa looks good, I intend to do the same for Britain next.Sarashee1 (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Since it seems no one had any objections for South Africa, I went ahead and did Britain just now. I put in Bury and Dewsbury, along with explanations for their significance. I removed the Bolton and London madrasas that were previously listed because based on my research, they don't seem to be the most prominent madrasas in Britain. For instance, this article http://hamidmahmood.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/the-dars-e-ni%E1%BA%93ami-and-the-transnational-traditionalist-madaris-in-britain/ shows that the number of students in Bolton and London are no where in comparison to Bury and Dewsbury. Sarashee1 (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Expand "beliefs" section
At the moment I can gather from context that there are differences in belief or practice between Deobandis and other Sunni muslims, but nothing more than that. I think the most important piece of information is missing from the article: What is Deobandi? What characterizes this movement? Skrofler (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have just seen a reference in the Guardian to "deobandism" and had never heard of that before, so came to this article to find out more, but have not learned a thing. The Guardian comment already told me that it is related to Wahabism which is the only thing in this article that I can even understand. Sentences like " They follow any one of the four; Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafi, Imam Malik, and Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal,but they primarily follow Hanafi school of fiqh.[13] and follow the Ash'ari and Maturidi schools of Aqidah" mean absolutely nothing to me, it might as well be in a foreign language. Article badly needs to be expanded to be of any use to anyone except people already familiar with these esoteric terms.Smeat75 (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest a reworking of this section in general, but as a starting point, what does everyone think about the following statement: "Shah Waliullah, the founder of the Deobandis, was influenced by Ibn Taymiyyah, who also inspired Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, founder of Wahabism in Saudi Arabia.[15]" For starters, the citation is a History of Afghanistan. That's not a reliable source on Deobandi history and philosophy. Second, Shah Waliullah is claimed to be the 'founder' of the Deobandis. I'm not sure what that means. He was no doubt a major influencer of their philosophy, but how could he be the 'founder' if he died decades before the school was even founded? Finally, I take issue with the association of the Deobandis to Wahhabism. This connection has no basis according to most academic sources that I've perused.Sarashee1 (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality/factual accuracy
I was wondering why the neutrality/factual accuracy template was placed at the top of this article. Exactly what is disputed? MezzoMezzo 23:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A great deal of the content is unverified, unsourced, appears factually inaccurate, and contains opinions presented as fact. For example, "Deobandi beliefs, like those of other Muslims, are based on the Quran and Sunnah" is presented as fact, has no references, and appears to be an opinion that many would dispute and have disputed. References to many fatwas and declarations from those who claim to represent Deobandist thought concerning women, education, individual rights, tolerance, and Western culture have been wiped from the article, leaving a very narrow and thus misleading view of Deobandis.

Efforts to hide, deny and remove references to the links between Deobandi persons and groups and terrorism apparently continue. I will nominate the entire page for deletion soon on the grounds of lack of objectivity and continual defacement of referenced statements if such actions continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.23.77 (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * First, please stick to reliable sources. Second, there's an entire section that relates Deobandi links to terror organizations like the Taliban. If you'd like to put more of a point on those associations, please do so properly. I don't deny that Deobandi ideology supports terrorism.  They themselves wouldn't deny it, either.  That doesn't give you permission to throw in a paragraph to make yourself feel better.
 * But, I like it when IPs and other editors get all huffy, so please nominate this article for deletion. I think the result will be educational for you.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Shah Waliullah
The article contains the following line: "Shah Waliullah, the founder of the Deobandis, was influenced by Ibn Taymiyyah, who also inspired Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, founder of Wahabism in Saudi Arabia." with the source as Historical Dictionary of Afghanistan p 109.

I had a look at the book and the actual text is: "Deoband was founded by Qasim Nanawtawi in 1867. Deoband adopted Shah Waliullah as it's spiritual head and was greatly influenced by the teachings of Ibn Taymiyya which also inspired Abdul Wahhab...".

