Talk:Barelvi movement/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Should "Jamaat Ahle Sunnat" or "Barelvi" be used? Some Sources

Dear, MezzoMezzo, the term 'Barelvi' was used as pejorative to refer this movement by the adversaries and opposition camp. Mr.Ehsan Ilahi Zaheer of Wahabi camp wrote a book Al Barelviah to show the Ahle Sunnah wal Jamah movement against Wahabism in bad light. Media controlled by Wahabism widely used this term in south Asia. And the term Ahle Sunnah wal Jama'ah used by a notable dictionary like oxford should be enough, as its uses both the terms, Ahle Sunnah wal Jamaah and Barelvi. Next, an Encyclopedia of Indian Religion from Springer then a detailed research over this movement by Columbia University scholar published by Cambridge and this research over the role played by Ahle Sunnat movement in the creation of Pakistan and definition at Religion Database establishes that movement is Ahle Sunnat movement. This research over Ahle Sunnat Madarsas, this source, the 19th century Ahle Sunnat imam, The News article about Ahl-e Sunnat movement, Library of Congress about Jamat-e-Ahle Sunat, Tanzeem ul Madaris Ahle-Sunnat-wal-Jamaat (Barelvi) are some of the examples of wide use of this term. This movement uses the term 'Sunni' widely in their literature and the terminology of their organizations is All India Sunni Conference in undivided India, Jamaat Ahle Sunnat, Sunni Tehreek and Sunni Ittehad Council in Pakistan, Jamaat-e-Ahle Sunnat Karnataka, and Sunni Students' Federation in India and and World Sunni Movement in Bangladesh which reflects movement's association with the term Ahle Sunnat or Sunni. Furthermore, your arguments based on wikipedia:QUALIFIER, wikipedia:POVNAMING and WP:NPOV are not correct as Wikipedia already has number of articles with the exact same title here Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah (disambiguation) so, this Ahle Sunnat Barelvi movement in anyway does not violate above wiki policies. ScholarM (talk) 10:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response User:ScholarM. Although I disagree with your reasoning, I'm glad to see your comments. My disagreement with your reasoning is from the following angles: Barelvi isn't a slur; your point about Barelvis also being referred to as another name has no relation to the issue of the common name; and you're still promoting an exclusionary term.

First of all, Barelvi isn't a slur. You keep saying this again and again without any reliable sources, so it's just your opinion. Neither your personal opinion nor mine matters here.

Second, the sources you posted all confirm that the movement is referred to as Barelvi. A few of them mention that Barelvis also call themselves "Ahlus Sunnah/Ahl i Sunnat" (depending on accent), but some of them only use the term Barelvi, which means that you're basically proving my point. From the sources which you yourself posted above:

• RefWorld refers to the movement as Barelvi only, specifying that Ahle Sunnat is one single specific organization within the movement
• Register of Charities refers to the group members as Barelvi (it doesn't explicitly name the movement, just the members)
• The link from Taylor Franices is for a paper by Usha Sanyel, whose minority opinion among scholars has been addressed above
• The News article specifically refers to the movement as being the Barelvi movement in the title, opening paragraph, and all subsequent references except for a single use of the term "Ahl e Sunnat"
• The Birmingham government paper only refers to a specific organization called Ahle E Sunnat wal JAmaat as being Barelvi; it does NOT refer to the whole movement at all

As we can see on the second point, the links you posted agree with my points, not yours. The movement's common name is Barelvi.

Third, you're still promoting an exclusionary term. The other articles on the disambiguation page are official titles of organizations, and the media uses those titles as common names, so that doesn't help your case.

The common name of this movement is Barelvi, as you've helped me prove, and my earlier points about the article's name above still stand. We must change the etymology section to my proposed version per site policy, MOS:IDENTITY, and reliable sources given how even your own claims undercut your argument. If you want to pursue this issue further, then I recommend you pursue further community discussion via Wikipedia:Dispute resolution because, as far as I can tell, the movement's common name has been conclusively proven to be Barelvi, and further reverts to the unacceptable version you're pushing seem unfounded at this point. MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear, i have given references from dictionary and encyclopedias. My sources are basically notable researches not just some news from here and there. I am not giving my personal opinion that movement is Ahle Sunnat but few researches specifically done over the subject established it. Neither you nor me can deny those researches. At Wikipedia and in Etymology section, we have to use the actual term of the subject its history and its validity relevancy. The Barelvi pejorative which was first used by the leader of opposition movement Ehsan Ilahi zaheer in his book Barelwiah and was made popular by their supporters and that is not a actual name of the movement. No book of Imam Ahmed Raza Qadari mentioned this term. But he used Sunni or Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat frequently to refer his movement. So most of the organisations associated with his movement uses the term Sunni or Ahle Sunnat. Enough titles are given above. Wiki pages about other org or movement using the same term supports my argument only not yours that any Sunni movement can use it to refer it in their context and there is no specific bar or ban on using the term Sunni or Ahle Sunnah wal Jamaah. That is not violating wikipedia naming policy as argued by you. It negates your further arguments and establishes mine that if Muslims of Sunni sect forms any movement in the name of Ahle sunnah wal Jamaah/ Ahle Sunnat/ Sunnis in any part of the world that is does not violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view or wikipedia:POVNAMING. Your proposed version is just your personal opinion where as mine is based on definitions from various dictionary, encyclopedia WP:RS and from notable researches. Please accept humbly the arguments based on reasoning and reliable sources and don't rush to revert my edits to prove a point. ScholarM (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

