Talk:Deobandi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deobandi article.
Article policies

Guidelines for developing and editing Islam-related Wikipedia articles are at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOSISLAM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor2020 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Inappropriate tone

This article needs work. Statements like 'Insha’Allah, these beliefs will be analyzed point by point.' don't belong in an encyclopaedia. Also, there's the problem with honorifics.--Nkv 17:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salafis view Deobandis to be Mushrik

I am not going to delete the bit that reads 'Salafis thus maintain that the Deobandis are Mushrik and that the prayer offered as a Deobandi is not correct and must be repeated.' - I am new to the wiki, can I ask someone who is responsible or looking over this page to delete it until evidence is supplied. I am a Salafi and have not heard any respected scholar make such a judgement???. e.g., thousands of Salafis are praying in Deobandi mosques every day in UK...Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.100.243 (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation

Large sections of this article have been lifted wholesale from [1]. They need to be excised. --Nkv 07:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the edits later than [2]. Ibn Saeed's edits are almost wholly lifted from the (apparently Salafi from what I can tell) site mentioned above. This biasses the article and also perhaps violated copyright issues. --Nkv 07:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Good job. I do not think they would mind copyright as it is a propoganda website and would love to see their propoganda going thru for free! In my view, the problem is biases. I am definitely not Deobandi but you can see that I am disturbed when Ahemdies editors are trying to cook up a Deoband-Qadian connection. There should be ATLEAST SOME neutrality and factuality in Wikipedia :) Hassanfarooqi 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salafis

So, are the deobandis a sub-group of Salafis? --Striver 12:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. However, the Deobandis and the Salafis agree on some points of Fiqh which the rest of the Sunnis don't. This has led to them (the Deobandis) being called Wahabis (or Salafis). --Nkv 15:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Deobandies and Salfis do not agree on Fiqh. Deobandies are Hanafi by Fiqh like Barelvies while Salafies follow Ibn Abdul Wahhab in not following any Imam of Fiqh. Deobandi/Barelvi rivalry started when some Deobandi Ulema got under Wahhabi influence and Barelvies declared (wrongly in my opinion) as Wahhabies. e.g. Ubaidullah Sindhi and Maulvi Ismail promoted a book of Ibn Abdul Wahhab translated as Taqwiyatul Iman.
The funny thing is, an Ahmed editor seems to be on a mission to prove Deobandies in general and mr. Sindhi in particular as Qadiani influenced. Who knows? Maybe the rivalry was a conpiracy of Ahmedies/British :) Hassanfarooqi 22:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate a section dedicated to some deeper info in this subject. --Striver 15:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
It might be useful but I'm really not upto doing it. Source hunting for wikipedia, rabid editors have all gotten me down. These days, I just revert vandalism. --Nkv 17:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deobandis Don't Follow Sufism

  • As They dont beleive in Istighasa celebrating Urs Calling wali or Sheikhs with 'ya' also practiced by Major Walisand Sufis Which is common in Sufis,Sama, Chadarposhi, Dua by his Intercession etc.
None of those are compulsory. Istigatha is not a must to be Sufi.
  • They never Promoted it rather accused of asking people to give up it.
They might have discouraged certain aspects of folk Islam but they were never against Tasawwuf itself.
  • How many Deobandis and Where Practices main straem Sufism silsilah?
I already showed you Mufti Taqi Uthmani. There are probably lots more like him
  • When They don't beleive in the Aliveness of Wali or saint then How can they Ask him Something?
This is not an issue.
  • neither their literature nor their Scholar ever Remember or discusses about its qualities .or Something About WaliAllah.
They very much have the concept of Wilayah but it might be different from the Barelwi understanding. --Nkv 14:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

--Shabiha 08:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nutrality/factual accuracy

I was wondering why the neutrality/factual accuracy template was placed at the top of this article. Exactly what is disputed? MezzoMezzo 23:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent disruptive edits

Recently, User:Shabiha made this edit in which information on the ties of Deobandi thought to traditional Sufism were removed, and factual inaccuracies about Deobandi-Barelwi relations were inserted in front of an already existing reference confirming the version of the article before their revision. This is not only a violation of the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, but also the Wikipedia:Citing sources style guideline. In addition, the refusal to discuss or justify this edit in any way is a source of both disruptive editing and edit warring. To top it all off, the edit summary in the above diff is a violation of the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. I ask that all editors please have the clarity and maturity to discuss edits here rather than edit warring and launching insults at one another. Consider this a warning. MezzoMezzo 03:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deobandis don't follow Sufism and Differences have not declined

