Talk:Barelvi movement

Guidelines for developing and editing Islam-related Wikipedia articles are at: Wikipedia:MOSISLAM

Beliefs and practices - new edits

I have taken the liberty of reinstituting the edits which I had made some months ago to the "beliefs and practices" section but which were reverted by Msoamu and his army of sockpuppet accounts. I feel it has been long enough and I would now like to explain my rationale behind these edits.

The first change which I have made is to the lead for the overall section. This involves changing the claim that Barelvis base their beliefs on such-and-such to that Barelvis claim to base their beliefs on such sources, just as other sects do as well. The Barelvis are like other subdivisions of Sunni in that the group's status is controversial; thus, what they claim about themselves should not be presented as objective fact, just as is true for Deobandis, Salafis, Ahle Hadith and so forth. Additionally, I have removed the reference to Ash'arism; from what I recall, Msoamu - who was really the only opposition my edits received - could not produce reliable sources stating that any Barelvi scholars follow other than Maturidi theology (which I have added instead of aqidah, which native English speakers won't understand). Similarly, Msoamu was not able to find any instances of a Barelvi following any school of jurisprudence (fiqh in Arabic, also changed) other than Hanafi. As I also established, no Barelvi scholars are documented to have followed the Naqshbandi Sufi order, so that has been removed as well.

The second change is removing the Arabic terminologies from the section about Barelvi beliefs regarding Muhammad. Since this is in accordance with WP:MOSISLAM, I don't expect it to be controversial.

The third change I have made is to remove anything from the "practices" subsection which is sourced by a primary source. As we have seen with Msoamu and Am Not New, the propensity to utilize primary sources is typically to promote a certain viewpoint; often, this viewpoint isn't even less negative or more positive than what is already written in the article, though sometimes it is. While primary sources can be allowed under strict conditions, the controversial nature of this article is proof enough that those conditions do not exist in this case and likely will not any time soon.

The fourth change is the issue of veneration of the dead. Now, the given reliable source (globalsecurity is not reliable as has been established on the appropriate noticeboard and hence has been removed) does not delve into Barelvi beliefs on the issue on the page given in the source. It's a reliable source but I read page 149 and didn't find what is being cited. I have left it out of good faith because the source is reliable and perhaps what I read recently was a different addition. Regardless, about sources. Almost all sources mention that Barelvis see their practices at graves/shrines as praying to God through the dead in addition to venerating those shrines as special places due to the piety of the saints who occupy them. Every reliable source also mentions that the opponents of Barelvis view this as polytheistic and that Barelvis are - as quoted by many of these sources - "tomb worshippers." Such language obviously isn't appropriate, but neither is the current version where it is simply phrased as seeking intercession; in both cases, a certain view would be presented. Instead of letting the subsection become an ideological battleground, it's better to just sidestep the issue and relate the practice to what is very obvious upon scrutiny of the veneration of the dead article: a common human spirutal behavior which is evident across numerous cultures which had no contact with one another at the times in which they developed said spiritual behavior. Note that this isn't claiming that Barelvi practices are the same as what people of other religions do; it's simply an issue of terminology. It's the most neutral way to phrase it, and the Arabic phrase currently used is obviously inappropriate per WP:MOSISLAM. The issue of saying that the Sufi saints ultimately intercede on behalf of the individual with God is also a clear violation of WP:NPOV as it presents religious belief with fact; that is a huge, glaring issue that absolutely cannot remain.

The last change is the beard issue. In short: Msoamu, again the main opposition, agreed with my point, but his bad English and combative nature prevented him from seeing that. I'm not saying bad as an insult, but having once taught English as a second language at a large, public university in Asia for a period of four years, I can objectively say someone's English skills are bad without it being personal. He attempted to counter my edit by providing a primary source - again, unacceptable - which Msoamu claimed portrayed Barelvi belief regarding a man's beard in a less negative way. The thing is, it was the same thing; the primary source which Msoamu provided which was a fatwa by the movement's founder referred to men who shave a being fasiq. My version mentions that Barelvis view men who trim the beard as sinners and who shave as committing an abominable act. Fasiq comes from the Arabic work fisq, which is how you refer to bankers who embezzle millions of dollars or drunkards and gamblers. If anything, my version is actually a lot less harsh, and it is actually supported by a reliable source. For all Msoamu's clamoring about Arun Shourie, no bias or lack of reliability on Shourie's part was ever proven. The fact that a primary source confirms what is in that one only strengthens the case which I am making.