User:ScholarM, I really am shocked by the false claims you're making. There's little to no truth in what you're saying, and I already demonstrated all of this above.

• No, Ehsan Ilahi Zaheer didn't invent the term 'Barelvi.' The term predates him by a long time, and it's frankly a very random and weird claim to make.
• The references you showed above actually agree with me edits as I already demonstrated. I don't know if you're ignoring my comments or just hoping that other editors won't read them.
• Policy quite strongly demonstrates that the common name must be used, and the common name is Barelvi based on pre-existing sources in the article as well as sources brought by both of us.

Per Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute, I will be changing the section back to the accurate and unbiased version, though my impression is that you and User:Youbat are content to revert back and forth indefinitely. This situation can't stand, as I'm sure we all can agree, so my understanding from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is that we have three options currently:

• Wikipedia:Third opinion, though Youbat has been reverting without any response to me at all. 3O only works if there are two editors involved, but I'm not sure if he counts as involved since he's only flaming me in edit summaries rather than engaging in the discussion.
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, though this should ideally have input from everybody involved.
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment, though I'm not entirely sure of the difference in requirements for this process vs. the one above.

Which of these would you prefer to use? Please let me know so we can draft an initial post for one of these boards and ensure that both of our concerns are heard fairly. MezzoMezzo (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to repeat what i have argued above. You are deleting a valid content based on reliable sources. Your point is already in the etymology section last line but your insistence to remove the actual name of the movement and to replace it with pejorative seems your bias in editing. You should read WP:TASTE. Read WP:OZD, the overzealous deletion is an overwhelming desire to get materials on Wikipedia deleted. In other words, it is the act of getting an article deleted in order to feel like a "winner", to feel a sense of superiority, or "just for the heck of it". You need to see WP:GAME. You have been reverted by more than one editor here and there is no content dispute except your continuous contentious pushing of personal views in this article. The articles here should not reflect anybody's POV but neutral point of views based on reliable sources. Please show evidence that term 'Barelvi' was used by neutral authors before critic and half educated Salafi Ehsan Elahi Zaheer wrote Barelwiah book. ScholarM (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

User:ScholarM, it's your right if you don't want to repeat what you already said above; I had a feeling that neither you nor I had anything further to add since we have fundamentally different understanding about site policy and content. In fact, that's precisely the reason why I suggest we go to dispute resolution. Your claim that there is no content dispute is clearly incorrect. Look: neither you nor I are going away because we both want to make this article better. Try to meet me in the middle here; we both want the same thing. Getting more community input will help to reach the most balanced and sound version of the section; more eyes always make for better proofreading, and more editors inspecting the etymology section can help to make improvements that may have escaped both of us. Think about it; this is a win-win scenario.

As for "other editors" reverting me, then as I mentioned on your talk page as well as Youbat's, I have serious concerns that you and other users are canvassing for the sake of this dispute; these aren't uninvolved editors objectively reading our dispute and picking a side.

And as for Ehsan Elahi Zaheer, then your historical claim is bunk simply based on years of published works; this is just a red herring to which I won't respond any further.

Also, I noticed that you archived your talk page just after you were warned for insulting and assuming bad faith about me as well as for disruptive editing. I'm not perfect either, and I didn't handle our dispute correctly when it first began two weeks or however long ago, but I would like you to keep in mind the warning you were given and take a look at the way you're responding to me here. Logically speaking:

• You and I disagree on article content,
• You and I are both unwilling to simply walk away from this article,
• You and I have been going back and forth for weeks, therefore
• You and I are engaging in a dispute which isn't productive for a consistent encyclopedia article.

I will have to escalate our dispute since I honestly don't know what to do if one party in a dispute desires DR but the other doesn't. I'll keep you informed of my activities as I seek the next step, and you have my word that you'll be involved and have a voice in any proceedings, but do understand that I will be taking this to another level. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo, the history of this page reveals that you have been reverted by other editors and it is natural that many editors are not agreeing with your removal of sourced content. Why you want to modify the valid sourced content from etymology section ?