Don't Cite one or Two Mixed Ideology scholars regarding Sufism. Now where in the world people saying themselves deo's are practising or associating with any authentic Sufi Order like Qaudri, Suharwardi ,Chisti etc. The lines in the articles Shows that sufi people are Deo's or Deo's are Sufis. It is Totally Incorrect . Don't try to make Wikipedia a Blog of Own Ideology .

Who says that differenes have been declined Where they are declining . Don't u know Mufti Abdul Mannan Karimis Fatwa? Recently Times of India reported that Gujrat Barelwis have put up Boards all over State out sie their Msjids to restrict the Entry of deobandis and Tablighis. Both Sentences are here to Confuse New Generation. All Barelwi scholar alleges that differences are on the Basis of Nabi Kareem's Personality on which they can't Compromise.Read any Site of Barelwis. Shabiha 17:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

While I understand you have your own perspective on this, for the purposes of Wikipedia Deobandis are Sufis because they consider themselves to be. You are free to disagree but to base article content off of those opinions is, once again, a violation of the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. This has been brought to your attention numerous times yet you have not explained why it doesn't apply here; your own personal point of view on Deobandis is not actual proof, just an opinion. I'm not saying it isn't a valid opinion, but I am saying it isn't valid to base this article off of your own subjective opinion. As for the differences declining, there is already a reference for that so please stop editing the text in front of that reference to say something else. MezzoMezzo 20:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, this edit was pushed through and with an edit summary that constitutes both a personal attack and trolling. This is really getting ridiculous and the refusal to discuss the issue here on the talk page leaves little options. Shabiha, since you are the one removing both sourced content and adding your own POV, the Burden of proof lies on you; I have already explained via official site policy why your own personal opinion of Deobandis is not a valid basis for any article, please do not call this "absurd" as it is based on objective site policy. You are free to disagree, but I have warned you multiple times about both the personal attacks you have launched on me and your refusal to justify your insertion of your own POV here and elsewhere. Please work with me on this and understand that Wikipedia is not some sort of internet forum for flaming people who don't agree with you, we're supposed to work together to ultimately improve the articles that we edit. MezzoMezzo 02:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Shabiha, this needs to stop. Despite your claim in your most recent edit summary that I didn't explain why I am reverting your edits, the explanation is clearly written above. I'll rewrite it again here because I have some free time and maybe you'll understand if I repeat myself.
First, you removed the Sunni Islam template from the article. This is POV, as you have said on numerous occasions on the talk pages for other articles that you don't consider Deobandis and other Islamic movements you disagree with to be Sunni. With that in mind, i'm having a difficult time giving you the benefit of the doubt here and this looks very much like a blatant violation of the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy.
Second, you removed the fact that Deobandis are Sufis from the introduction paragraph which is once again a personal opinion of yours that has already been dealt with. It doesn't matter who does or doesn't consider Deobandis to be Sufis on here, the fact of the matter is that they consider themselves adherents of Sufism and their history is rooted in it; that is reason enough for them to be considered within Sufism by Wiki standards. In the same sense, many Sunnis do not consider Shia to be "true" Muslims, but the fact of the matter is that they call themselves Muslims and thus by Wiki standards that is enough. Deobandis are Sufis. Don't remove that again.
Third, you are taking a reference provided for the statement that animosity between Deobandis and Barelwis has died down recently, deleted the text in front of it, and changed it to say that the animosity hasn't died down. You didn't even try to get a different reference to try to back up this claim, which is so foolish that it's almost confusing. I really don't know why you thought nobody would call you out on that, it's borderline dishonesty. Furthermore, just because you feel animosity toward Deobandis doesn't mean that all other Barelwis do and you need to stop violating WP:NPOV.
Lastly, you have continuously inserted that Times article - which has been dealt with ad nauseum by several editors on the talk page for the Barelwi article - to again justify the insertion of the opinion that Deobandis are a hard line group. This has been explained to you here and there. Stop putting it in, you know why it's a POV violation, I don't know how many times i've had to say this.
Your continued refusal to discuss here on the talk page and simply engage in edit warring, making very rude comments in your edit summaries where you acknowledge your refusal to discuss the issue, is absolutely not acceptable. If you don't stop this now I will be forced to take further action as you're compromising the quality of several articles across this site now. I'm giving you fair warning here based on the above named behavior, so please read the policies I have shown you and give what I have said a fair chance before simply reverting again without so much as a comment. MezzoMezzo 19:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that deobandis are not Sufis because the Reason Mentioned by Shabiha is Important that we on't findthem with any authentic Sufi Order.They also have difference regarding Istighasa which is BsicFeature of Deobandis. Mere writing in the Article is not Enough .Tomorrow if Ahle Hadith will start writing that they are Sufi will u accept without any Proof of practice.It needs some Proofthat they do so. Msoamu 23:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion of them is valid and I am not disparaging it, but the bottom line is that it is still an opinion. Because Deobandis consider themselves Sufi - in their own words, "Accordingly, before long, students desirous of studying the Holy Book and the Sunnah, the Shari'ah and the Tariqah (the spiritual path)..." - then by Wikipedia standards they are Sufi. Like I said before, if a group considers themselves a part of a religion then it is not for editors to say they are "wrong" or "incorrect" as that is just our points of view.
Beyond that, we also know that founders of the movement such as Maulana Muhammad Qasim Nanotwi and Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi were most definitely adherents of Sufism, as are modern day Deobandis such as Taqi Usmani.
As far as the comments on the Salafi group Ahl-e-Hadith, that's sort of beyond the point. We don't need "proof" of practice because, in regard to organized religion, we're talking about opinions which Wikipedia does not regard as objective fact. It's not for us to judge who is right or wrong in article content; this is for the readers to decide themselves. We absolutely do not need any proof at all that the group is Sufi, because the definition of that depends on who you ask, as Nkv pointed out the last time Shabiha brought this issue up. MezzoMezzo 04:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Answer Me

