Template talk:Barelvi

Unsigned comment
'N' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.228.157.194 (talk) 11:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Why this templete?
Why this templete?

Barelvi is a degrading term used by only wahabi/deobandi/pegans.Otherwise they're almost always referred as Sunni. The second thing i noted that "barelvis" are referred as Hanafis,actually,i know many who're Shafa'i etc.Barelvi is not a movement but original Sunni'ism.Indian-Pakistani sunnis can't be called barelvi because they are hard in opposing wahabis.Even many sunnis in Arab world have given fatawa that wahabis are deviant.

Third thing: Why only Imam Ahmad Raza,why not Sahaba (R.A.Aj)?

Look at salafi(written by wahabi PoV),Sahabah (R.A.Aj) are listed as followers of wahabi movement [AstaghfiruLLAH!!!]

Contribs    Muslim Editor     Talk  10:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, I don't think the term Barelvi is degrading. But regardless, the term is widely accepted and used in scholarship and the media. If you have problems with the Wahhabi or Salafi pages, please go ahead and edit there, as it is not related to this template. And feel free to make a salafi or Ahle Hadeeth template, as it would be very useful! --Urduboy (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what do you want prove by posting blank links
 * Tell Me why didn't you made a wahabi portal?
 * Contribs    Muslim Editor     Talk  19:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Blank links? Please explain. They seem to work fine for me. And the reason why I didn't make a wahhabi portal is because I don't have time to do everything! I did however make Template:Deobandi. But please go ahead and make a wahabi/salafi portal, as I think there should be one. --Urduboy (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly speaking,i don't know how to make a postal/template.
 * And your both links says:
 * your search -barelvi- could not be completed....
 * Contribs    Muslim Editor     Talk  12:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorrectly formed TFD template
An incorrectly formatted TFD template has been added to the page which is not understandable. I have removed it from the article page and pasted it below:

Please correct it before adding to article page again. --Urduboy (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Photo
I feel that the photo, in its current size, is a bit large and takes up much of the pages in which the template is featured. Is it possible to shrink it a bit? (Don't ask me, I'm hopelessly uninformed in regard to image issues.) MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

POV charged inspiration section
I am being bold and removing the "inspired by" section added by a sockpuppet account this April. The reason is that the three individuals there are claimed as inspiration by rival Sunni movements in South Asia, namely the Deobandis and, in the case of Shah Waliullah, also the Ahl al Hadith. Templates should not become a platform for pushing POV, in this case posturing for legitimacy against other religious movements. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For your Kind information these scholars in inspired section are highly respected by Sunni Barelvis.Imam Ahmed Rida Qadri has mentioned their writings Fatwas and faith in his books and Fatwas.if any wahabi likes these pure Sufi Shaikhs and Sunni scholars for any so called hidden purpose then Barelvi Sunni can't say that these are their shaikhs.There is cleary written in Deobandi Article that it was inspired by Shah waliullah (though that is not the case) but if they think and they take inspiration from him then no one can stop them taking inspirations.Sunni Barelvis can't stop Wahabi Ahle haa-dis in inspiration matter.You are wrongly Bold.It is simply Sunnis (Barelvi) faith and beliefs to whom they choose for inspirations.

Common Points/Reason of Inspirations-
 * Hazrat Shaikh Abdul Haq Muhaddis Dehlavi in his book ‘Masabt bil-Sunnah’
 * Imam Shah Wali-ullah Muhaddis Dehlavi in ‘Fayooz-ul-Harmain’ has mentioned the importance of Mawlid.A Global Sunni Practice approved by majority of Islamic scholars on similar line Imam Ahmed Raza Khan supported it.Opposed fiercely by modern day Salafis,Ahle Haa-dis and Deobandis means by all Wahabism.All the mentioned links follow and are associated with this pious movement.Msoamu (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Shah Bano case-Their spokesmen were Obaidullah Khan Azmi and Syed kazi. They had formed an organization in 1973...You removed with out reading the names of Sunni leaders of India Obaidullah Khan Azmi and Syed kazi.These people were the main leaders in this movement and in your biased approach you even did not try to read what is written in Shah Bano Case.Read about Azmi Maulana Obaidullah Khan and know about him Who actually he is?