• I see no sign of any compromise in your edits for the sake of maintaining a cool atmosphere here. At least accept the valid points from valid source.
• You started dispute here when you removed the content from this article and from number of articles in very unreasonable manner and even without discussion.
• You have created a dispute and you should watch your edits.
• Let other editors may come to discuss your nonconstructive edits. ScholarM (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Overview of disagreement

I saw a discussion here and am commenting because that user talk page should not be used while the user is away, per the notice at its top. The first point is that I will block ScholarM or Youbat if there is any repetition of comments that poke other editors (for example, nonconstructive edits and vandal edits). The second point is that discussions here will focus on specific text in the article and proposals to improve that text based on policy—attempts to deflect or talk about other things will be regarded as disruption. Regarding WP:DR, if one party does not want to engage, that avenue should be ignored as unproductive. Discussions on noticeboards might get attention but ultimately an WP:RFC may be needed.

I have no opinion on the disagreement but as a first step towards resolution, I would like to establish an overview setting out the disagreement. Please comment here regarding what the disagreement is, with sources, but do not use this section to comment about other editors or policies or anything else.

I think the problem concerns Barelvi#Etymology and edits like this which asserts that "Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jamaah or Barelvi is [a] movement" and more. The source is oxfordreference which states that Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jamaah are certain people, also known as Barelvis. That does not seem to be relevant to the etymology of Barelvi and does not support the "pejorative" label used several times in comments above.

Would editors please comment on my above understanding of the first part of the disagreement and also whether there is any reason to believe the term is pejorative other than the opinion of an editor? If yes, please provide a source. If not, everyone needs to stop using that term because it avoids the central issue. Johnuniq (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

UserJohnuniq

here is the reference

mentoning the term was used by opposition movement, some more references here , here relevant to the etymology of movement. Youbat (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Why are you giving those two links? Are they used as references in the article? What about the reference which is used and which I mentioned above? Johnuniq (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, first of all, thank you for your efforts to mediate as I was unsure of how to move forward.

Second of all, yes, your understanding is absolutely correct re: the first part of the disagreement. Although ScholarM has been using the Oxford Reference link you posted as a source, notice that Oxford Reference's main page on the movement, the Overview page, still uses the term Barelvi only. That main page actually is relevant to the term Barelvi and its etymology, but it's not the source which ScholarM seems to prefer; I hope I'm not speaking out of turn there, and he's free to correct me if I've erred, along with my apologies.

As for it supposedly being a pejorative term, then so far, only ScholarM and Youbat have said that; we don't have any prominent RS claiming that. If we take a look even at the sources which Youbat posted:

• The first states: "The Barelvi movement dates back to the early 1900s in the city of Bareilly, India, where its ideology is rooted." From there, no further mention is made of the term's background.
• The second merely features a footnote in which the author states her preference for using Barelvi and Ahle Sunnat interchangeably, but she does note that: "They are often referred to as Barelvi."
• The third is a not only a Wikipedia mirror, but is a copy-paste of my own very edits which I recognize. Those sections were deleted by ScholarM later, some of them in sections irrelevant to the dispute, but I'm just making the point that the source is not only unreliable but also based on my own work which already confirms the versions of the section I support in this instance.

As we can see above, none of the sources Youbat posted here - or which ScholarM posted above - denote the term Barelvi as being a slur or pejorative, and in fact, all of them confirm that the most commonly used term for the movement is Barelvi and not Ahle Sunnat. I hope I've responded appropriately to your first two inquiries. All are free to correct me if I've used any unfair terms or diction. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The copyright page confirms your "third" link came from Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I am using those link to prove the article's original name as wikipedia is continuously facing the edit warring on the etymology section of the article. As far as inclusion of those reliable sources in the article it can be done anytime. I think MezzoMezzo must need to read my first reference/link carefully instead of just skimming it here which is pointing to a book name "Indentured Muslims in the Diaspora: Identity and Belonging of Minority ... " which is a reliable source clearly mentioning "the term Barelvi was a reaction to opposition Deobandi movement" and founder and its followers used the term Ahlesunnat wal jamaat .

My second link/reference is quite clear and needs no further explanation

MezzoMezzo may be correct regarding the third link that the book "Doctrine of Terror: Saudi Salafi Religion" by Mahboob Illahi may be a Wikipedia:Mirror. but again they have not prove their claim by giving necessary evidences.

and here another link to the book by reliable author Usha Sanyal "The movement was seen as Barelvi by others". Youbat (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

5th link from [MEMRI] saying Barelvi calls themselves as Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat.