to Mezzomezzo,Because Deobandis consider themselves Sufi - in their own words, ..." - then by Wikipedia standards they are Sufi.

  • If Barelwi considers themselves in Majority then.....they are.
  • if Tablighi/Wahabis says that they are not Extremist then what should be on their Page...?
  • FROM WIKI .Ahmadis consider themselves Muslims and claim to practice the Islam that was taught and practiced by Muhammad and his companions, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad termed his movement the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat (community) envisioning it to be a revitalization of Islam. However, Ahmadis are not considered to be Muslims by Sunnis and Shias.[4][5][6].[[3]]
Even when they have the same beliefs as Qasam Nanutwee; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sw6Qyqjh04 ? :s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik07 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally i sum up by Saying that deobandi Page Must have Line like They Claim to follow Sufism ...However Their Main Rival Barelwi don't Considers them as Sufi. If u are not agree. U SHOULD Agree on What Barelwis Agree in their Page that they are in Huge Majority in Indian Sub Continent.Proofs are not needed . Shabiha 18:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Shabiha, there is a fundamental point in reasoning that you seem to be missing entirely, which I felt I already pointed out. I never said that ANY claim a group makes about itself is true...I said in regard to opinions about organized religion, because they are merely opinions. There is no objective "wrong" or "right" as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Claims about demographics and numerical majority, however, do have a definite wrong or right as they are quantitative and measurable. As far as the Ahmadiyya, I would check the talk page for the Sunni Islam template you kept removing from this article. For all intensive purposes, Ahmadiyya are Muslims by Wiki standards.
Specially since Qasam Nanutwee has same beliefs on Kahtam e Nabuwat as Ahmadiyyas; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sw6Qyqjh04. Strange that one is declared Kafir for the same beliefs while other is not. Time to correct the oversight.
As far as including information about what the Barelwis consider, whether or not the Barelwis are the Deobandis "main rivals" and what they consider to be Sufi is not only mere opinion but also irrelevant to the article on Deoband; the Barelwis already have their own article. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.
Bottom line, just to make myself clear, as perhaps I was not choosing my words wisely: organized religion is mere opinion by Wiki standards; therefore, a claim of adherence to one group stays. Numerical claims including number of people following religious movements are not opinion, and are subject to quantitative measurements just like any other statistic. This is very basic stuff. MezzoMezzo 03:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proganda against Barelwi

i have removed those lines which shows Ahmed Raza Khan in Bad light also those lines which says that this rivalry is declined.This Weblink is Pro-deobandis and if it will be added again im free to add any link against Them from other sites on Barelwi Page. The antagonism and rivalry between two is not declined

  • Read The Complete Recent timesonline View .
  • Not Even a single Reputed Scholar or Alim of Barelwis has accepted it any Where Ever.It is mere Deo+Bandis Propganda to disguise People ofOther faith.

