Talk:Jamaat-e-Islami Hind

last sentence of Intro
The last sentence of the JIH introduction does use adequate sources to back up its claims. The source listed under footnote (9) is published by a far from neutral policy group's website and extracted from a book called *Monsters for Mohammad*. The second claim is just a copy of NY Times reporter ANAND GIRIDHARADAS' words--it would be better to tell us which academics find JIH extremist.

Simply put, the last sentence of the introduction could be making valid criticisms about JIH but the sources it cites provide no evidence. Rather than parroting ideological positions, I would encourage providing better sources or qualifying the claims being made. TaborType (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree Wiki00700 (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Labeling Islamic Group
The POV from a journalist seems to be biased. "JAMATH" means organization. Just because of the name of the organization is "JAMAATH", it cannot be labelled as terrorist or extremist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.103.98 (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree Wiki00700 (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

You have made a terrible mistake Atish Sen. Centre has banned Jamate Islami Kashmir and not Jamate Islami Hind. Both are different organisations having no links. Jamate Islami Hind actively strives for communal harmony and peace in India. Please get your basics correct Simab Khan (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Rewriting with alternate POV & additional content
Reliable sources are not used. Mostly consist of Propaganda materials. Re writing is required.Keralath (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The reference used for describing the history of JIH is biased (Irfan Ahmed's book). Moreover, the information taken from the book also seems cherry-picked. This article has no discussion on JIH's connection with SIMI, even though the book talks volumes about it. This article has been written with a strongly biased perspective and an intent to hide less-accpetable principles and events associated with its past. It needs a thorough re-writing. Sdnzo (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , why do you believe the scholarly work to be biased? &#x222F; WBG converse 14:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)