UserJohnuniq seventh link here pointing to "The Oxford Dictionary of Islam edited by John L. Esposito". Page no 10, mentions " Ahl al Sunnah wa'l Jamaah" peoples of the Prophet way and the community also known as Barelvi or Barelwis. Founded in Northen India in 188os based on the writings of Mewlana Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi.

again in my sixth link pointing to the book The Deoband Madrassah Movement: Countercultural Trends and Tendencies

Book by Muhammad Moj the word Barelvi and Ahle Sunnat wal jamaat was interchangeably used.

so if any editor (even with little knowledge of editing Wikipedia) will go through the mentioned links above by me carefully can easily conclude that Barelvi is a perjorative term for the movement, so the article must be moved to its correct title/location instead of present one (Which is misleading). Youbat (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2021 :(UTC)

UserJohnuniq, It sounds good that you have at least tried to read the references/links, But mentioning that I have not only provide a single link but six links and all from reliable sources, hope you will take more efforts to read them carefully. 04:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

'Barelvi' is a derogatory term created by opposition groups of Ahle-Sunnat movement. This gives an impression to general Muslims that 'Barelvi' is a new religion or sect and some thing other than main stream Sunni Muslims.

• 1. Foremost opposition group of Ahle Sunnat movement are Deobandis. Their leader Hussain Ahmed Madani wrote a book 'Ash shihab us Saqib' in 1979 published by Darul Qutub, Lahore, Pakistan. He used Barelvi term in his book Ash Shihab us Saqib several time in a derogatory way and criticized this movement.
• 2. Talibani Deobandi Nizamuddin Shamzai wrote (Mirror to Barelwis) written by Anwar Hussain and published by Maktaba Islahe Millat, Karachi, Pakistan.
• 3. Ehsan Elahi Zaheer in 1983 wrote [1] to criticize this movement.
• 4. [ https://www.scribd.com/document/36571522/Tohfa-e-Barelviyat Tohfa-e-Barelviat Gift of Barelvism] by Matiurrahman published by Gilani Academy Karachi.
• 5. Mutala-e-Barelviyat (Study of Barelvism) by Khalid Mahmood published at Darul Uloom, Deoband.

• These title and content in these books is written with the term 'Barelvi' to portray the movement as something new and different from Sunni Islam. This was an attempt by their adversaries to denounce them by giving them a new identity. It has been opposed by the Sunni Muslims of Ahle Sunnat Movement. They maintains that their movement is not something called Barelvi but Ahle Sunnat Movement. As written above (In some source section) all their organisations and Institutions carry Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat or Sunni titles. Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan Qadri former Grand Mufti of India specifically told in an interview that We are not Barelvis but Ahle Sunnah wal Jamaah. Qadri explained that we are called Barelvis by our adversaries.page 26-28

• Another argument is that Wikipedia has articles about Islamic movements by the terms they use in their literature and in public discourse. It has no articles about movements with the pejoratives or with the derogatory terms.
• Wahabism in India has movement named Ahle Hadith. The movement calls themselves Ahle Hadith and they have a proper article about their movement but their adversaries continue to call them Wahabi.

• Likewise, the people known as Ahmadi are called Qadianis by their adversaries. They are followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, a village in the Punjab, India. They are called Qadianis in derogatory manner by their opposition groups. The article about their movement is known by the official name of that movement. Read its etymology section. Ehsan Ilahi Zahir, who wrote book Barelviah against Ahle Sunnat Movement, also wrote a book against Ahmadis, titled 'Qadiani'.

Above movements are reflected by their literary names at Wikipedia not by the pejoratives of their adversaries. Therefore, it will be justifiable to correct this article title to Ahle Sunnat Movement and later its etymology section.

• Reliable researches have used Ahle Sunnah wal Jamaah (Adherents to the Sunnah and the community) or Ahle Sunnat movement in their books/Journals/Papers because it gives a clear picture about this movement. It expresses the ideology of this movement.
• The Ahle Sunnat Movement is covered by only few researches. Prof. Usha Sanyal is one of such notable researchers who has written extensively. Her research about AHL-I SUNNAT MADRASAS and this movement is also notable.
• Recent Research, 'Syncretic Islam : Life and Times of Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi' by Anil Maheshwari, Richa Singh · 2021