I apologize for the frequent mention of other users, but because almost all of the opposition came to a small group of sockpuppet accounts I feel the need to respond. So far, the improvements I have been making to this article have been well-received and I don't think it's disingenuous to make mention of that. I await responses to the latest edit from others concerned with this article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that Special:Contributions/119.154.11.196 reverted the recent edits via this diff, stating in the edit summary: "rv to last revision by Qwyrxian............POV push.against senctions.effort to make page non neutral." I don't think it would be assuming bad faith to state that, after everything multiple users have witnessed here, the language matches the common method of writing used by the sockpuppet accounts which were recently banned after an SPI. Suffice to say that while it's possible my edits are not entirely correct - I am human and I err - the reality is that these accounts and the person behind them never brought any policy-based opposition and this instance hasn't been any different. If this happens again, I will simply revert again, though if there are real, actual, policy-based reasons against my edit then by all means they should be discussed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear MezzoMezzo, the Beliefs and Practices section is now stronger with your edits. I suspect that we might soon see a wave of new attacks, but I hope not. Thank you for a very thorough explanation. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The last change on Barelvi article is a clear violation of WP:POV.Your accusation and changes not supported by a single source and is just Conspiracy of your mind.The changes of a large amount of text to a sensitive topic like beliefs removal of a large amount of contents against sources, an effort to make it lessinformative show this movement in bad light.you are relating this movement to other terms is clear violation of nutral point of view.*YOU CANNOT CHANGE TEXT ACCORDING TO YOUR WILL.*

You changed the word asking awliya for help to vernation of dead.Barelvi believe in wasila (intermediation) not in vernation of dead which is a completly different term.Your effort to change text asking awliya for help to vernation of dead is a violation of WP:POV and against sources.you removed a lot of text as well.the word that Barelvi base thier beliefs on quran and sunnah is complety nutral.the removal that contents is only only to show this movement in bad way and represent wahabi mindset.The change the wording of sentences in beliefs (a very very senitive topic).i am sorry to say that your wording is not nutral,making contents less informative and of course against sources. You removed a lot of data as primary sources.Am Not New's contents was supported by sources(wether it is primary or whatever) your accusation is not even supported by a single source.you have not done anything to refute them.you cannot remove them without reason.You further changes to bound barelvis by only hanafi school of law warrent sources.

and Now don,t believe that some users have gone and you will change this topic according to your will.it shows a clear violation WP:POV.You will find many more there.194.44.108.164 (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Are you Msoamu or Am Not New? Because you must be one of those users, as you can't tell that Am Not New added some rubbish (neutrality didn't come into it; it was just garbage) and that MezzoMezzo has added pro-Barelvi views/information as well as those that aren't so pro-Barelvi. That's the whole point of NPOV - to have a balanced article, which this is close to. You don't provide a single source to support your stance, which is ironic, given the entire stance of your text. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, Lukeno94, it seems this is Msoamu or Am Not New. The appalling spelling and the antagonistic and accusatory tone are the same. What a rant! Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting how a very different IP then made the reversion, using exactly the same language and such as the above IP. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for a month, and will extend that longer if the problem resolves. IPs, I'm certain you are either Msoamu or CGUS or whichever or those recent socks we've been dealing with. You have to understand: blocked means blocked. It does not mean that you can edit as an IP. And I'm sure that if I wanted to I could track down which of the blocked editors you are, but there shouldn't be any reason I have to bother. You cannot edit. If you want to edit, make an unblock request with your main account, acknowledging what was wrong with your previous behavior and how you intend to edit differently in the future. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Qwyrxian,I was neither Dil-e-Muslim nor I was any I.P.I did not use any IP for editing after my Ban.I am sorry for my acts and will not do so in future.I don't have right to say sorry for this mega fault but again Im sorry specially to You.Msoamu (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

how is "seeking intercession" not appropriate?..i don't believe linking to the article "veneration of the dead" is appropriate seeing that article page has yet to even have an islamic section..why also remove arabic phrases? sticking to wikipedia guidelines its per label policy not POV..basically your saying that stating barelvi beliefs is not following NPOV guidelines. Arabic terms auliya and ziyarat must be re-included in the article. Baboon43 (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding veneration of the dead, then my rationale is above. Whether there is yet an Islamic section isn't relevant to this section here in this article per WP:OTHERSTUFF. I uphold the translation of Arabic terms into English per Wikipedia:MOSISLAM#Translation. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

there's nothing wrong with adding brackets for arabic terms. this is needed for informational purposes Baboon43 (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You make a very good point. You've pulled me onto the fence, though perhaps feedback from more than just the two of us would form a definite consensus. As far as I know, WP:MOSISLAM states that translation takes precedence but there's nothing prohibiting the inclusion of original Arabic terms. Are there any objections to including this? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead - new edits

Returning the final round of edits which I had originally instated, I have now modified the lead to better reflect what is already available in reliable sources both in the article itself and the article for Ahmed Raza Khan.