In addition to the text being wrongly quoted, I feel that this line should be in a new section entitled "Influences" (or perhaps in the infobox) as it doesn't relate to beliefs. RookTaker (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent reverts
"The basis for Taliban ideology lies in a combination of influences from Deobandism. Wahhabism, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Pushtunwali" A Concise History of Afghanistan in 25 Volumes, Volume 1 p 558. Please stop removing cited content because in conflicts with what you "know" to be true. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Black Terror White Soldiers: Islam, Fascism & the New Age
Is self published, so is not RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

In India
Section was removed, given that Deobandi originated there, and was heavily influenced Wahhabism, I am unsure as to why it was removed. See Asymmetric Warfare in South Asia: The Causes and Consequences of the Kargil p246 and The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia p191 Darkness Shines (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Wahhabi influence on Deoband is controversial among researchers. If you really want to make a case for it, I suggest making a separate section under "History" or "Beliefs" that fleshes out the discussion a little more fully, and allows for explanation of differing points of view. Don't just say off-handly that Wahhabism influenced Deobandism. Historians have disagreed over that. The two sources you cited above are political science pieces, whereas this is a matter of intellectual history. In the mean time, you put your new section under the "Presence" heading. That heading talks about the presence of Deoband. What needs to go in that section are statistics, demographics, etc. Not who influenced whom historically. I think it's very appropriate for you to talk about Deobandi presence in India, but the proper way to go about it is to cite statistics -- say, how many Deobandi madaris are in India? How many Indian Muslims self-identify as Deobandi? Things like that.  Sarashee1 (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources for it being "controversial among researchers" please. And I think you will find the sources I gave are impeccable. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether your sources are impeccable or not, claims of Wahabi influence on Deoband have nothing to do with Deobandi presence in Inda. "Presence" means how widespread or influential the Deobandi school is within India. Your line, on the other hand, talks about historical influence. It has nothing to do with the heading. It belongs in a different location in the article. Please move the line to another location. Once you've done so, we can then continue the discussion of the impeccability of your sources.Sarashee1 (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

'inspired by a spirit'
In the opening paragraph, this sect is described as being "inspired by the spirit of scholar Shah Waliullah (1703–1762),[3]"

It is not clear what is meant by this. Does it mean 'inspired' as theologians use the term i.e. 'breathed into' (like the person holding the pen is being 'breathed into' by a supernatural force and told what to write, as a clumsy explanation, think the Pentatauch), because that would not be based in verifiable fact and would be in violation of the point of an encyclopaedia.

The second concern is the term 'spirit'. Does this mean his general will, animus, such as one could say a poem was "in the spirit of Spike Milligan", or does the term mean some sort of supernatural agent? Again, there is no evidence for the 'spirit', so this should not be stated as fact.

The first paragraph should not be this confusing, and as a non-adherent, I do not know what is meant by this, so I am uneasy about the rest of the content as a result of this first paragraph, which I'm sorry to say does appear to state something non-verifiable as a fact. My apologies if I have misunderstood, could this point be clarified please?

14/06/14

90.214.253.237 (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The cited source (Asthana, page 66) says "was inspired by the spirit of the great scholar Shah Waliullah of Delhi" and that was paraphrased into the current article. The source isn't a theological or philosophical text and doesn't address issues like animus. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and is often written by hobbyists and dilettantes that can do no better than to cobble together sentences from reliable, independent, published works. That's what we do here at Wikipedia. If that doesn't answer your questions then you should look for a better source.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Bias in General
Under the heading "In India", it is stated "The Deobandi Movement has been influenced by Wahhabism from its early days.[10][11][12]" but this is stated as fact, without factual references free of bias. I think that the bolder the claim, the more careful we should be with references, and that is a bold claim. Given the view of Wahhabism, is it sensible to offer this as a fact rather than to couch it in the terms of being the opinion of a number of scholars? If so, how many scholars think this?

I am not an adherent to any faith, there is no faith bias here, I simply feel that this is an opinion phrased as a fact, which could be potentially damaging to relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, considering the nature of Wahhabism and how it is viewed and portrayed in the media (e.g. Bin Laden was described as Wahhabi in Western media, but the basis of his ideology and how representative of it his views were are disputed).

Under the heading "In the United Kingdom", the only reference is for a newspaper article titled "Hardline Takeover of British Masjid". I fear bias may have crept in here.

The section "beliefs" has no references, so we have no way of verifying these beliefs via this article alone.

Under "Movements", Tablighi Jamaat is described as being as offshoot of Deobandi, but the only reference is to "Burton, Fred and Stewart, Scott. "Tablighi Jamaat: An Indirect Line to Terrorism". Stratfor. Retrieved 1 September 2011." and I question the use of an article describing routes to terrorism, not because they are necessarily biased or untrue, but because this is not the type of evidence which can be stated as fact, so it needs a wider perspective and more references, because it is a bold claim that a terrorist group is as offshoot of Deobandi, considering how Islam is often seen as being dangerous. This is potentially unfair to Deobandi Muslims living in Western societies.

Under "Taliban" it is claimed that the majority of the leaders were influenced by Deobandi fundamentalism. This is the one reference: Maley, William (2001). Fundamentalism Reborn? Afghanistan and the Taliban. C Hurst & Co. p. 14. This, I consider to be the worst transgression so far. This should not be allowed with one reference. If it is fact, it is fact, but this is not enough to go on, and the Taliban are viewed extremely negatively by the West, for fairly obvious reasons.

I recognise that wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased, and I applaud that. Facts are facts, and if it is true, for example, that Hitler was a Roman Catholic, there's no use denying it, just as Bin Laden was a Muslim. The job of wikipedia is not to help community relations, but it is certainly not here to create division, and this article is doing just that.

For the record, I'm not a fan of Islam, but I am a fan of not passing off opinion as fact, especially when it has the potential to be of harm to people. 90.214.253.237 (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You make claims like "this is stated as fact, without factual references free of bias" and "this is not the type of evidence which can be stated as fact, so it needs a wider perspective and more references" but those claims are themselves questionable. If you have an issue with a particular source bring it here or at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you have other reliable sources to add, please do so. For your edification, no one has been harmed by Wikipedia. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Political movements
Are these Political movements really administered by Deobandi movement? Should an expert check this again? Thanks 68.100.166.227 (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Times reference
The article reference to the UK Times report has been there before I started editing this article. I am reproducing the opening para of the Times article so that there is no cherry picking. The report is titled ""Hardline takeover of British mosques"" and it says in the opening lines that "Almost half of Britain’s mosques are under the control of a hardline Islamic sect whose leading preacher loathes Western values and has called on Muslims to “shed blood” for Allah, an investigation by The Times has found. Riyadh ul Haq, who supports armed jihad and preaches contempt for Jews, Christians and Hindus, is in line to become the spiritual leader of the Deobandi sect in Britain. The ultra-conservative movement, which gave birth to the Taleban in Afghanistan, now runs more than 600 of Britain's 1350 mosques according to a police report seen by The Times". Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Deobandi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140903120850/http://www.jamestown.org/programs/gta/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=497&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=180&no_cache=1 to http://www.jamestown.org/programs/gta/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=497&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=180&no_cache=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 19:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deobandi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140904022747/http://www.tehrantimes.com/politics/105710-iran-condemns-terrorist-attacks-in-pakistan to http://www.tehrantimes.com/politics/105710-iran-condemns-terrorist-attacks-in-pakistan

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Deobandi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921060851/http://www.deoband.org/about-2/ to http://www.deoband.org/about-2/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090514060717/http://www.cfr.org/publication/15422/pakistans_new_generation_of_terrorists.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F13611%2Fjayshree_bajoria%3Fgroupby%3D1&hide=1&id=13611&filter=456 to http://www.cfr.org/publication/15422/pakistans_new_generation_of_terrorists.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F13611%2Fjayshree_bajoria%3Fgroupby%3D1%26hide%3D1%26id%3D13611%26filter%3D456

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Disputes needs to be solve and page information needs to be neutralized
There is a long dispute in archived version too of this page which claims that the information written on this page is "Identity theft" of multiple branches that does not related to this branch. This branch itself created and is separated from root, the other side of branch and its below hierarchs (claimed by this page in Section:Sufism) does not claim themselves connected to this branch (check sources added in recent edits before completely undoing them). Also the Cites needs to verified of disputed texts as it redirecting itself on their own websites (in which they can cite back their info from wikipedia as a resource?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.90.233.10 (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What you have said is too general to be useful. Please could you be specific about each of the changes you wish for.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Shrine of Abdul Qadir Jilani..jpg

Untitled
Guidelines for developing and editing Islam-related Wikipedia articles are at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOSISLAM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor2020 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence that certain institutions and scholars are Deobandi
It is inadequate merely to list institutions and scholars without providing evidence of their asserted Deobandi affiliation. Wikipedia requires citations to reliable and authoritative third-party sources. I am therefore removing them according to Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Regards, George Custer's Sabre 02:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Use of scare quotes
I believe the use of scare quotes in the following passage are not justified and go against Neutral point of view


 * According to a 2007 "investigation" by The Times, about 600 of Britain's nearly 1,500 mosques were under the control of "a hardline sect", whose leading preacher loathed Western values, called on Muslims to "shed blood" for Allah and preached contempt for Jews, Christians and Hindus. The same investigative report further said that 17 of the country's 26 Islamic seminaries follow the ultra-conservative Deobandi teachings which The Times said had given birth to the Taliban. According to The Times almost 80% of all domestically trained Ulema were being trained in these hardline seminaries.[23] An opinion column in The Guardian described this "investigation" as "a toxic mixture of fact, exaggeration and outright nonsense."[24]

Both the Times and the Guardian are reliable sources and it is not for us to decide one is right but simply to report the debate. Without the use of scare quotes the passage is NPOV in stating the content of the Times report and providing a well-sourced counterview. I removed the quotation marks from "investigation" but my changes were reversed by User:Toddy1 but I can't see a reason to justify their use. An investigation is still an investigation whether we (or another newspaper) agrees with its report. Xophe84 (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. That's really bizarre and comes off as sarcastic, as if Wikipedia is doubting the veracity of the investigation. I don't think I've seen many, if any, quality articles do this sort of thing. If we're supposed to be circumspect about words like "claimed" because they can cast doubt about something, I don't see much difference here. Surely there has to be a way to deliver the ideas without using sarcastic scare quotes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should read: .-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * How does reading that resolve whether or not Wikipedia should be implying skepticism through the use of scare quotes? If there is a legitimate criticism of the investigation that can be presented through the use of normal language and without sarcasm. That legitimate criticism is already in the article, too. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * MOS:SCAREQUOTES does not say that so-called scare-quotes are banned. It says that they are expressions of doubt.  The policy is that "Such occurrences should also be considered carefully."


 * WP:BESTSOURCES says that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors..."


 * "According to the Media Reform Coalition: "three times in 15 months the chief investigative reporter of the Times, Andrew Norfolk, published sensational series of front-page articles portraying Muslims as threatening – and in every case central allegations were unfounded. The study, written by investigative journalists Brian Cathcart and Paddy French and supported by the Media Reform Coalition, identifies a pattern in which significant information demonstrating the true position was either omitted or buried. The authors assert that a responsible, conscientious reporter could have found this information and would have given it prominence. The report shows that The Times repeatedly failed to do basic fact checking in a number of stories targeting Muslims and routinely omitted essential context. This resulted not just in a litany of falsehoods about Muslims, but served to amplify an increasingly prevalent Islamophobia and fuel an emboldened racist agenda in the context of a higher level of hate crimes. This kind of reporting would be unacceptable in any publication, but it is particularly egregious given The Times’ claim to be Britain’s ‘newspaper of record’." The report they are talking about is:


 * You will of course remember that the Guardian independently panned Andrew Norfolk's so-called investigation as "a toxic mixture of fact, exaggeration and outright nonsense". Toddy1 (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The large blockquote is not useful, since I don't disagree that there is a contrary opinion that has strongly criticised the investigation. That doesn't mean that we should sarcastically frame the word investigation in scare quotes. There are, after all, other ways to express this. To your first point, nobody said that scare quotes are banned, but when two editors express concerns with their use potentially being afoul of neutrality policy, that is something you should "consider carefully", rather than just repeating the same "read the ___" argument. If this is something really stuck in your craw, open an RfC or something. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the use of what clearly look like scare quotes around investigation is inappropriate editorializing. It's true that its status as a serious investigation is disputed by the Guardian. This can be reflected without editorializing, for example by replacing it with the word report, which is used by the Guardian, and does not imply in WP voice that it's not a real investigation. Eperoton (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A decent work-around. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

"First War of Indian Independence"
This is referred to in the first paragraph as a term for the Indian Mutiny of 1857. It would be more inline to refer to it as The "Indian Rebellion of 1857" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.21.38 (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for pointing it out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Modi's appeal
An editor suggested that we have a paragraph in the text along the following lines (I have made some corrections to the English and the citation):
 * Prime Minister of India appealed to Barelvi clerics to oppose the spreading Deobandi movement across India. Many Barelvi clerics demanded the Government of India to remove the deobandi people from Waqfs Board.[1]


 * [1]

The lede paragraph of the cited source says: Prime Minister Narendra Modi appealing to the clerics of Barelvi sect among the Muslim Sunni community to step up their efforts to counter extremism, the clerics have raised a clarion call against the Wahabi ideology and demanded the government to clear the Waqf Boards across the country off the control of Wahabi elements. There is a mention of Deobandis in the article: The impressive gathering of Sufi Sunni Muslim community members in the national capital, in this backdrop, also pitched its battle against the dominance of Wahabi or Deobandi followers in the affairs of Waqf Boards and minority educational institutions and prevalence of their teaching through various forms in the country.

I am not convinced that it meets the requirement of No original research. It reaches a conclusion that is probably true, but is not clearly stated by the source. Maybe some people confuse Wahhabis with Deobandis. Is there a source that directly says that when Modi says one, he means the other? Toddy1 (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * If u have any problem first talk on talk page before reverting Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Otherwise you will have to face edit war with me Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't support one movement and hate other movement on Wikipedia Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * With the presence of reliable sources Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not your personal property Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is seems very rude to revert anybody without any reason Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The reasons for objecting were given on the article talk page above many hours before the reverting took place. You have not addressed these concerns.  I accept that there are some pitifully ignorant people who do not know that there is a difference between Wahhabis and Deobandis, but I think it is best to assume that the Prime Minister of India is well informed and knows the difference.  Toddy1 (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * First read the both article nicely before seeing anything it seems rude Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Before saying anything Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that you have a close connection with article and a personal attack on me Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Otherwise you will have to face edit war Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Request you to please come to consesus Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You have now deleted accidentally removed the heading "Beliefs" and replaced it with your heading "Criticism". This implies that statements of Deobandi beliefs are criticisms of the Deobandi.  That is not OK.  Toddy1 (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Criticism

Darul Uloom Deoband faced strong opposition due it's fatwa against the celebration of birthday of prophet Muhammad which is celebrated World wide annually

Prime minister of India Narendra Modi appealed the Barelvi clerics to oppose Deobandi movement in India as It is spreading extremism in India.Barelvi clerics Of India requested the government of India to remove the wahabis and Deobandis from the various designation of the waqf board.

Percentage cited in the article
The article has the following statement:
 * Only 20% of Indian Muslims identify as Deobandi.

