Talk:Fazail-e-Amaal/Archive 1

Transliterations
I believe that the persian and various english transliterations are unnecessary. The book was originally written in Urdu, so Urdu is enough for transliteration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Hamza (talk • contribs) 14:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
The book has been much criticized for its weak narrations of Hadith. I think that these criticisms and their responses, if available, should also be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Hamza (talk • contribs) 14:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Answers to criticism:

The author of the book, Maulana Zikriya has given answers to criticism in a book named " Sab Masele pur ashkalat aur on k jawab". The book may be referred to for answers to criticism.

Original Version
The original version of this book includes Fazail e Darood Sharif. I think that should be included in its contents list.M J Adil 12:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M j adil (talk • contribs)

Retrieving edit
I want to draw attention about this edit by User:NahidSultan. 43.245.121.114 (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
Please, keep it watchlist and clean. Destructive edits are constantly being made from IP addresses.Owais Al Qarni (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are deliberately trying to remove the referencial part from the article, I am pinging user to solve the problem, also mentioning the change you have made, here and here. I am also requesting them to check the respective references.116.58.202.144 (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know who NahidSultan is, but I know that I'm no expert here and I'm guessing it is the same for Deepfriedokra. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging to review the matter. 43.245.120.128 (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why am I being pinged here? Perhaps I forgot, but I don't think I've been involved in editing this page. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 21:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for pinging User:Tartan357, I previously found you in Talk:Umar page, then I thought that you may be related with maintenance of islam related articles. 43.245.120.128 (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So you're pinging people who aren't at all involved in this conversation because you think they'll agree with you? Requests for comment must be made neutrally. You are WP:CANVASSING. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 21:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

43.245.120.128 I guess that this is all to do with the reverts today. A good way forward would be for you to detail the various parts of your edit, and for each of them say how the cited source support them. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it appears they are WP:CANVASSING without even explaining what the issue is. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 21:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to argue the merits of your edit yourself. I have no context for what's going on here. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 21:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Extremely sorry to all those whom I pinged wrongly, I really never knew it before, I thought you could check out the references of google books and notability and reliablity of the books from the deleted part and would match it wheather the deleted words remained in the references or not. But if pinging someone who is not involved is not allowed, I will not do it again. 43.245.121.122 (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please could you  explain  why you believe that certain edits should be accepted. You need to say  what  changes to the text you want and  why  these should be accepted. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There was a line in the heading passage that " The book is written in simple and lucid Urdu, based mostly on inspirational but historically suspect and non-authentic traditions and anecdotes. ", the User:Owais Al Qarni removed the part " but historically suspect and non-authentic traditions and anecdotes. " I am now giving the respective lines from the linked references from where the removed information has been taken. The references are:


 * The first reference notes: " Written in a simple and lucid Urdu and based mostly on inspirational but historically suspect traditions, Tabligh Nisab is probably the only book that the majority of the Tablighi workers would consider worth reading. "


 * The second reference says: " The Tabligh is unconcerned about the affairs of the world, not for it the dreams of the Caliphate, Or even taking the message of the Prophet to the non-Muslims. It seems sufficient to read, and listen to Fazail-e-Amal (Virtue of Deeds), a compilation of Hadith and other anecdotes, not all of them considered authentic, after Fajr (dawn) prayers. "" [note that, I mentioned the first line to clarify the relation only, not to disgrace, because without first line, the meaning of second line can not be clearly understood.]