First, I mention that Bareilly is the hometown of the movement's founder, not merely a leader. Msoamu fought hard against this with his sockpuppet account Shabiha both here and on the article for that founder. He lost over there when other concerned editors noticed that I brought, I think it was eight separate reliable sources all referring to the man as the founder. Four of them are already included below, and I have included four in the lead in case Msoamu or anyone else tries to dispute this fact again. The movement has several main leaders, but its founder should be denoted as such due to his significance to the movement. For the life of me, I can't imagine why there's such a problem with mentioning this.

I also returned the fact that Barelvism formed specifically as a reaction to Deobandism; the sources already present in the lead mention this very clearly, and I could bring many more if other editors find that necessary. Again, I don't know why Msoamu opposed mentioning this so much - it's in reliable sources, and a quick glance at any Barelvi websites will show that most of their polemical discussion focuses on Deobandis.

I hope that this is found acceptable to my fellow editors. Obviously, all editors are free to contribute and make their own changes, so the case is by no means closed on this article. I, however, have finished pretty much all the original edits for which I spent hours researching and which various sockpuppet accounts removed in bad faith. So, I will likely relegate my own status here to merely monitoring POV-pushing, much like most of the other concerned editors. I do hope, however, that we can at least form a new consensus for the time being. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed Faizan 07:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear MezzoMezzo, I am once again grateful for your efforts and explanation. I agree with your approach. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

on your second point i believe Msoamu is trying to say that because deobandi is mentioned in every paragraph its clogging up the article. Baboon43 (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It's mentioned wherever the reliable sources mention it. This shouldn't come as a surprise considering that Barelvism is a reaction to Deobandism. Similarly, Ash'arism formed as a reaction to the Mu'tazila and hence references to the Mu'tazila are all over that article too. That's not an actual reason per WP:OTHERSTUFF; I am merely drawing an analogy. The actual reason is WP:RS, and the lack of violation of WP:UNDUE. A movement formed as a reaction to another movement will have frequent mention of the latter movement in it's (the former movement's) own article frequently, that shouldn't come as a surprise. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Free Hand to Personal POV

To all admin ,I am really sorry for my other accounts.In future and in present I will not use any thing like that.The absence created by my Ban seems to have given someone a chance to edit this highly Important Article from his own Point of view.While I was mistakenly associated with other user I.D ,Mezzmezzo seems to be very much interested in editing each and every thing in this Article. In many points one side of the story is inserted and he went on editing with out any oppose. In some cases like this-

• Ahmed Raza is Founder,this is opinion not fact.This is already written and insisted by you but to make it more biased and to prove it a newsect you trying to add it in lead section.
• It is again Wahabi /Deobandi POV that movement developed as reaction to Deobandi reformist attempts-mentioned in the Article already so why adding in lead section.Means that this Article should be shown from Deobandi/Salafi/Wahabi POV . Don't my fellow editors see that each heading has Deobandism/Ahle Hadis mentioned?

Is it a comparison Article? or a neutral Article? Why one single person that too with history of making Sufi oriented pages in bad light,trying to mention the opposition movements like Deobandism/Ahle Hadith/Wahabism each and every where in this Article?

• He removed many things from belief section added his OR and POV that Barelvis venerate Dead.This is pathetic on his part.Now Whole Article seems to be written from critics point of view.Msoamu (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Msoamu, are you unable to see that multiple editors - including some whom have not been in the dispute - agree that MezzoMezzo's edit is neutral? You still don't provide any reliable sources for your opinion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Dear Msoamu, I agree with Lukeno94 that you see conspiracies that do not exist. You may not agree with MezzoMezzo's edits, but to accuse him of POV violations / bias every day is really inappropriate. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

i get whats wrong with it but can you provide what you think should be put in place for each of your points or are you saying it should be removed. Baboon43 (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with it. These are the words of multiple experts on the subject published in reliable sources. The only problem is formed by Msoamu's competence issue per Wikipedia:Competence#Bias-based. He needs to work on that first before trying to express himself, because it's clear here that the issue is Msoamu's personal opinion vs. the testimony of half a dozen reliable sources. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

veneration??

the line doesnt make it clear that its veneration towards saints not any dead person. Baboon43 (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Common-sense applies here, Baboon43. The meaning is clear. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

More rationale is provided in the "Beliefs and practices - new edits " section here on this talk page as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

change it to veneration of graves or deceased saints. Baboon43 (talk)

