Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:29, 5 April 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barelvi movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Islam Start‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barelvi movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.

Usage of proper terms

It is called Twassuf to describe intercession in Islam and Dihkr for devotional chants sometimes drums are involved.Lagoonaville (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Lagoonaville, I presume you mean Tawassul? It doesn't have the narrow meaning you ascribe to it. See the Misplaced Pages page on Tawassul. And Dhikr has a much fuller and richer meaning than merely devotional chants, as its Misplaced Pages page also shows. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you say barelvis are not doing tawassul? Lagoonaville (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

They do, with a FAR fuller meaning than you ascribe. The previous wording was preferred by an editor consensus. Stick to that. By the way, the source hosted at: https://www.academia.edu/7643961/Anti-Americanism_in_Indonesia_and_Pakistan is merely an unpublished memo titled “Americanism in Indonesia and Pakistan” to participants in a Duke Anti Americanism Workshop from Christopher Candland. It’s hardly a reliable source. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The Barelvi website is very clear: http://www.alahazrat.net/islam/waseela.php" Tawassul should be added. Veneration wording links to an unknown page. Lagoonaville (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That is certainly NOT a reliable, authoritative, and neutral third-party source. Two good sets of Misplaced Pages guidelines that I have found really useful can be found HERE and HERE. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Being "neutral" doesnt apply here. It is one of their websites and that is their wording of the specific practice. The source is clear of the fact that its not just the deceased persons that intercede but also living. Please take a look at the discussion here : https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Barelvi" Lagoonaville (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Would a post on a local Anglican-affiliated website (of unproven official authority) be a good source for establishing a certain official Church of England doctrine? Clearly not. It doesn't make sense to me to use your source to prove a Barelvi doctrine. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not a blog. What is intercession in Islamic terms? The rest of the practices seem to be linking to the correct terminology "zikr mawlid etc Lagoonaville (talk)

Read my amended question. Please establish that this site is an OFFICIAL site expressing official doctrines. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I dont believe you have done any research on this group. If indeed your are trying to play devils advocate, I dont have thee time. The websites about us section clearly dedicates the website to this movement. Lagoonaville (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't get personal. How do you know that I'm not Barelvi? A website's dedication to a movement does NOT make it a reliable source on that movement. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You have not answered any of my questions. Lagoonaville (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You have not addressed the issue I raised. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lagoonaville:, you're being beliggerent and uncooperative. The way things stand now, any attempts by you to alter the article from the previous consensus will be reverted. You will not achieve whatever goal you have without being polite and collegial with other editors. It might be a good idea to take a day or two off, relax, and come back when you're ready to work with the community at large. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like there is no objection to my reliable source. Lagoonaville (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You'll just get reverted if you edit against consensus. Bromley86 (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I have provided reliable source https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#tbm=bks&q=+Barelvi+Islam+is+closely+tied+to+devotion+to+pirs+and+belief+in+their+powers+of+intercession+(wasilah)" Lagoonaville (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Bear in mind I'm no expert in this; I was just offering a friendly warning. In that vein, making a case is better done by making a case, point by point, with specific cites and page refs, rather than that sort of linking. Bromley86 (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW, you can wrap external links in square brackets, which can make a case easier to follow. Bromley86 (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• • • Sources insupport of barelvi practicing tawassul or waseela***

'"Barelvi Islam is closely tied to the devotion to pirs and belief in their powers of intercession (wasilah)"'. State and ideology in the Middle East and Pakistan. Page 84

"Darul Uloom (Pretoria) was the first fully-fledged Barelwi madrasah. It was established in 1989, at a time when the Deobandi-Barelwi confclit in South Africa was at its peaks. During the 1980s, Deobandi attacks had heightened against popular Sufi practices such as the visitation to shrines of Sufi saints, the celebration of Muhammad’s birth (mawlid), and against beliefs in the intercession of saints (tawassul)"' Muslim Schools and E'ducation in Europe and South Africa).page 76

"According to Barelwi scholar, Muhammad is no mere mortal. He possesses ‘ilm al-ghayb (knowledge of the unknown) and is the primary focus for tawassul (intercession) with God". Encyclopaedia of Islam.page 88

'"Barelvis believe in the wasilah (higher standing or great religious status) of dead saints and their brakkah (spiritual power, blessings, holiness), to be found in their shrines". Islamic Fundamentalism in Pakistan, Egypt and Iran. page 399