 * The third reference just mirrors the first reference (Ahmad 1991:516):" Written in a simple and lucid Urdu and based mostly on inspirational but historically suspect traditions, Tabligh Nisab is probably the only book that the majority of the Tablighi workers would consider worth reading. ". Meanwhile, another line with reference has also been removed:Tabligh Jamaat gives the most imprtance to the book in their daily chores, and they do and prescribe reading the book after daily Fajr and Asr prayer, usually in their daily gatherings". and some other changes has been made, from the first line, the bold words has been removed, not mentioning any rationality, although they all are mentioned in linked references: " Faza'il-e-A'maal (, Faz̤ā’il-i a‘māl [Virtues of deeds]), originally titled Tablighi Nisab (, Tablīg&#x35f;hī niṣāb [Curriculum for Tabligh]), is a  Sufi  religious text composed for basically Tabligh Jamaat members  , mainly of treatises by the Deobandi Indian hadith scholar Muhammad Zakariya Kandhlawi  from Sufi sect on the merits of good deeds.     and some other related changes, all you will find here.  The most important matter is the suspect traditions of hadith, promoting suspect hadith or story as true is a serious issue in Islam, but they are just removing these established informations by established references about containing suspect traditions of hadith in the book, which is against the neutral policy of wikipedia. In recent decades, containing suspect hadith and stories in "Fazail-e-amal/Tablighi Nisab". It is a talk of the town in religious circle of South Asia and Arab World in the last decades, if you ask any trustworthy Islamic Muslim or non-Muslim scholar, then he will aware you of the matter. 103.67.159.182 (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * see.Owais Al Qarni (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * IP user wants to add his opinion here & he is threatened me on Facebook. I have the screenshots. Owais Al Qarni (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, the book Fadhail e Aamal is a book of Hadith, it has nothing to with what you call Sufi collection, or like unauthentic things. Its author was a muhaddith and a scholarly figure. While dealing with books which have been criticised academically (not just opinions of few people), we need to keep in view WP:NPOV and also remember Fadhail e Aamal was written as a collection of ahadith at the request of Muhammad Ilyas Kandhlawi and it is a book of hadith genre. There are works about it, dealing with how people falsely attack this book. But there are academic criticisms as well. Just WP:NPOV. Thanks. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I never threatened User:Owais Al Qarni, what I said to him never falls under threat, User:NahidSultan know this and can explain this. 103.67.159.182 (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Rejecting major criticism is not any of WP:NPOV, specially when the authenticity related to the basic foundations of any subject, here the subject is an Islamic book and in Islam the first and foremost foundations are Quran and Hadith, here the criticism is about the authenticity of the Hadiths mentioned in the book, so this issue can never be regarded as a minor criticism. I also agree that sufi is comparatively a minor term, but suspicion in authenticity of hadith is a serious issue. 103.67.159.182 (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry to everybody if anyone find any misconduct in my any of the behaviours, my intention is just portraying a serious issue, nothing else. 103.67.159.182 (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is another book recently from the University of Birmingham written only on the state of authenticity of Hadiths in Tablighi Nisab. 103.67.159.182 (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * This is an article about a book written in the 20th Century. The dispute is about whether the article is allowed to have some criticisms of the book. There would seem to be two obvious solutions:
 * Criticism is forbidden. Then propose the article for deletion. That way there is no need for Wikipedia to mention criticisms of the book.
 * Criticism is allowed. Then accept that both criticism and praise for the book must be mentioned in the article, both fairly and proportionately.
 * If the book really is notable, mention publication details in the article, such as when it was written, when it was first published, who published it it, etc. Also mention the book (with a link to this article) in the biography of the author. -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to add praise of the book from reliable sources, the book helped a lot in preaching Islam, but as the subject is Islam, the basic problems regarding Islam included in this book which has been discussed by scholars should be included with praise and description. And I also agree with you about including the history, author, publisher, development and importance of the book in the article. Arab Islamic scholars always suggest to rewrite the book excluding the suspect narrations, but for some strong rival to defend the root criticism, it becomes sometime a nearly outrage in most of the orthodox South Asian Muslim communities. 103.67.159.182 (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , these changes you have made, without making any comstructive edite, you have made two paragraph with same words with a tricky little bit change and again removed some wordings which User:Owais Al Qarni removed previously. I thing I have to ping again. 116.58.205.104 (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the edits because of a reason. You can not just go against WP:NPOV. Suggest a text here to get a consensus. Don't do WP:CENSORSHIP - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:Censorship means wikipedia is not censored, then why you are censoring these words, please explain. 116.58.205.104 (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what you're doing without getting an exact consensus here on the talk page? Desist bro. Have some patience and suggest a criticism section here. Once we get consensus. We are okay. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Criticism
The book has been criticized academically & non academically, and books have been written in its defence. I suggest a neutral criticism section be added. ,, , ideas please. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I already have a previously made criticism section for example here:

''The Ahl al-Hadith and Salafi communities allege that this Islamic book contains references to many baseless hadiths. So they continue to preach not to read the book. The Salafi scholar Salih Al-Munajjid said, the scholars continue to warn against the book Tableeghi Nisaab, otherwise known as Fadaa’il al-A‘maal. It is not permissible for any Muslim to read it; rather they should focus on the books of the saheeh Sunnah, books whose authors follow the path of Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa‘ah. As for books that contain myths and lies, they should not have any place in the heart or mind of the Muslim.