Shabiha 17:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The bigger problem with the statement was that it was referenced with what looks like a web forum or some type of torrent site, which to begin with is a questionable source at best. I think the citation and the associated text should just be removed entirely.
You aren't, however, free to add any link "against Them" on any article Shabiha; you have consistently violated the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy in regard to both the Barelwi and Deobandi articles to shape them to your own personal opinions; you should review the official Wikipedia:Ownership of articles policy in addition to this. Just because you have animosity toward Deobandis doesn't mean all Barelwis feel the same as you and you need to stop speaking for entire groups of people. MezzoMezzo 18:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] New Heading

i have added new heading with references .as these are the main point of Contention between Barelwis and Deobandis. so they Must be there..Shabiha 18:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The heading title itself is good, the paragraph underneath it however is completely in violation of the official Wikipedia:No original research policy; you haven't provided a single reference for it.
As for the references for quotes on Deobandi beliefs, these claims seem dubious at best, more likely to appear from material critical of them. Until it can be checked for authenticity, it should not be up there due to its highly contentious nature. MezzoMezzo 23:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

i will post links to some of these Books which has scan copies of these Controversial writings.Shabiha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.140.112 (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That can prove the authenticity of the quotes from the books (if they're in English). However, that doesn't prove the controversy in and of itself - for criticism, you'll need a prominent secondary source, which is both reliable and verifiable. MezzoMezzo 13:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The edit has been inserted again, this time without so much of a comment on here. This has now crossed over into both disruptive editing and edit warring. Until reliable sources can be provided to support the notability of the criticism, and until the dubious claims below can be verified, this disruption will not be allowed. Please be reasonable and work to find reliable secondhand sources for the claims of controversy. MezzoMezzo 19:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Deobandi / Wahabbi

What are the differences except ethnicity, between wahabbi ad Deobandi, since both are sunni extemists? Deobandi are from idea and Wahabbi from arabia, but are there other differences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.124.218 (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree both are extremist and they have no differences actually they work with each Others assistance in asia and Britain.
  • I have added what was actually a criticism the Bomb Blasts Culture the Real Face of Deobandi religion which has Claimed lives of thousands of Innocents.Shabiha (t • c) 20:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey idiot, Deobandi's aren't extremist... You are a bunch of fucking kaffirs, munafiqs, fuck u. --212.76.64.4 (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism

[edit] Old Posts Moved Here

[I didn't want to delete the old messages that were incorrectly placed above the contents box, so I moved them here.]--Editor2020 (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The Taliban do not follow a 'severe' form of the Deoband school. It is the normal form, inshAllah. There is a difference between fundamentalism and extremism. The Taliban are not considered extremists, despite what Western media would like to portray.

I hate to remove honorifics ("PBUH", etc) that were placed by a devout Muslim, but they seem inappropriate for a neutral encyclopaedia. Of course, this person has a nasty habit of censoring articles on Islaam, to the point that maveric149 banned their IP, so I'm not too inclined to be sympathetic. — Toby 19:09 Aug 4, 2002 (PDT)

Also, we need to get that Arabic properly transliterated. Wikipedia is Latin-1 by default, and this isn't. We have to use HTML character entities (&...;) instead. But I have no idea what the Arabic letters are supposed to be, so I can't do it. — Toby 19:09 Aug 4, 2002 (PDT)

There are way too many links here. Most of them are irrelevant to this specific subject. I'm inclined to remove all but the first few to be added. Wikipedia is not a link depository. -- Toby 13:34 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

I removed the honorifics, and most of the links. A lot of them seemed to be anti-Shia in nature, and this would question the POV of the article. DigiBullet 21:56, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Deobandies do not have Wahhabi tendencies, Wahabbi's are way different than Deobandies and are not to be confused as the same at all. The Wahabbi's are also know as Ahl-e-Hadith but the Deobandis are Ahl-e-Sunnat.