• • • Source in support of Barelvi & Nahdlatul Ulama being similar movement

"The only reformist school which has vindicated the full Sufi heritage, is that of the Barelwis who have been joined by the Naqshbandis; their practice of Sufism may be compared to that of the Indonesian Nathdlatul Ulama.” Varieties of Religious Authority: Changes and Challenges in 20th Century Indonesian Islam. Page 8 Lagoonaville (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright @Lagoonaville:, that's a first step. So what are you propising be changed? From what to what? Please be clear and to the point. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Veneration of the dead should link to Tawassul (Barelvis believe living and the dead may intercede so that should be adjusted) 2. Nahdlatul Ulama should be added in see also section 3. The Islamic terminology should be visible (For example when I first looked at the page I did not feel interested in finding out what "visiting" linked to because I assumed it would take me to the wiki page for what the word visiting literally meant). Lagoonaville (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Those are some interesting points to raise. Given what you've found, I don't expect points two and three to be controversial, and point three can help readers to understand Islamic terms though I would prefer to insert Islamic terms while keeping the English ones as well; readers will be more familiar with the English ones, and both can help for a clearer understanding. This obviously relates to point number one as well; I personally would support inclusion of both "veneration of the dead" as well as "tawassul" but not of deleting one. For the original rationale for that, you can check the archive at Talk:Barelvi/Archive_5#Beliefs_and_practices_-_new_edits. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It shouldnt be a problem as long as its clear that they venerate both the living and dead saints. Barelvis believe it to be a form of Tawassul Lagoonaville (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lagoonaville:, I agree with your suggestion wholeheartedly and you've made a very good point. Assuming nobody else is against it, we can probably draft a new version of the passage in question. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

How does that look? Lagoonaville (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's better without the terms being stuck at the end. Have a look at my edit. I won't object if they are added at the beginning. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Its now at the front. The terms are in the beginning but an editor who is not even taking part in the discussion is removing edits Lagoonaville (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• So you raise a frivolous ANI without giving me a chance to actually come here after my second reversion? Good job. You have no consensus for the edit you tried to make, as your change had absolutely nothing to do with what you had been discussing. You have consensus for the addition of Tawassul, but nothing to do with the Mawlid term being present above everything else, and there is no mention of the Ziyarat in this discussion anywhere. So, as far as I could tell, you made an edit that does not have proper consensus, AND you marked it as minor, which it isn't. Now, if the other editors here do agree with that edit, then fine, they can reinstate it; but right now, I'm still not seeing that you have a consensus. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I was beginning to think you were computer generated account. The discussion is for islamic terms that includes these terms Mawlid and Ziyart. GorgeCuster wouldnt mind them being in the beginning and i have put it there. Do you now understand? Lagoonaville (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• You need to actually discuss said terms rather than just assuming you can dump them in... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Are they not already in the article? Im not dumping them in if they are already there. Click on birthday and it will take you to Mawlid article. Lagoonaville (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Lagoonaville:, the problem is that you didn't discuss the proposed changes here first. When I said "draft," that means what it says; a draft. NOT edits to the main article space. Perhaps you didn't understand that as you're new, but please understand that in the world of documentation, a draft isn't the final version of a document (in this case, an article).

You must also keep in mind that you're new here and obviously are still learning about site policies and guidelines. Edit warring against an established editor and opening an ANI case improperly aren't going to yield the results you want; it's more likely to backfire.

Take a few days to cool off, don't think about it and then come back here. Don't make edits to the article yet; suggest draft versions here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not plan to rewrite the whole section. Can you explain your problem with my recent edit instead of asking for drafts and what not. Lagoonaville (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Not happening. Your cooperation has improved since you started and you're certainly learning site policies, but I don't think any of your peers will cut you slack on this specific point. We have an old version of the article which was accepted via consensus over a year ago after literally months of deliberations now in the talk page archives. The changes you have tried to implement have been opposed by other editors. Thus, there is no short cut.

There appears to be a new suggested draft below; let's discuss that first before editing the article itself. Other editors - even though who haven't been involved until now - also have the right to comment and contribute. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not think it would be this difficult to edit on wikipedia. Learning policies etc are time consuming especially when im not receiving any compensation Lagoonaville (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft

• Mawlid, Public celebration of Muhammad's birthday.

• Tawassul, Veneration of dead and living saints. This consists of the intervention of an ascending, linked and unbroken chain of holy personages claimed to reach ultimately to Muhammad, who Barelvis believe intercede on their behalf with God.

• Ziyarat Visiting the tombs of Muhammad, his companions and of pious Muslims, an act the Barelvis claim is supported by the Quran, Sunnah and acts of the companions, but which opponents call "shrine-worshipping" and "grave-worshiping" and consider to be un-Islamic.

• Use of devotional music.

• Leaving the beard to grow for men; the movement views a man who trims his beard to less than a fist-length as a sinner, and shaving the beard is considered abominable. Lagoonaville (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Lagoonaville, assalamu alaykum. Sorry to say but your draft looks clumsy. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

What is clumsy about it? Can you provide suggestions to make it better? You are free to make your own draft and present it here as well.Leave the tag btw there's a dispute about content but I am not sure why editors opposed my edits. Lagoonaville (talk) 07:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Article is Disputed template on Barelvi