 * From now ,If you will remove any thing you will have to prove that they are not Sunni Barelvi.This is common rule.Burden lies on you.Msoamu (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No. The burden of proof is on you. And every single person watching these articles will agree with me. I'm done going in circles with you. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear (talk) Naqshbandi are in Barelvis I am myself a Naqshbandi and belief to be a part of the Barelvi movement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.157.214.141 (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your personal claims are irrelevant; no reliable sources have established a link between Barelvism and Naqshbandism at all across the past three years when the issue was first discussed with the sockpuppets above. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2015
2607:FB90:C9B:EC3A:8E94:2027:C3E8:C617 (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2015 (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. --Stabila711 (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

flippin burgers is best
The individual said that it has Nahdul organization has nothing to do with barelvi. If you are not familiar with islamic organizations then it is better to sit on the sidelines. The edits are indeed very disruptive Malaylampur (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a better solution: I'm going to continue removing any organization without provable, reliably cited links to this movement, and if you add it again I'm going to report you for disruptive editing. If you continue this way, you WILL end up losing in the end. Please review the Civility policy as your edit summary was just a caps lock-on flame. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You will end up getting in serious trouble and your account will be folded. Malaylampur (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Removing Nahdlatul Ulama
About the so-called association of NU with the Barelvi movement, the cited source says: ... their [Barelwis and Naqshbandis] practice of Sufism may be compared to that of the Indonesian Nahdlatul Ulama. Note the careful formulation "may be compared". Also note that the only thing even remotely comparable, according to this quote, is the "practice of Sufism". It is only this tiny fragment of NU's ideology that may show some similarity to the Barelvi/Naqshbandi view on Sufism. This does not warrant an entire association of two movements, that have not been reported to be similar in any other way. Ergo, I am removing NU from this template, as MezzoMezzo had rightly done so earlier.

PS. References/citations should not be present in a template, so that has to go anyway. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * First discuss and get consensus before reverting. If you dont like the refs why not just remove it? You are edit warring on multiple pages for some time now. Learn to discuss the edits. They are both sufi organizations and have collaborated on numerous occasions. Its amusing that you participated in the talk here but wouldnt do so on the other page. Also your attempt to sidetrack the issue by issuing a report against me on unrelated things is petty to say the least. I dont have time for games.  Malaylampur (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have discussed the reasons behind my edits right here, while you failed to discuss your reversions. Since nobody objected here, I assumed there was consensus in favour of removal (see WP:Silence and consensus). Now finally you have come with some "sort" of argument in favour of associating Barlevis with Nahdlatul Ulama. However, I would love to see a source that shows them having "collaborated on numerous occasions". Go convince us with sources that these two organisation are so very closely related. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Both movements are traditionalists . Various sources point to this. If you are not familiar with any of the movements. Why bother editing and disputing well known facts. Much like Nahdlatul ulama, Barelvi is hostile towards wahabist elements. Hence both movements use the term Ahlul sunna wal jama . The only compromise I can come up with is that we agree to remove this edit in favour of retaining the see also section on nahdlatul ulama's main page. Since you deem it appropriate to intertwine both articles. I propose a better wording then "similar ideology" perhaps other "tradtionalist sunni" Malaylampur (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well finally, a good and well-argumented idea. If only you had mentioned the traditionalist and anti-wahabbism points earlier... For what it's worth, I am half Indonesian, so I know my share about Nahdlatul Ulama and I can assure you that Sufism only forms a tiny part of the organisation. Hopefully you understand why an association based on possibly comparable Sufism seemed like a no-go. Traditionalism and the origins as a reactionary movement to reformism, are much more important factors in the movement's ideology. Replacing the vague "similar ideology" by a more specific term sounds good to me ("NU/Bar, an Indonesian/Pakistani traditionalist movement formed in reaction to Wahabbism" on their respective pages?). On a sidenote, please do realise that "Ahl as-Sunna wal-Jama'ah" is how all Sunni Muslims are officially referred to in Arabic. In short: delete from the Barelvi template and keep+change the wording in the See also sections. - HyperGaruda (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed with your proposal. Please note that the only reason these two organizations are mentioned at most is not only for their similar formation but that they are in the same continent. Malaylampur (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Indian Grand Mufti
This is a notice that I’m removing Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar from this template due to lack of evidence of him adhering to the Barelvi movement. There is no explicit evidence of the individual being a Barelvi, so claiming him as such is a violation of policies on biographies of living persons. Per WP:BLPCAT: Because the person has never identified himself as a Barelvi, and the three sources on his article using the term only refer to other people, it’s not acceptable to label him as any belief system for which he hasn’t labeled himself. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ” Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.”


 * I am adding him because Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar is leading scholar of Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat or Barelvi. More over, his appointment on the post of Grand Mufti was done by All India Tanzeem Ulama-e-Islam. This is clear from his article. All India Tanzeem Ulama-e-Islam is an org of Indian Sunni Muslims. The term Barelvi is not used by the scholars of Ahle Sunnat movement, as discussed on Barelvi page recently. The scholars identifies themselves with  the terms Ahle Sunnat/ Sunni Scholar or more clearly Sufi Sunni. In order to be neutral, you have to find evidence with both the terms Sunni or Barelvi as discussed on Barelvi/ Ahle Sunnat Movement talk page. ScholarM (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * How is that clear in the article? There’s absolutely no proof that the man is a part of the Barelvi movement. Just look at the wiki page, and then please read WP:BLPCAT. If he’s not known to have ascribed himself, or been ascribed by reliable sources, as a given religious movement, then we can’t ascribe him to such movements here on Wikipedia. From Biographies of living persons:
 * ” Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.”
 * The emphasis is from the original policy article, not from me. You’ve not provided any evidence of him belonging to any group other than Sunni Islam, which is very general and broad. As soon as a reliable source linking him to the Barelvi movement, or any other movement, can be found, then great, let’s use the source. Until then, this attribution must be removed per site policy. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This BBC source and TOI source proves Shaikh Abubacker Ahmad, his followers and his organisations are part of Ahle Sunnat or Barelvi movement in India. This Grand Mufti of India article states that All India Tanzeem Ulema e Islam (Sunni Barelwi org) appointed him as grand Mufti for all Sunni Barelvis. These sources proves his association with the movement and now you please disprove that Shaikh Abubaker Ahmad is not part of Ahle Sunnat Barelvi movement before removing the article and read WP:BLPCOI to understand that more generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all. ScholarM (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * and, here is the source for Kanrhapuram being barelvi.
 * Thank you user:Youbat because the MEMRI source is quite clear and should also be in Musliyar’s page.
 * user:ScholarM, the TOI source actually doesn’t provide evidence of Musliyar being Barelvi because there is no explicit statement. This is a teachable moment because you haven’t seemed to understand WP:BLP so far. I’ll also take this opportunity to remind you of Civility. You have no evidence of what my views of any person are, positive or negative, and you need to drop this attack you’ve made across multiple articles of just speculating about my beliefs rather than focusing on site policies. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * user:Youbat, thank you for providing above source. Hope Mezzmezzo will find time to search before removing the articles. I had already established that Shaikh Abubacker Ahmad is associated with the movement. Hope he will not disrupt this template further and other pages also. Mezzo, your sudden removal of sources and content were bad faith edits and that shows your like and dislike so you should be cautious of WP:BLPCOI. ScholarM (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * User:ScholarM, please refrain from accusations of disruption and bad faith. You and I had a Content dispute here on this template, and you were required to perform a proper search before adding Musliyar to this list per WP:ONUS. Per WP:BLP, I wasn’t required to perform the search before removing his name from this template; per that policy, for living persons, contentious unsourced content is removed immediately and sources can be found later (as I already stated above). Focus on content, not personalities. Your continued baseless accusations against me, as well as your unfounded presumptions about my private beliefs, is a breach of Civility and is even bordering on a violation of No personal attacks. I highly suggest that you review Assume good faith. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Serious verification fails and POV pushing
I'm writing this to note a few things. First, a number of verification checks on articles placed on this template failed; that is, individuals and organizations listed here weren't found to actually be a part of the Barelvi movement. Secondly, I suspect that a large part of it is due to the POV pushing by ScholarM, a now blocked user who extensively edited this template in violation of an indefinite topic ban covering this subject area. I'm going to begin checking the entire template to verify if the listed people and organizations are actually Barelvis because this is becoming a trend on any articles which were edited in violation of said topic ban (which is now starting to make a lot of sense). I'm not expecting this to be a fast process, and help would be very much welcome. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)