Most of the links were to websites of Deobandi Madaris, so I dont see how they were anti-shia. There was however 1 link to an anti-shia organization.

Their beliefs led to the devlopment of an antagonism with an opposition Indian Islamic movement, who became known as the Barelvis, after Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi. The Barelvis opposed the Deobandis for their opposition to several practices common in the Indian subcontinent at the time such as the celebration of Mawlid an-Nabi (the birthday of Muhammad), seeking intercession from saints and various other practices, all of which the Deobandis considered to be bidˤa "innovation". The Barelvis supported a more traditional Islam and was more receptive to Sufi folk-Islam of rural India. Such differences led to the Barelvis making takfīr (declaring to be non-Muslim) on the Deobandis, accusing them of being Wahhabis. This rivalry and antagonism has, however, declined in recent decades and generally consider each other to be part of Ahlu s-Sunnat wa l-Jāmaˤa. --- I dont understand how Barelvi is traditional Islam??

[edit] Shabiha's edits

Shabiha, If you wish to contribute to this English language page, please have someone who can write English correctly fix your spelling, grammar and usage before posting.

Please don't just paste your old changes back in. You are wiping out relevant information. If you want to accuse the Deobandi of terrorism, I would suggest you start a new "Terrorism" section and post referenced material there.--Editor2020 (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Part of it is a language barrier, part of it is from more desire to paint a negative picture of Deobandis than to present the truth. I'm not Deobandi myself, in fact i'm personally not fond over them, but over the past few months i've noticed a definite biased trend in this individuals editing toward the Deobandi movement within Islam and anything associated with it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Part of it is biased attitude and part of it is from more desire to paint a negative Picture of Barelwi.Every thing has been tried from attempt to delete scholars pages to Inserting Bigoted/Half Stories/half truth in barelwi article.

On the Other hand everything correct has been deleted. I also have noticed more than You that You are distorting Ahle Sunnah pages right from the begigning, from sufism to Dawat e islami and from Milad to Barelwi.

  • Now the Report added by me is most relevant criticism of deobandi Movement which was widely circulated in the Media .Shabiha (t 09:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost Shabiha, your mimicking of my comment almost word for word is trolling. I will give you only one warning not to do his again, as you have already had to been temporarily blocked by site admins once for harassing me and you've already done it again here and on other pages. This is your one warning, be mature and do not harass other editors.
Second of all, this article isn't about Barelwis so your comments on that topic aren't relevant at all.
As for the three links you've provided, lets look at them:

  • The first is an editorial from The Times which you already tried to insert month ago and, as was the consensus reached back then - you even backed down when you tried to insert it a few months ago - since it is an editorial and therefore just opinion and not actual reporting, it isn't a valid citation for factual information.
  • The second one looks like a new link of yours, but regardless is from the same publication and of the same nature. It's very obvious why you would post negative opinion pages about the Deobandi movement, as you seem determined to have Wikipedia reflect your personal POV on the movement.
  • The third is an article from The Hindu which, to begin with, when I used in another article you told me was biased and not an acceptable source. Second of all, it's the same exact article I used about the incident described in it and the information you put into the article here is NOT accurately taken from the source; you clipped out part of the story again to present your own POV, and inaccurate sourcing will not be allowed.

We've gone over this a hundred times before it seems. You are free to dislike Deobandis, but you have no right to make the article negative in tone. I kept my mouth shut for what seems like almost six months I think giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming good faith, but after so long of seeing you flame other editors and post blatantly biased material it had to be said. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  • what a eyewash about Times report it was a Survey based on facts and site itself Claims it read it again.So it has full Value plus relevancy .Please accept the truth.Silence does not meant Consensus was reached .
  • Your Second argument lacks Objectivity it is nothing but escaping truth by preventing that You will not accept same publication.
  • I presented in third link what was in it I will Support it and all those Stories which are presented in true form .
  • Now in the end I will say that You Yourself started to edit Barelwi page in the Negative light. You now wish to avoid same thing for page of Your liking .I think if You are ready to remove those reports I am ready to Compromise here.So I am now not adding it again for some time to see your response.