As I explained, Lagoonaville, there was no major dispute on the Barelvi page until YOU began upsetting an editor consensus. Please stop being stubborn and adversarial. You can't claim there's a neutrality dispute just because you don't like the fact that many other editors disagree with your edits and style of interaction. Try working with them, not against them. I always find the advice of other editors to be highly useful, even when sometimes they edit things I feel strongly about. Don't continue edit warring. You'll get banned if you do. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a dispute and your avoiding it now. I have provided reliable sources and I would like my contribution included in this article. Lagoonaville (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Lagoonville, there is a dispute, but there is no dispute over whether the article is neutral or not. The POV tag is 100% inappropriate, and in a total violation of WP:POINT. If you keep this up, then you'll find yourself back at ANI, staring a topic ban in the face. You are still refusing to give other editors more than a few minutes to respond before lashing out, and that is extremely unhelpful. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You have said many times you dont know anything about the subject and are waiting for other editors. The article is not neutral as specific terms are excluded at the moment. This is really ridciculous and your intention of wanting to edit war is very clear to all. I am not "lashing out" it is you who has edit warred with me and reported me for it. Lagoonaville (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the definition of Intercession be included?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Religion and philosophy When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Shouldnt the article include wasila? Khanyusufkhalil (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this seriously what you were referring to when you claimed in your edit summary that consensus has been achieved? You posted a question on the talk page and then start edit warring with multiple established editors?

1. Go actually read Misplaced Pages:Consensus.
2. Go read Misplaced Pages:Edit warring to understand why what you were doing is wrong and simply won't be tolerated.
3. Go back into the talk page archive, because the discussions on the consensus version - point by point - are there. If you didn't find it, you aren't looking hard enough. The onus is on you to address the previously mentioned consensus and all the issues that had been brought up, not on editors trying to preserve that consensus against a single newcomer's attempts to simply revert again and again because he refuses to engage in discussion.

Over the years, this article has been one of the biggest targets for POV pushing within the subfield of Islam-related topics. Almost every exchange on here with new users ends up being an entirely fruitless endeavor that produces no valuable contributions and only ends with supporters or detractors (90% supporters) of the article's subject just wanting their own personal subjective opinions reflected in the article. I hope this isn't the case here, but you'll need to work a little harder to understand site policies to make any positive contribution. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I read the talk page and it said consensus was achieved to add Tawassul. User Laku says above. I noted this to Admin . It is not my personal belief. I am not here to do as you have said above. May I ask why you have ignored my arguments? Khanyusufkhalil (talk) 06:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Khanyusufkhalil, you seem intent on trying to assert a one-editor consensus, namely your own, which makes no sense. I've followed your edits and, sorry to say, believe you are being both stubborn and unhelpful. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

That is not true. Do you have any comment on my edit in this article? After reading archive. The policy WP:MOSISLAM was used for all except dhikr, and i corrected it. Khanyusufkhalil (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Khanyusufkhalil:It IS true, you aren't being totally honest and you've done nothing but provide working examples for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and your edits are, once again, an example of how 90% of the new editors who come to this article only end up causing trouble while POV-pushing and eventually leave having contributed nothing positive. Sorry for being so rough but given that you've been reverted by three editors all of whom have pointed out that you're editing against a long established consensus with no actual reasoning, it's difficult to humor you any longer. Read the relevant policies, explain why you think the consensus should be changed or continue getting reverted. The ball is entirely in your court now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I explained my position on your talk page and on this talk page. Various sources provide the explanation for Intercession . Wasilah is an important part of Barelvi practices it should be added into this article. Khanyusufkhalil (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

1. Sirriyeh 1999: 49
2. Sirriyeh 2004: 111
3. Martin Parsons (1 January 2006). Unveiling God: Contextualizing Christology for Islamic Culture. William Carey Library. pp. 149–. ISBN 978-0-87808-454-8. Retrieved 2011-04-20.
4. Urban Terrorism: Myths and Realities - N. C. Asthana & A.Nirmal - Google Books. Books.google.com.my. Retrieved 2012-09-24.
5. Urban Terrorism: Myths and Realities - N. C. Asthana & A.Nirmal - Google Books. Books.google.com.my. Retrieved 2012-09-24.
6. "outlookindia.com". M.outlookindia.com. Retrieved 2012-09-24.
7. Curriculum in Today's World: Configuring Knowledge, Identities, Work and ... - Lyn Yates, Madeleine Grumet - Google Books. Books.google.com.my. 25 February 2011. Retrieved 2012-09-24.
8. The Columbia World Dictionary of Islamism - Olivier Roy, Antoine Sfeir - Google Books. Books.google.com.my. 26 September 2007. Retrieved 2012-09-24.
9. Tremors of Violence: Muslim Survivors of Ethnic Strife in Western India - Rowena Robinson - Google Books. Books.google.com.my. Retrieved 2012-09-24.
10. Urban Terrorism: Myths and Realities - N. C. Asthana & A.Nirmal - Google Books. Books.google.com.my. Retrieved 2012-09-24.
11. Indian Defence Review: April - June 2007 - Bharat Verma - Google Books. Books.google.com.my. 19 February 2008. Retrieved 2012-09-24.
12. Arun Shourie, The World of Fatwas or the Sharia in Action, pg. 135. ASA Publications, 1995. ISBN 9788190019958

• Start-Class Islam-related articles
• Top-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• Misplaced Pages requested maps
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment