Talk:Shia Islam in the Indian subcontinent/Archive 1

Modern India vs Pakistan
I have tagged the article's history section which narrates the account of Al Mufid where it states the following in this article

It has been believed that prior to his martyrdom Imam Husain ibn Ali the grandson of Prophet Muhammad expressed his desire to go towards Al Hind or present day Pakistan and India.

Other traditions named Border Outpost as Al Hind or present day Pakistan.

reason for Tagging: No Where Mr Toby Howarth and nor Shayk Al Mufid has mentioned the name of Pakistan. India as a nation is still in existence and more than 8 times bigger than Pakistan so distortion of historic sentences by including name of Pakistan is against article standards. Al Hind from multiple sources is only name of India and not Pakistan.

Secondly, the lines are the extraction frm the book The Twelver Shi'a as a Muslim Minority in India: Pulpit of Tears by tobay Howath. In his Cahpter from Karbala to India he has narrated these accounts with reference to Shias of South India. Andhra Pradesh the south Indian state is still in India and book is composed after partition hence had if he wanted would have included the name of Pakistan.

Correct text of the article is as follows: In his Account Shaykh al Mufid writes that Husain [as] and the Commander of the enemy forces,Umar ibn Saad met before the battle at ight and talked together for a long time. After that meeting Umar ibn Saad sent a letter to the Governor of Kufa, ubaydullah ibn Ziyad in which he wrote that Husain [a]s has suggested that he go to ‘one of the border outposts’ of the rapidly expanding Muslim empire as a way of resolving conflict.[Al-Mufid, 1981 343]. Other traditions named Border Outpost as Al Hind, Hindustan [Please note Al hind and Hindustan both are names referring to India not Pakistan]. Even though Husain ibn Ali himself was not able to go to India, some of the Shia did emigrate there for various reasons, including those who came as refugees whom Umayyads and Abbasids persecution. [Hollister 1988: 101]. These refugees brought with them rituals which kept alive the remembrance of karbala and their Shia Identity. Pg 7 [from Karbala to India]

What I want to highlight is the use of sentences like Present Day Pakistan is redirecting entire quote to Pakistan and makes one feel that the quote is concentrated only for Pakistan.

Would appreciate if you rearrange the article while original text should be the same. Humaliwalay (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * See stop acting as an ignorant, the fact is you just to able to digest things about Pakistan, hence you are tagging them as dubious and unreferenced. The fact is that Pakistan was a part of Al-hind the Indian Sub-continent, and that the Shia and Sayeds first migrated to the Present day Pakistan, that is Sindh and Multan region. And later spread all across India, hence the Pakistani Shia connection is automatically far more older than yours. Though Pakistan is now excluded from the Al-Hind, it doesn't Pakistan was never a part of it. So Your history and our history is no different. Stop tagging your stuff for the sake for proving others wrong for no reason, and lets work together to collectively improve both respective articles. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Mesum Abbas Naqvi, Stop using abusive words and behaving childish, else your language will be reported directly to Wikipedia moderators unwillingly by me. My question is not with that of Pakistan, my question is you cite the exact text which were written by the Author of the books given reference here that's it.

Secondly, Multan and Sindh is not mentioned by Shayk al Mufid in his book, Multan and Sindh were ruled by Shias so were other provinces as well. You cite the exact words with off course direction towards Pakistan I will have no issues.Humaliwalay (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact I am ready to contribute more for this article but not on disputed lines. and behave matured please.Humaliwalay (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have changed the text for you satisfaction, and their isn't any need to further edit the existing text, i haven't been meddling with the Indian Shia Islam article neither should you, its better if we add further more information regarding the Shia History in the Sub-Continent and the Influence of Shia Theology in the Sub-Continent. And please don't edit the Indian population claim over here, since officially and internationally Pakistan is the largest Shia population no matter if you are stuck to your claim. By the way you call the word ignorant an abusive word, now that is hilarious. You need to grow up instead of telling me that, i am not new on Wikipedia, guess you are. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

One thing is confirmed for sure that though you claim to be legendary figure on Wikipedia nevertheless you are still not a good editor. Sorry for you. you are here to edit articles not to laugh, so if you find something hilarious this is not the right place for you. I repeat again my problem is not with Pakistan not am i seeking revenge by meddling in this article. The following are few points I would like to give you clear picture so that you may understand and work out a solution. Hope today we shall sort out this matter God willing the points are as follows:


 * If you quote narrations form Toby Howarth's book, The Twelver Shi'a as a Muslim Minority in India: Pulpit of Tears . Chapter From Karbala to India, page 07, which you have done. You should not distort the history by editing th texts in your own words.  Secondly this book was written by him post partition and after his visit to South Indian Shia community.  This reflects that had if he wanted he would have included Pakistan's name but he didn't because his accentuation is particularly based on Shias in India. He used India, rather than Indian subcontinent or Pakistan.

My suggestion to the above point is : If you include those text you may do so, but don't distort by adding Pakistan with India, or substituting the word India with name Subcontinent. If you are ready then I shall suggest sentences for you which may reflect Pakistan's name not comprising with distortion of history. Till then I will tag the article. Its better if you agree your mistakes and rectify the distortion of History which is an act of Unethical editing. Hope you know etiquette of editing since you are not new here.

2nd Point and suggestion


 * you claim Pakistan's Shia population is largest than that of India, but as you also agree as per other sources do report them lesser than India.

Suggestion: so if you cite only larger sources than you have to cite the sources which refute the claim as well. Else stop claiming that,more than India, because DISPUTED TAG gets applied there. very Simple conclusion: Shaykh al Mufid and Toby Howarth never used the word Pakistan so you can't use their texts and distort by substituting India's name by Pakistan or like Subcontinent.Humaliwalay (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a last warning for you repeated vandalism, i would be left with no option other then asking the admin about suggesting me what to do, No one is editing the Shia Islam in India regarding Pakistan's Shia population claim, so stop adding Self-published sources regarding the Shia population in India in articles about Pakistan, i don't think the Shia population of India is more then that of Shia population in Pakistan, since the Pakistani Muslim population is round about 180 million (alot more then India's), and Shia make 30% of the entire Muslim Population hence no matter what the Indian claim is, it rather looks dubious, all the facts and figures go with Pakistan. Hence your claim is not a legitimate truth. Now stop this vandalism. And yes, give me time to further improve the Shia Islam article of Pakistan, by the way, despite of all the historical facts Pakistan has a far more old Shia connection then that of India due to geographical reality, though both share a same history. Now would please improve articles with out doing vandalism regarding which population is larger and which is not, since you only have two sources to prove your point, while Pakistani Shias have multiple genuine neutral sources to prove the case. And remember Self-published sources are of lesser value on Wikipedia. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to learn that you will report this to the admin, thanks, so that now the problem will be resolved and you won't be able to distort historical sentences. Once again I cite the example of your distortions. You edited in your article Shia Islam in Pakistan :

"Other traditions named Border Outpost as Al Hind [Please click on Al Hind and check whether it's redirecting to India or Present day Pakistan, as claimed by you] or present day India & Pakistan. Even though Husain ibn Ali himself was not able to go to Sub-continent" I tagged this statement as Dubious because: Distortion of History: The correct statement mentioned din Toby Howarth's book which was written after Partition is as follows : Other traditions named Border Outpost as Al Hind [Everyone knows the fact that Al Hind refers to India]. Even though Husain ibn Ali himself was not able to go to Sub-continent [Its not subcontinent but India clearly mentioned in the book].

After verification your distortions will be exposed and this article will be tagged as well as your profile for vandalism and neutrality disputes. Remember that you were blocked last year for these kind of dubious editing and fabrication and distortion of the article sources. '''You yourself admitted that you think Pakistan's Shia population more than India and for your information your thinking cannot be used as an authentic source. Also Pakistan's Muslim population is not 182 million.'''

Distortion of Name: Another point wherever you use Subcontinent, please note its Indian subcontinent agrees by all SAARC countries so yu better use the correct name.

Weak Claim over estimates: You claim in this article that Pakistan's Shia population is more than India, you can include that. But if you cite that, you also have top cite the sources that India has more Shias than in Pakistan. Else the tag gets applicable.

I repeat, there is no Malice or any prejudice on my part, I just want to make the article undisputed. Humaliwalay (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added Nadeem Sarwar's image, you may alter the place if you think would be better than present, because I felt its good in Introduction.Humaliwalay (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you please stop acting as an ignorant because i have repeatedly told you, that despite of the Indian claim Pakistan still is officially the largest Shia Population after Iran no matter what, we have multiple source to prove that claim, while your are basing your claim on two self-published sources, now stop this fabrication, you are first un-tagging the Pakistani name in the Shia Islam in India, hence this article isn't about India its is rather about Pakistan, so stop doing this vandalism and malicious attack regarding protecting your Indian Shia honor. Please stop this biased editing of yours, let the articles be about Pakistan. Since you are claiming India the second-largest, i have no problem with that, but you can't prove it just by a single source, while on the other hand their are multiple genuine sources proving the Pakistani claim. So please stop this, or else, this would take a bad turn. We are both Shia, we should rather respect each other instead of proving each others wrong, Pakistan's total population is 180 million, out of which 96% are Muslims. Hence India is no where near, India's Muslim population is neither more then that of Bangladesh so would please rather focus on the ground reality, instead of firmly standing for your claim. Thanks for adding the picture, i would expect more positive contribution from you now, rather then repeatedly vandalizing the article with third-largest, dubious claim, India larger, and what not. By the way i have added more genuine third-party sources supporting the Shia population claim in Pakistan. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk)

Thanks, finally you agreed to work in co-ordination, nevertheless you have still missed the topic of concern and unfortunately there is no consensus yet. However, after going through the article I can find complete name Indian subcontinent and hence it is not distorted, I am not tagging it. Still there are distortions in historic references about Al Hind which is universally agreed as India and not Pakistan. Further would like to throw light on your statement, that Pakistan is officially NOT recognized as second largest Shia country, where I just have 1 source to prove my claim. My claim is supplemented by '''India's largest Network, Times followed by second largest Network The Indian Express followed by One of the largest ones DNA. India's senior most authority that's India's Premier has agreed so that too in 2005, which was 4 years post last Census held in India.''' None of them are Shias and have no interest to exaggerate the figure. As per India's census in 2001, Muslims were 158 million with BBC quoting 20% Shias, makes the figure in 2001 over 31 million. We had a new Census conducted recently, report is due in 2011. No doubt that Shia figure will hit around 60 million taking Times, Indian Express and DNA's opinion, taking the BBC's account around 36 million or even more anticipating the entire Muslim figure around 180 million or more. Pakistan is over 165 million and not 180 million Muslim. However, I am not tagging this article but have edited the claim over India. Simple suggestion either you include both opinion of 2nd and 3rd largest in this article, because no official figure of Pakistan or any reputed source of Pakistan has claimed it 2nd largest whereas on the other hand I have 5 sources, 3 renowned media group, 1 Prime Minister's and 1 BBC again renowned international Media to supplement my claim with. If you still abstain from including both sources then don't claim over''' India. Please try to think logically, India is 4 times larger than Pakistan, the difference in Muslim population is just due to time difference of Census, India's figure is a decade old now.''' '''Another proof of your ignorance please read the below lines: Bangladesh's Estimated population including all Religion in 2002 was 133,376,684. India's Muslim population 158 million in complete Census of 2001 reported, 1 year before that of Bangladesh.''' You claim India to be no where. Have you completed your Schooling??? That was hilarious to the core for me. Don't trust me??? Here is the link below:

http://www.discoverybangladesh.com/meetbangladesh/statistic.html Another link below, International acclamation India to be second largest Muslim nation: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4235999.stm

About my contribution, I shall keep on adding new sources to improve the article, but with citing authentic sources. I am happy to learn about the facts in this article provided by you other than few disputed ones. Humaliwalay (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)