Talk:Barelwi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In case, cogent reasons are not there for existence of two pages for the same topic with different spellings, pages should be merged by creating a redirection link. --Bhadani 15:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Merge is appropriate. Lots of other spellings for this group, Brelvis, Bareilawis, etc.

• Merge, but merge TO this article. Most of the English-language works that mention Barelwis use this spelling; Brelvi is a close second. BTW, we need much fuller descriptions of Barelwis and Deobandis and the rivalry between them. Zora 12:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge, but it needs much deeper description (not only diferences wuth Deoban) Abdullah mk 00:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• This page includes less facts about Barelwies and more Wahhabi propoganda. It is full of POV by Wahhabies. While the Fatwa by Barelwies against Wahhabies is shown as their bigotry, the fatwa of Wahhabies against them is shown as some kind of a fact. The main disagreement between Wahhabies and Barelwies is celebration of Maulood and my news link of Wahhabi suicide bomber killing Barewlies celebrating maulood is removed by a Wahhabi editor.Hassanfarooqi 19:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Removed vandalism by User:ItaqallahHassanfarooqi 05:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

you may wish to worry about your own vandalism first, such as on my user talk page which was accompanied by a personal attack. if you continue like that in the future, although you have a long history of personal attacks and incivility, you will be reported. you should cease tendentious editing and attempting to purge all criticism from this page except when using pejorative terms to describe opposition. ITAQALLAH 17:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You reap what you sow. If you continue to vandalize pages that do not confirm to Wahhabi ideology, then you will be called a vandal.Hassanfarooqi 22:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

if "vandalsm" equates to undoing blatant whitewashing, then yes i am a vandal, as are the majority of Wikipedians. you may wish to tone down your aggressive rhetoric before you are reprimanded for it. ITAQALLAH 22:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Oil power speaks, I have been reprimanded. Congratulations for your victory. You got to remember the history. You people had hijcked Islam before and it was temporary. This time again you have won but time will agains show a Nejdi victory against Hejaz as temporary againHassanfarooqi 01:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Had to remove Wahhabi propoganda by User:Itaqallah once again. He seems to be fanatically obsessed against Barelwis. Retains his propoganda links though Hassanfarooqi 23:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Defence of peacful schools of thought against Wahhabi jihad continues. Quote from Allama Shami's Radd-ul-Mukhtar about the first Wahhabi wave, "The state of the followers of Ibn Abdul Wahhab was like this, they rose from Nejd and attacked our holy cities Mecca and Medina in Hejaz. They killed everyone who did not confirm to Ibn Abdul Wahhab. Then Allah send the Armies of Muslims to push them back to Nejd". Rest assured it seems until oil runs dry in Saudi Arabia, the second wave of violent Wahhabi jihad against peaceful muslims would continue.Hassanfarooqi 01:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

so much for that secularism you claim to uphold.. :/ ITAQALLAH 02:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think User:Itaqallah's version is more NPOV as it clearly states what each side thinks of the other. The links need classification though. Right now, it's an amorphous mass of pro and anti sites.--Nkv 17:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is still full of Wahhabi POV and anti-Barelwi propoganda. It has very little secular information for the readers about the Barelwi movement. Watch out for the POV words like "Self Proclaimed".

Perhaps you should edit them out then? --Nkv 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you see much words in the article "Wahhabism"?

In spirit, yes. "The Wahhabis claim to hold to the way of the Salaf as-Salih, the pious predecessors..." which is self proclamation. Perhaps it's more mildly worded.--Nkv 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No way, all reference that I made about Wahhabies coming into power with the help of British was removed without giving any reason. Those references were from western pro Arab historians/biographers like David Holden. See his book "The House of Saud".

Reinstate them and if you have concrete references, we'll put them in there. --Nkv 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about anti-Wahhabies like Stephen Schwartz or Pipes. Also watch quotation marks around words blasphemous when quoting Barelwis. These quotes do not appear around words coming from Wahhabies.

I see quotes around the work Shirk in the Wahabi page. But really, I think you're overreacting. Let's separate concerns. I can't stand Wahabi ideology one bit but in the interest of keeping wikipedia accurate, let's just state everyones views as accurately as possible (using the talk pages to resolve disputes) and leave it at that rather than accusing people of editorial slant. --Nkv 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I tell you man, Wahhabies are brain washed to not tolerate any Non-Wahhabi. They can not be secular. It is against their very basic training.170.35.208.22 13:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No "religious" person can be "secular". I expect the wahabi minded editors on wikipedia to defend their points of view on all articles and I expect the non wahabis (traditional sunni muslims if you prefer) to defend theirs. There will be a little ruckus and then things will settle down to something which both parties (perhaps grudgingly agree upon). --Nkv 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you have said so far except this one. I have been with people of many religions and found their intellectuals are always secular in research e.g. Jehovah's witness are very very fundamentalist Christians. However their research about Islam is very secular as printed in their paper. Their conclusion is not secular ofcourse. Then you can read "Christian Science Monitor" which is also a very fundamentalist organization's paper. You can not point a finger on their secular research. Again, their POV appears seperately. I am a staunch fundamentalist Muslim (fundamentalist meaning sticking to fundamentals as foundation and building over it, not sticking to fundamentals and destroy all construction over it). However I am certified in studies of Old Testament and the new Testaments and have done a lot of faith sharing to form my own knowledge about Jews and Christians, not what the Mullah told me when I was a kid.Hassanfarooqi 19:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

With respect to this article, can you list down all the items which you think compromise it's NPOV? We'll then work on them one by one and try to come up with a neutral and good article. If you do this, I'll invite ITAQALLAH to take part in the discussion. Above all, let's try to keep a cool head and just neutrally state the facts as best we can. Wassalam. --Nkv 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a perfect example. You have categorized AFSA people as Barelvies. It is because you consider all non-Wahhabies as Barelvies. AFSA people are by no means Barelvies. Shaikh Hasham probable can not even tell where in the world Bareli is!Hassanfarooqi 15:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The User who is removing Concepts and Aqedda links should Know that he may be Blocked from Editing wikipedia.! shabiha