Shabiha (t 19:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. Bringing up the Barelwi article doesn't bode well for your case. That is an entirely different article and that you would bring it up sort of bolsters my observation that you take this as some kind of competition between Barelwis and Deobandis rather than efforts to improve informative articles for readers of Wikipedia.
  2. The Times article, as was explained to you by myself and others, is an EDITORIAL. Please learn what an Editorial so you understand why myself and others dismissed it as simple opinion rather than an actual news report.
  3. Accusing me of trying to be "escaping truth", that my argument "lacks Objectivity", that your position is "in true form" (whatever that means), that I am trying to avoid negative editing for a page of my "liking", doesn't actually prove anything. It certainly establishes that you feel my edits are in poor form, but it doesn't actually explain what your backing is. Thus, your comment here isn't justification for edit warring without a coherent explanation.
  4. That you would offer to compromise here based on the Barelwi article is another evidence that you see this as some competition, as I mentioned above. You have to date failed to justify your edits beyond the same tired arguments that were already shot down by multiple users regarding the use of editorials for citations, especially of controversial material. As such, your edits still don't have a leg to stand on and will be removed. Please provide a relevant explanation here before simply edit warring some more. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I have edited again my Version of Deobandi Criticism and which is based on 1.News Report which clearly Claims that Sipah sahaba was behind the ghastly attack on Milad function and second One is Survey based on facts and datas widely Published.these are truths of Deobandi Movements which can't be hide from public eyes.Shabiha (t 06:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As has been explained to you, multiple times by myself and others, the Times Article is an EDITORIAL and is not acceptable as a factual citation, especially for such a controversial claim. It will not be allowed in the article - period. You'd best drop the subject now.
As for your other reference, I changed the wording to it and fixing your footnote, other than that it's fine. However, if we mention the issue of the conflict with Sunni Tehreek is must also be mentioned that many Deobandi mosques have been forcibly taken by such groups as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Main Controversy between Barelwi and Deobandi

  • I have added those sayings of books on which Imam ahmad raza khan gave the fatawa of Kufr and these books became the backbone of Controversy.The Conflict with barelwis must have this main point of difference.Content is Sourced and can be easily checked by third party evidence.[4]

Shabiha (t 14:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The source is allowable, however the content you've added is POV as your version of the article is taking sides. If readers would like to see specifically the point of view of Barelwis then that is fine, but what Barelwis accuse Deobandis of is just their opinion; mudslinging and accusations should not be presented as fact, just opinion.
In addition, you also deleted consensus material without explanation, bordering on vandalism. Don't do that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The Same editor and different Stands on the Same Issue.I found You Supporting and Inserting again and again Salafi View Point on Barelwi page .You Supported and restored here on Deobandi page Salafi Criticism Which is Unfairly Long.

But Your argument of Obvious biasedness are not applicable here as I added on the Similar Lines of Salafi Criticism of Deobandi Movement. Here I need not to Say that You know wiki Policies in this regard. Don't again remove Valid sourced Conrent.Msoamu (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost, you have blatantly violated the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy here by questioning my objective simply over an editing dispute.
Second of all, my position here on this page is the same as my position on the Barelwi page. Criticism from the Salafi and Deobandi viewpoint have been presented as the opinions of those two groups on the Barelwi page. However, you've presented your criticism of the Deobandi movement here as objective fact rather than just the opinion of Barelwi scholars; even a cursory glance will show that the wording and presentation you've given here is in violation of the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy.
You also need to pay more attention to what I say rather than engaging in edit warring and flame warring. I think the source you've brought is fine as is the material. You just need to change the wording. As for the Salafi criticism of the Deobandi movement, you're correct on it being a tad bit too long. So if you support perhaps trimming that subsection down than so do I. But don't come in here throwing out personal accusations simply because of an editing dispute - you and I have gone through this before and I thought we had moved beyond that point. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unreliable sources

Sources 6 through 15 in this version don't seem reliable. Unless they are replaced with more reliable ones, or their reliability is shown, I will begin removing content sourced to them.Bless sins (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The section looks quite long and bloated, however I am curious as to what makes the sources unreliable? I haven't looked into them much yet. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)