Hammood at-Tuwaijri said in al-Qawl al-Baleegh (p. 11), "They (Tabligh Jamaat) pay a great deal of attention to this book (Fadail e Amal), which they respect as Ahl as-Sunnah respect as-Saheehayn and other books of hadeeth. The Tableeghis have made this book the most important reference work for the Indians and other non-Arabs who follow them. It contains a great deal of matters of shirk, innovation (bid'ah), myths, and fabricated (mawdoo‘) and weak (da‘eef) hadeeths. In fact it is a book of evil, misguidance and confusion (fitnah)."

Shams ad-Deen al-Afghaani said in his book Juhood ‘Ulama’ al-Hanafiyyah fi Ibtaal ‘Aqaa’id al-Qubooriyyah (2/776), "The leading imams of the Deobandis have books which are venerated by the Deobandis, but they are filled with the myths of grave-worshippers and Sufi idolatry, such as – and he mentioned a number of books, including Tableeghi Nisaab, i.e., Nisaab at-Tableegh, and Manhaj at-Tableegh. These Deobandis did not openly disavow these books or warn against them, and they did not put a stop to the printing and sale of these books. The markets of India and Pakistan and elsewhere are full of them."

It is said in al-Mawsoo‘ah al-Muyassarah fi’l-Adyaan wa’l-Madhaahib wa’l-Ahzaab al-Mu‘aasirah (1/322), "In their gatherings in Arab countries they – i.e., Jamaa‘at at-Tableegh – focus on reading from Riyadh as-Saaliheen, but in non-Arab countries they focus on reading from Hayat as-Sahaabah and Tableeghi Nisaab; the latter book is full of myths and da‘eef (weak) hadeeths." '' 116.58.205.104 (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The lead
Are either party willing to concede any differences in wording here? -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There can be a different criticism section, but if anyone continuously do hide and seek with the criticism of suspect hadith and tricky wording, I think there should be a concensus. 116.58.205.104 (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead section should be a summary of the article. So unless there is a section containing the criticisms mentioned in the lead section, they should go. See Manual of Style/Lead section. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In Manual of Style/Lead section, it says: "All but the shortest articles should start with introductory text (the "lead"), which establishes significance, includes mention of significant criticism or controversies, and make readers want to learn more. The lead has no heading; its length should be commensurate with that of the article, but is normally no more than four paragraphs. See also Writing better articles." 116.58.205.104 (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In Writing better articles, it says·: "As explained in more detail at Lead section, all but the shortest articles should start with introductory text (the "lead"). The lead should establish significance, include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more. The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should normally be no more than four paragraphs. The lead itself has no heading and, on pages with more than three headings, automatically appears above the table of contents, if present." 116.58.205.104 (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The statements like "The book is written in simple and lucid Urdu and is a collection of pious and edifying tales,[5] based mostly on inspirational but historically suspect and non-authentic hadith traditions and anecdotes", is a opinion? or is criticism?, if so, then of whom? Secondly, the book is not a book of Sufi genre, it is straight away a book of Hadith genre. The issue of this book containing "historically suspect and non-authentic hadith traditions" is a criticism from the group or few scholars who belong to Salafi group as the IP suggested above. So how right is to add criticism as if "it is the quality of the book"? One more thing would be, rightly, the book contains traditions having weaker chains, but they are unanimously accepted in fazail (virtues of actions) by the hadith scholars. I don't think the IP version of this article is fair. Rather it is to put Salafi agenda here. Nothing else. As for the criticism section, I have already suggested that a neutral section be added, which says, who academically has studied the book and then criticized it. A mere belief of few people doesn't count as a valid criticism.. The thing, I suggest is:
 * I believe this is a neutral critical statement and can be added to lead as well. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not only weak traditions but also fabricated traditions, most of their fabrication is proved by Isnad. 103.67.158.26 (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not only weak traditions but also fabricated traditions, most of their fabrication is proved by Isnad. 103.67.158.26 (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Overview/Later editions
Are either party willing to concede any differences in wording here? -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The two passage clearly shows that it is nothing but copy paste. 116.58.205.104 (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It does not make any sense to me to have both an Overview section and a Later editions section that are almost identical. One or the other should go. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I have a stylistic suggestion. If you are going to list something, why not use bullets? I know its not prose, but the above is a bit difficult to read with the dates, authors and Urdu text.VR talk 13:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Subject
Why do the tiny differences in this section matter? -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The first citation is to a book by Masud. I cannot see how it supports the stuff it is cited for:
 * Page 79 of Masud's book does not mention the book Fazail-e-Amaal.
 * Page 157 of Masud's book says that the second volume of Fazail-e-Amaal is Virtues of Hajj.
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion
If this matter: from bnwiki's village pump discussion & from this diff, i can confirm that above ip user is User:Lazy-restless who was blocked for his problematic edits (see his talk page). I believe this is block evasion. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to get an administrator to deal with that problem. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I would think that an obvious solution would be set this page to auto-confirmed editing only for say 12 months. Nevertheless, the issue that if the article is to be NPOV it must be OK to mention criticism of the book is still valid. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No objection for adding criticism. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Check! Owais Al Qarni (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's me, User:Lazy-restless. 103.67.158.26 (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why I was pinged here because I am not familiar with this matter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Criticism is okay to be mentioned but as criticism, not as a description of the book, as the IP did. I've mentioned this thing earlier as well. There should be something like, "some critics of the book say there is this and this in the book". This criticism is right and neutral. Saying, this book is this and this and there is this and this in it, makes criticism statement a quality of book, which may or may not, hence a misinformation and pov pushing. Hope you get my point. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please you write what you consider a valid and balanced section that contains criticism. I am happy to leave it to your judgement whether this criticism should be mentioned in the lead section.  I would be happy to accept the current lede with the following modification:


 * Please could we replace:
 * The book is written in simple and lucid Urdu, based mostly on inspirational.[clarification needed][4][5][6]
 * With
 * The book is written in simple and lucid Urdu and is a collection of pious and edifying tales,[5] based mostly on inspirational hadith traditions and anecdotes.[6][3][7] (This is much easier to understand.)
 * I suggest replacing:
 * Tabligh Jammat
 * With
 * The Tablighi Jamaat (Most Wikipedia readers have never heard of "Tablighi Jamaat", inserting the word "the" and wikilinking makes it easier to understand that "Tablighi Jamaat" is an organisation.)
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to this change, if a critcism section appears. 103.67.159.174 (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Criticism section
When you get time, please could you amend the criticism section. You are welcome to replace with something better. But until then, what we have is better than nothing. Please do not delete the red links - they may indicate that Wikipedia spells the authors' names differently (in which case someone will fix it, or make redirects) - they may indicate a need for new articles - or they may indicate that the authors being cited are not notable. Either way, the red links are needed.

I have looked on two Islamic bookshop websites for the books being cited and cannot find them. Please could we have some publishing details for these, so that we know whether they are reliable sources. (Self-published books by people who are not recognised experts are not considered to be reliable sources.) Maybe the website got the titles wrong. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear, I must thank you for adding a valid criticism section. However, there's a book in the defence of Fazail e Aamal, authored by a senior professor of Darul Uloom Deoband, and a teacher of Abdur Rahman ibn Yusuf Mangera. If you get some time, please have a look at Objection On Fazail E Amaal ABasic Analysis By Molana Abdullah Maroofi. Thanks a lot. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We may consider these reliable fatawa as well:
 * A fatwa by Ebrahim Desai about Fazail e Aamal
 * A fatwa by Darul Uloom Deoband on weak narrations in the book
 * - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Fazail-e-Sadqaat into Fazail-e-Amaal
It comes as the volume two of Fazail-e-Amaal - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The merge seems to have happened. Fazail-e-Sadqaat is a redirect to this article. -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)