The citation does not say that. Instead it says: So we could have the article say that about 20% of India's Sunni population are Deobandi. Or we could multiply the percentage of Indian Muslims who are Sunni by the percentage of Sunnis who are Deobandi (0.85 x 0.2 = 0.17), and say that "Only about 17% of Indian Muslims identify as Deobandi."
 * "Over 85 percent of Indian Muslims are Sunni." (paragraph 4)
 * "Deobandis, who make up approximately 20 percent of India's Sunni population"

When I tried to post this, I got an automated warning that "Wikipedia consensus is that WikiLeaks is generally unreliable", so maybe we should not be linking to that source at all. Toddy1 (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The 17% has a weak justification based on the source, and the 20% was incorrect. Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah's replacing 20% with 17% was an example of him/her trying to do the right thing and responding to the comments of other editors on the article talk page. Toddy1 (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I will put it back. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we should update the all details because the information is not correct. please read the books takwatul imaan for more info about Tabligi Jamaat. Tabligi, Wahabi, jaamati and deobandi these all are different name of Tablig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.35.34.140 (talk) 07:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Paragraph 6 of the US Mission in India source cited above says:
 * Compared to their Barelvi compatriots, Deobandis more closely resemble Wahhabis in their austere interpretation of Islam and more conservative stance on social issues, including the role of women. Journalist Sultan Shahin joked that Indians refer to Deobandis as "pink Wahhabis," despite vehement protests from Deobandis to the contrary.  Deobandis have tried to distance themselves from Wahhabism because of the stigma associated with conservative Arab Muslims.  Imam Mazhari estimated that less than five percent of the Indian Muslim population is made up of "true Wahhabis," but he fears the numbers are growing.
 * The key point is that Deobandis object to be called Wahhabis. They say that they are a different group.  I think this is generally accepted. Hence there are separate Wikipedia articles on Wahhabism and Deobandi.  By the way, there is a Wikipedia article on the Tablighi Jamaat group that the IP editor is talking about.  Toddy1 (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This issues can be solved with thorough study of al-Muhannad ala al-Mufannad, the official creed of the Deobandis. The first question answers the Wahhabi issue. See --- Regards -- Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality
The article has been tagged with the neutrality tag since 2018, requesting fellow Wikipedians to help me sorting this issue. I can try my level best. Regards Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag since I couldn't find any mention of the issues on the talk page. You are still welcome to review the article and see if anything needs to be revised. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Criticism & controversies
Phelobtimous (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have already addressed your issue on my talk page. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Vishva Hindu Parishad demanded the complete ban on tablighi Jamaat an offshoot of Deobandi movement Phelobtimous (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Also there are many more criticism of Deobandi movement to be discussed on this page Phelobtimous (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested to not be biased on the article Phelobtimous (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Content of the Position subsection of the Beliefs section
I had removed certain content from the said section which I assert is not by any means a central doctrine of Deobandis and which also included a wrongly attributed quote. I don't see any reason for such claims being still on the page. Tangentbundle314 (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding citation [3] says that in "February 1906, Ahmad Raza Khan... accused key Deobandis of unbelief (kufr), citing reasons such as Deobandis' belief that God's omnipotence theoretically encompassed God's ability to lie (imkan-i kizb)." There are other places in the book where the issue of whether God can lie (imkan-i kizb) is discussed.  Page 64 does say that Gangohi defended 'the controversial notion that God is capable of lying".  Page 7 says that Deobandis and Barelvis had different views on three theological concepts, one of which was whether God can lie, and that these were peripheral to Deobandi theology.  So I think the citation should be referencing pages 7, 64 and maybe 100, and the statement "It is a central doctrine of the Deobandi movement." is the opposite of what page 7 says.  (The way to find the relevant pages in the book is to search for "imkan-i kizb".)  Toddy1 (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Citation [2] is by the same author as citation [3]. Page 484 of citation [2] says: "Gangohi, expectedly, condemns takfir against Muhammad Isma‘il with the justiﬁcation that he is a wali Allah. He echoes his intellectual predecessor in still other ways, defending the controversial principles of imkan-i kidhb, the notion that God is capable of lying, and imkan-i nazir, that God could create other prophets on par with Muhammad, offering the explanation, like Muhammad Isma‘il, that God is capable but will not do so." Toddy1 (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I have attempted to correct it based on what the sources say. Toddy1 (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and the Indian Constitution
Capankajsmilyo has noticed that a statement in the article does not appear in the source cited for it and deleted it. The article said: (the struck-through words are those Capankajsmilyo deleted)
 * The Jamiat has propounded a theological basis for its nationalistic philosophy. Their thesis is that Muslims and non-Muslims have entered upon a mutual contract in India since independence, to establish a secular state. The Constitution of India represents this contract. [48]
 * [48]

Page 56 of the source says the following:
 * Significantly, the Jamiat al-Ulema-I Hind, the Congress party's ally during and after the struggle for independence, conceived of the future constitution of a free India as a contract between the Muslim community of India and the non-Muslim others. The idea of a nation-state was simply absent in the thinking of the Jamiat.


 * Contrary to the Jamiat's hope and desire, the Indian elite conceived of a democratic state, not a federation of ethnic-religious corporate entities. The constitution of India was going to be a contract between the individual and the state".

I do not see that the citation supports any of what is said. So I propose to remove the citation and the residue of what it is cited for. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging for his view. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you prefer, we could have what the source really says. -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Kautilya3, thank you for pinging me here. I have added an additional source in the article, plus some information from it. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

,, here is the quote you need:

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually I am now confused about 's complaint. The old source said the same as the content, except that it was talking about the conception before independence. How can you say that it doesn't support "any of what is said"? I am missing something here. I am also beginning to wonder why this particular passage in the page is being attacked repeatedly. What is the problem guys? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am astonished.
 * Capankajsmilyo's complaint was that the struck through words above were "not in source".
 * So I checked the source that was cited, and found what it said and did not say. As you can see, it did not directly support the material being presented.  I think it would be much better if it either (1) directly quoted from the source, or (2) was a summary of what was written in the source.  (The history of these sentences is that someone wrote them some years ago with no citation, and someone later added the citation to a passage on the same subject but which does not support the text.)
 * All I am asking for is that whatever is written is clearly supported by citations. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Only three differences?
User:Toddy1 is being very belligerent and possessive in this article. He writes what he does not know and what is not stated in the references. He keeps on writing and reintroducing this phrase:

"Deobandis and Barelvis have different views on three arcane theological puzzles that Deobandis regard as peripheral and say should only debated by trained scholars."

But this is incorrect and not supported in the source. There are far more than these 3 theological differences. There are many more. Yet this individual keeps on forcing his OR and POV on this article. Also it is pointless having the Barelvi point of view in positions as this article is on Deobandi movement. It is not a comparison piece. Syndr0nes (talk) 08:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Page 7 of the cite source says "In truth, the real fault lines between Deobandi and Barelvis have mostly to do with their divergent views on three theological concepts..." and then goes on to list the three differences listed in Section Deobandi. Page 7 goes on to say that they are "arcane theological puzzles", and that Deobandis regard them as "peripheral" and and that Deobandis say they "should only debated by trained scholars".


 * Wikipedia is written for everyone. Barelvis seem to think that these issues are are important, and some editors in the past have mistakenly tried to insert that these issues are central to Deobandis.  The source clearly states otherwise. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3, User:Anupam, you also edit this article frequently. Can you please give your opinion? Syndr0nes (talk) 09:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Why do you accuse me of being Barelvi? Also the word "mostly" makes it clear there are other differences. I would recommend not being so belligerent and forcing your POV here. Let's focus on the Deobandi movement and their actual positions. Syndr0nes (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read what is written. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I have removed reference to Sufi orders as not all Deobandis accept them. Some Deobandis reject Sufi orders while others accept it. It was also not mentioned in the source. Your editing seems to be an attempt to derail focus away from Deobandi positions to a free for all debate on Barelvi vs Deobandi. I do not think Wikipedia is the right place for such bias. Syndr0nes (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at the 8th line of the second paragraph on page 7. It starts "Deobandis and Barelvis are, for all intents and purposes, identical to one another: Sunni Muslims, Hanafi in law, Ash'ari or Maturidi in theology, adhering to multiple Sufi orders, and sustained institutionally through madrasa networks." -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - How many differences there are between the two schools is a matter of judgement. So it is best to attribute them. Whether they should be attributed to the author cited or some other scholars, I will leave to you to figure out. The author ("Ingram") does seem to think that these three differences are the key. Also, in response to the criticism that this should be a page on Deobandis rather than Barelvis, I suggest rephrasing the sentence into something like "According to X, Deobandis differ from Barelvis on three theological positions" or something of that sort." Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Kautilya3, I think that idea is better. NI personally believe that there is no need to take Ingrams statement as Gospel. I think the sentence you introduced suffices. Also, I have an issue with Ingrams direct quote in which he says generally:

"Deobandis and Barelvis are, for all intents and purposes, identical to one another: Sunni Muslims, Hanafi in law, Ash'ari or Maturidi in theology, adhering to multiple Sufi orders, and sustained institutionally through madrasa networks."

I have an issue with the usage of 'Sufi orders' here. It should be noted that some Deobandis like Arshad Madani reject Sufi orders completely and Sufism as a whole. So not all Deobandis are in agreement of this. I think Ingram is trying to be as general as possible. Therefore I don't think we should be directly quoting this here. Syndr0nes (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Deobandis believe in all the four established known Sufi orders viz Naqshbandi, Sohrwardi, Qadri and Chishti. Deobandi scholars Ashraf Ali Thanwi, Muhammad Zakariyya Kandhlawi, Muhammad Masihullah Khan were known Sufi authorities and still there are. It would be wrong to say, Deobandis are against Sufism. Deobandis have rejected only some prevalent practices which are being done in the name of Tasawwuf. Muhammad Zakariyya Kandhlawi has even written a book entitled Inseparability of Shariah and Tariqah. Mufti Shafi Usmani's has writen Dil Ki Dunya and so others. Adding to the Deobandi-Barelwi differences, they are possibly not three, but the main ones are four viz Ilm-e-Ghayb, Mukhtar e Qul, Hazir Nazir and Noor o Bashar, as has been stated by Muhammad Yusuf Ludhianvi in his Sirat e Mustaqeem. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me here User:Syndr0nes. I agree with the wording suggested by User:Kautilya3. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks user:Anupam. User:Aaqib nobody is saying they are against Sufism as a whole. What is clear is that there are differences among Deobandis themselves on the acceptability of Sufism. Some consider it blasphemous, others permissible with exceptions (I.e. no Sema). Hope that helps. Syndr0nes (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If there are reliable sources that explain this, it could be added to the article. It might be useful if these sources were by people explaining the differences, rather than by religious leaders telling their followers what to think. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , it would be right to understand that what Deobandis think of Sufism. How do they define it? How do they mean it with in verses of Quran regarding tazkiyah. Mufti Shafi Usmani for example quotes Shah Waliullah saying that:

"Shariyat without Tariqat is mere ideology and philosophy and Tariqat without Shariyat is zandaqa and apostacy"

Usmani however has maintained the viewpoint of what Deobandis say of Tasawwuf and how do they define it? He at places says, Sufism is not to do qawwali and other such stuff, rather to reform character. Muhammad Masihullah Khan, an another top Deobandi scholar says, Tasawwuf (as Shafi defined) is part and parcel of Shariat. Muhammad Zakariyya Kandhlawi defines it same way. I would suggest that first we need to ascertain the fact that what is Sufism for Deobandis? Best. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)