That actually sounds like it could be clearer...I take it the concern is that a reader might leave the article thinking that Barelvis venerate just any Joe Schmoe rather than those who were known for piety during life, right? I think you could be on to something, though from my understanding - you might have more insight than I - the Barelvis don't venerate the grave itself. Would it work if we phrase it as "veneration of the dead, specifically those who lead pious/righteous lives"? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

yes not only for accuracy but to prevent angry pro barelvi ip's from edit-warring because they misunderstood the wording. Baboon43 (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes the suggested wording is excellent.George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright...I guess I'll go change it now. Let's see if this can stem the tide of angry IPs, at least against the subsection in question. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait, Gorge already did it. Good call. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Fatwa against Terrorism - deleted section

I have taken the liberty of moving the valid material from the aforementioned section down to the "Opposition to the Taliban" subsection, for a few reasons. The first and most obvious reason is WP:UNDUE; the section was inserted by a sockpuppet of a user who had a drawer full of them, so we can conclude that Wikipedia:Assume good faith doesn't apply here. Based on the statements of that user (Trust on ALLAH), his socks, and another user who attacked this article with socks, it seems that they felt this article was slanted against the movement in a negative way. Community consensus as shown on multiple ANI threads, however, was that those editors and their socks were edit warring to slant the article for the movement in a positive way. The entire section seems an attempt to advertise the message: "Hey, Western world! We're totally against terrorism unlike the Muslim movements we oppose! See look we have a fatwa against terrorism!"

And it's obviously undue weight, because there are already sections here for the Barelvi movement and its relation to the Taliban and other Muslim movements. There is no reason at all to give this specific viewpoint of some of the movement's leaders more weight than their other viewpoints.

Alright, second problem: it mentions that Abul Irfan Mian Firangi Mahali is a Sunni scholar who issued a fatwa against Zakir Naik for Naik's support of OBL. Here's the thing, though...after searching all morning, I can not find any evidence that Mahali is a Barelvi. In fact, the only mention of him at all is this fatwa against Naik in which he is referred to as Sunni. The unfortunate problem with Child star grown up, Am Not New, Shabiha et al. is that they deny the fact that rival Sunni movements are Sunni; by saying that Salafis, Deobandis, Ahle Hadith etc. aren't Sunni, or by saying that Barelvi is a synonym for Sunni, they are surreptitiously implying that all non-Barelvis are unorthodox heretics. In more honest movements, Msoamu actually proclaimed that openly with his sock account Shabiha. Thus the fact that Mahali is mentioned as a Sunni and from India doesn't necessitate his being a Barelvi. With that in mind, I am taking the liberty of removing all references to him in this article. Perhaps it can be inserted in the Zakir Naik article, if it isn't already there.

Lastly, there is the statement of the Barelvi sheikh Naeemi with two sources and two statements - one from Al Jazeera and one from the Daily Times. While the wording which Am Not New doesn't reflect this, both articles and Naeemi's comments contained therein focused solely on the Taliban. We already have a subsection in this article for Barelvite relations with the Taliban, so why isn't this there? With all of this in mind, I will undertake the suggested edits and wait to see community response. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

we can't conclude what motives users had just because they used sock puppets..barelvis indeed are less radical then most of their opponents especially the deobandi."The Barelvis have not been significantly associated with terrorism in India, and have been systematically targeted by Deobandi terrorist groups in Pakistan".-world almanac of islamism

something else to keep in mind is that barelvi claims largest suni movement in south east asia..anyone against wahabism and has some sort of sufi leaning is labeled a barelvi….barelvism represents the sunni-sufi establishment that was considered orthodox for a long time & is much older then the reformist ideologies that sprung up few years later..academics have bundled non reformists as barelvis in that sense..therefore barelvi can be seen as synonym to sunni of ottoman era..& if those users you mentioned above are barelvis then I'm sure their belief would characterize opponents such as deobandi and ahle hadiths as unbelievers. Baboon43 (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right, sockpuppetry alone isn't enough. What is enough, though, is repeated edit warring via sockpuppetry and the dishonesty Am Not New/Trust of ALLAH displayed throughout all the SPIs. We can absolutely see the demonstrated motives through that.

As for the other info, then I would have to largely disagree based on the sources in the articles involved. According to many analysts, Barelvis aren't less violent than other groups, though the matter is controversial. As for labeling anyone against Wahhabism with some kind of Sufism being labeled Barelvi, then that isn't true; Deobandis are against Wahhabism as well, and belong to Sufi orders. Additionally, many Indian Sufis aren't members of either movement, thus we can't say that an Indain Sufi is automatically part of a movement by default...were that the case, there would be no need to signify them as distinct movements. So how can Barelvism be older than the movements which started later if Barelvism itself is only about a hundred years old? No academics have ever bundled all non-reformist as Barelvis that I have seen in the hours I spent researching the edits on this article; they all recognize it as a movement with a definite origin, hence its name. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)