Chapter 6 with the title Ahl-e-Sunnat: Energising Faith in Rough Times

• Religion Data base definition about Ahle Sunnah wal Jamaah.
• Research on, 'The Role of Ahle Sunnat Wa Jamaat (Barelvi/Sufi School) in the Creation of Pakistan'.
• The term Barelvi (which is taken from the home town Bareilly of its main leader) does not gives a clear picture about the movement. Its like New Yorker or Londonites which is not helpful for an Islamic movement. Neither it is Arabic word nor it is meaningful in any sense except that residents of this city are also known as Barelvi see Wasim Barelvi.
• Another problem created by the forced use of this derogatory Barelvi term is that Scholars and Organisation about which the 'Barelvi' term is not used by reliable sources, they can't be added to this page or in the template of this article. Though they may be part of Ahle Sunnat Movement or its associations. See edit dispute about Indian Grand Mufti from the template of this article because hardly any source mentioned him with that derogatory term though he is very much leader of Ahle Sunnat Movement as mentioned in his article. The scholars/literature and organisations of Ahle Sunnat Movement never identifies with that term so it becomes practically difficult to include those scholars/Organisations/books. Therefore, in order to present neutrality and to avoid future disputes also Ahle Sunnat term should be used in the title of this article. ScholarM (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the walls of text but I wanted to start by understanding the first sentence at Barelvi#Etymology with the oxfordreference source that supports it. May I ask a simple question: does anyone think that source supports that sentence? If so, why? That is, what words in the source support what words in the first sentence? If not, why was the sentence/source added? Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq I think the problem which you are facing while understanding due to the the use of term "Barelvis" there in the reference, but please read further what author discuss is "Founded in 188os in northern India. Based on the writings of the Mewlana Ahmed Raza Khan Barelwi." Which is a clear explanation that the movement Barelvis is nothing but the movement of Ahmed Raza Khan Barelwi or Barelvi. Hope this helps and I will also recommend you to read all the above mentioned sources by me and ScholarM thoroughly for better understanding. Also if you are satifsied with the above mentioned sources then kindly move this article to its correct location as mentioned above. Thanks. Youbat (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence at Barelvi#Etymology includes "Qadri". What is that and how does it relate to the "Barelwi" in the source? Is there a Wikipedia article on that person? Please don't mention anything apart from the core disagreement which I am attempting to summarize. Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

User:johnuniq, Yes Imam Ahmed Raza Khan Qadri is the same person Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi, I think you must read his article now on Wikipedia to confirm whether he is Qadri or not as it is clearly mentioned there. I also want to make clear "Qadri" is the sufi order of the movement's founder Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi so ScholarM might have used his name along with his Sufi order. Hope this helps. Youbat (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, that source supports that sentence in general. The dispute was more about whether or not the section reflects the body of all RS accurately, hence my restoration of the original community-drafted version from 2013. I don't think there's a strong disagreement about what's specifically in that first source, to focus on your question. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, initially, you asked for disagreement with the sources. I have elaborated differences. The pejorative is forced upon this article and in all sections. Almost all researches proved that it is Ahle Sunnat Movement. Therefore, the etymology should reflect the origin and history of Ahle Sunnat Movement. The movement is not shown here with actual title of this movement or with its full name. The etymology section will naturally discuss about origin and history of that pejorative 'Barelvi' only. That is cutting the strength and scope of the movement and making it some thing new or ambiguous. That is exactly the propaganda of its opposition that it is not Ahle Sunnat Movement which is also reflected here in this article. Later, you asked for the sources for this pejorative term. I gave those sources. Now your questions are different to which i will respond. ScholarM (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but everyone replying here should be addressing my "simple question" and I cannot understand why people keep padding out replies with advice and other issues. If you want to do that, put it in a separate section so we can move towards resolving at least the simple question. Regarding that, the source does not verify the first sentence because, as is obvious from the replies here, extra information is required in order to interpret the source. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies, User:Johnuniq. I've reviewed my own replies here and realized that I've contributed to that by typing too much irrelevant content in my replies; I'll reconsider my approach and proofread all replies from now on. For the time being, what's the next step? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Johnuniq extra info was needed to interpret that source. But now I have self reverted my own edit there, per the source, let me know if there is any other problem there so that it can be solved/improved. Youbat (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq just checking on the current status of this. Will you still be assisting, or should we move on to an RFC per your first comment? All the best. MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I've been caught up elsewhere. I would like to spend more time establishing the basis for disagreements before moving to an RfC because it's very likely that a complex or vague RfC would not assist.

The first sentence is still not right—for example, it refers to "Mawlana Ahmed Raza Khan Barelwi" (Ahmed with an e; Raza with an a; Barelwi with a w) with no wikilink, while a short while later we see "Ahmad Raza Khan" (Ahmad with an a) which is a redirect to Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi (Barelvi with a v). The source spells the name as "Mawlana Ahmad Reza Khan Barelwi". The spelling is just a transliteration into English and so will be spelled differently in different sources, but isn't it obvious that Wikipedia should use a consistent spelling? The replies to my questions say that that the two names refer to the same person so ideally there would be a note somewhere explaining what happened to "Mawlana".

There are other hurdles in the text but I might ask about a more significant issue soon. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

There's no need for an apology, User:Johnuniq; I don't envy your position and just wanted to check on progress.

User:ScholarM, please STOP with the contested edits you're doing. Until now, you're still inserting claims into this article of Barelvis being the only Sunnis in South Asia as you did here. You and Youbat know very well that this claim of exclusivity is the crux of the entire content dispute, and you should stop now while the process of mediation is still ongoing as a sign of goodwill. You're essentially creating more work for all of us, including yourself, because all of those contentious claims will eventually need to be checked. This goes even double when you're inserting claims, all of which fail verification, which directly contradict the sourced edits of mine which the two of you reverted to keep out of the article:

• You inserted a claim of Barelvis (using the term "Sunnis") oppose terrorism which is fine, yet you deleted the entire section on the Barelvi movement's ties to terrorism at the lower part of this reversion
• You inserted a claim that relations with other Sunni groups are strained, yet you removed evidence of the Barelvis declaring those groups to be outright apostates (same link as above, also the lower part)

Please stop editing in this way now; notice that I also stopped once we had an uninvolved person helping us to talk this over. This doesn't give the appearance of good faith editing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear MezzoMezzo, I did not touch etymology section and other parts which you mentioned after this discussion started. I just added information in the heads of various countries with reliable sources. The term added by me in South Africa head was based on source though i added Barelvi with that term after your objection. I never meant in any discussion that Sunni means only Ahle Sunnat Barelvi, please don't accuse me of that which i have not stated. I meant that this movement is known as Ahle Sunnat Movement or Ahle Sunnat Barelvi Movement. There may be other movements which can call themselves Ahle Sunnat, i don't object their nomenclature or their use of the term. For example- people who are commonly known as Wahabis have many literary terminologies such as Salafi, Muhaddithun, Ahle Hadith or Najdi. They also count themselves among Sunnis though non Salafi Sunnis reject their use of Sunni terminology. I have added some images which are relevant and related to the article so it may be counted as good article. I hope you will also like it. ScholarM (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

User:ScholarM, please stop taking this as a point-by-point debate and listen to me. What I'm writing now will save both me and you a lot of time down the road.

Every edit you're making now will be checked eventually. I have to because of the clear problems with accuracy and true representation of RS you have. Take a look at the summary you left for this edit which I chose at random:

"Added Barelvi with Sunni as per talk, though the source has only Ahle Sunnat or Sunni"

Well, ScholarM, I checked the cited source by Patrick Eisenlohr and found out that your claim in the edit summary simply isn't true. At the bottom of page 400 and the top of page 401, the author writes:

"The Ahl-e Sunnat, also known in South Asia as the Barelwi tradition, is one of the reformist traditions which emerged in in nineteenth-century Indian Islam. In contrast to other, more familiar reformist traditions of Indian Islam, such as the school of Deoband, the Ahl-e Sunnat is known for its great emphasis on practices of intercession (Sanyal 1996)."

So your claim in the edit summary that the source "has only Ahle Sunnat or Sunni" is clearly false and paints an inaccurate picture of the state of reliable sources, especially when we realize that Eisenlohr is merely quoting Sanyal, who isn't representative of the wider religious scholarship and media coverage of South Asian religion.

That is why I'm asking you to stop. I picked one of your edits at random, ran a verification check, and already found that your summary was inaccurate and thus your characterization of your edit as some sort of a compromise is also incorrect. And for every other edit you're doing, based on your recent history both here and on other articles where you've gotten into trouble, I'm going to have to run verification checks. If you think that my perception is wrong, then you have nothing to worry about, and meeting my request that you stop editing during a third pair of eyes from an uninvolved admin would be a real, actual form of compromise and a great sign of goodwill. MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Though, the sources confirms my argument that Ahle Sunnat is actual terms used by almost all academicians and researchers. That was this source of which i saw snippet view and used Ahle Sunnat term while editing and added this source which also used Ahle Sunnat and Barelwi term both. Both sources confirms my arguments that movement is written as Ahle Sunnat by various academicians having presence in various countries. You have talked about compromise let's see it how it can be arrived at ? ScholarM (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Wait a minute User:ScholarM, you didn't even READ the source? You just looked at a snippet view in a search engine? Then that means you don't truly know what it confirms or doesn't confirm! This type of behavior doesn't even conform to the content guideline on citing sources; check WP:SAYWHERE and note that you should actually read the sources you cite.

This is why I'm asking you to stop editing while we wait for the admin to return. That's the compromise. I picked one edit of yours at random, found that it failed the verifiability check, and now you're telling me that you didn't even read the entire source. THIS is what I'm talking about when I say that you're creating more work for us all; we don't even need to get into WP:UBO and what RS confirm as the movement's name because you haven't read the RS in one single edit I chose to look at as a test.

Coupled with the fact that you just got caught with mass Wikipedia:Copyright violations on other articles, and that you even admitted to doing so, the true compromise here is that you STOP EDITING THIS ARTICLE. I can't be clearer than this; there's an issue with your edits, and it's not personal, but it will require a lot of hours spent on the part of me and other community members. Please show goodwill and stop editing for now. Is my request for a compromise clear now? MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo, every time and ever where the JSTOR subscription is not available. The paper was not open to download. Later i could download it to read completely. I have given here several sources after properly reading in various languages and those sources supports my arguments and stand of other editors that Ahle Sunnat is a most used term by ACADEMICIANS along with Barelvi. The Barelvi is pejorative term as used by Deobandi scholars in their books. I am not touching the etymology section and also waiting the outcome of this discussion.

In his book, Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat' published by Darul Qalam, Delhi authored by Allama Yaseen Akhtar Misbahi at page number 128, discuss how Deobandi sect calls Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat by this term and this pejorative term is rejected by scholars of Ahle Sunnat. He quoted a Fatwa of famous scholar Mustafa Raza Khan where Mustafa Raza told that 'Wahabi and Deobandis call traditional Sunnis as Barelvis but Sunnis must not accept this new term for them. They should reject it. ScholarM (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

User:ScholarM, you appear to have stopped editing the article for the time being; am I correct to understand that?

I don't know why you keep changing the subject and arguing. I made a simple request based on problems with your editing; failed verification is a problem, not simply a difference of opinion. You seem to have fulfilled that request after my above post. Further argumentation about the efficacy of your and my claims isn't needed nor was it the point; the point was my request based on legitimate problems. If you're willing to fulfill my request on a voluntary and gentlemanly basis, then there's no need for you to continue pushing the point. Just wait for the admin input and, until then, you and I can both go edit other things. This isn't a point-by-point argument, as I've mentioned before. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Correction of terminology post-topic ban

Per User_talk:ScholarM#Blocked, ScholarM has been blocked for breaching a topic ban on editing any articles about Islam and India/Pakistan. The topic ban is indefinite and was placed over a year ago, meaning that none of the above content disputes should have even occurred. Considering that the topic ban was for repeated disruptive editing and POV pushing on these topics, and coupled with the clear WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior in the discussion above, I'll be amending this article based on reliable sources, a neutral point of view, and what can actually be verified. This will include:

• Changing all references to the article's subject as simply "Barelvi," which is the movement's most common name in all media and scholarship;
• Amending the etymology section to reflect the actual etymology of the term rather than one user's theological arguments;
• A long-term verification check on the numerous edits which ScholarM made to the article in breach of the topic ban; and
• The reversion of any other material which appears to be pushing a theological POV rather than simply providing a neutral encyclopedic description of the movement.
  

I don't expect this to be a fast process, but it's worthwhile given the long history of content disputes on this article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate content in the aricle

While copyediting the article I saw the same content repeated in Persecution Section which states

During the 1990s and 2000s, sporadic violence resulted from disputes between Barelvis and Deobandis over control of Pakistani mosques.[236] The conflict came to a head in May 2001, when sectarian riots broke out after the assassination of Sunni Tehreek leader Saleem Qadri.[168] In April 2006 in Karachi, a bomb attack on a Barelvi gathering celebrating Muhammad's birthday killed 57 people, including several Sunni Tehreek leaders.[237][238] Sunni Tehreek activists attempted to seize a Karachi mosque in April 2007, opening fire on the mosque and its worshipers; one person was killed and three were injured.[239] Militants believed to be affiliated with the Taliban and Sipah-e-Sahaba attacked Barelvis celebrating Mawlid in Faisalabad and Dera Ismail Khan on 27 February 2010, sparking tensions between the groups.[240]

The similar content was seen in the section Sectarian Violence which states

 During the 1990s and 2000s, sporadic violence resulted from disputes between Barelvis and Deobandis over control of Pakistani mosques.[236] The conflict came to a head in May 2001, when sectarian riots broke out after the assassination of Sunni Tehreek leader Saleem Qadri.[168] In April 2006 in Karachi, a bomb attack on a Barelvi gathering celebrating Muhammad's birthday killed 57 people, including several Sunni Tehreek leaders.[237][238] Sunni Tehreek activists attempted to seize a Karachi mosque in April 2007, opening fire on the mosque and its worshipers; one person was killed and three were injured.[239] Militants believed to be affiliated with the Taliban and Sipah-e-Sahaba attacked Barelvis celebrating Mawlid in Faisalabad and Dera Ismail Khan on 27 February 2010, sparking tensions between the groups. 

So I am removing the duplicate section of secterian violence. Youbat (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

While doing further copyediting, I found further Duplicate Section, which were Barelvi#Stand_on_blasphemy_laws_2 and Barelvi#Stand_on_blasphemy_laws so I am retaining one of the section and removing the other duplicate section. Youbat (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Even when trying to put on an air of being neutral, your attempts at pushing sectarian POV is obvious. Although I wouldn't normally reply to a sock/meat puppet, this is a teachable moment.

Yes, the content was duplicated in the edits that ScholarM/Youbat/whatever you want to call yourself added later. This was clearly for a reason. The version of the content which you copy-pasted was added into the "persecution" section designed to portray the Barelvi movement solely as a sort of pacifist victim group. Barelvis have been victims at times, but they've also been perpetrators, just like other Muslim groups. The section from which you copied the content - and from which it was originally written around 2013 - was the "Sectarian violence" section which contained evidence of Barelvis also victimizing others.

Specifically, you removed the following well-sourced text:

• "Analysts and journalists have conflicting opinions about the underlying nature of Barelvi. Some describe the movement as moderate and peaceful" (cited by four reliable sources)
• "others describe it as affected by intolerance and radicalism, similar to other regional Islamic movements." (cited by five reliable sources)

The intention is clear: to remove any material at all which appears unflattering to the movement. Just like the case with User:Msoamu a decade ago, User:ScholarM/User:Youbat/whatever name they'll use next have a bias so unbelievably strong that it becomes a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Because they came to Wikipedia only to promote their own ideas, they think that anybody opposing them must have opposite ideas; the notion of people editing without agendas or biases is an alien concept. That's why we see all the personal attacks against me, against the admin who finally blocked them for topic ban violations, the insinuations that their opponents hate Barelvis, and so forth.

I don't expect anyone to portray the above as a serious or legitimate dispute; it's merely a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Users may see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScholarM for the whole fiasco as to why I'm reverting the entirety of all ScholarM's/Youbat's illicit edits at once. I won't be considering them at all as they shouldn't have been made in the first place per the topic ban. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

And I've already reached the limit of my patience for the day. Good Lord, there's a ton of work that needs to be done. Much of the article isn't even written in proper English anymore. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Prejudiced edits removed. 185.96.163.173 (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

This is going to take a long time. Every line seems to have been edited, against what's actually in the sources, in order to conform to the topic-banned user's own peculiar POV. Every section I chose to look at today failed verification checks in ways which pointed toward the same tendentious, sectarian language. The history section needs a serious look over because right now, it isn't even about the history of this movement. It seems tailored to deny Ahmed Raza Khan's seminal role, deny connection to the town Bareilly, and claim descent from clerics who were already dead at the time of the Barelvi movement's founding. MezzoMezzo (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The history section focuses on the wrong history

I've just started going through the history and already noticed some serious funny business in there. The Barelvi movement was founded by Ahmed Raza Khan in the 1880s by unanimous consensus of all reliable sources. However, much of the history section focuses on unrelated religious events predating the movement's founding (and even Khan's birth) anywhere from a few decades to over a hundred years. I'm not joking.
Quite often, religious revival movements appeal to "the good old days" and some sort of aggrandized past, and that should certainly be made clear as a belief of the Barelvi movement if RS can be found establishing that they hold this belief. That absolutely can't be presented as objective historical fact, however, and as of right now, I have no evidence that it's anything other than the personal belief of the topic banned individual who used this article as a pulpit for the past few months. I'll see if some of that material can be selectively merged into other articles, but if unrelated materials about whatever happened in the 1700s can't be moved anywhere, then I'll just delete it as one quirky editor's personal essay. The history section of this article should be about the history of the article's subject. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Any criticism?

I would like to suggest adding a section for criticism at the end of the article, because I think this will help reduce bias and improve neutrality by presenting multiple points of view on the topic.--TheEagle107 (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

User:TheEagle107, that could be done, in theory. It's certainly a delicate topic, but I think such sections exists on other movements within both Islam and other religions. Do you have any potential structures for such a section in mind? Or maybe a similar article with a fair criticism section as a good model? MezzoMezzo (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Criticism#"Criticism" section but read it carefully including "if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole". Johnuniq (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, my knowledge is limited on this topic, which is obviously controversial, but all I know right now is that Ehsan Elahi Zaheer wrote a book that criticizes the Barelvis. The book examines their history, beliefs, and rituals in depth. You can download it in PDF from HERE. Actually, there are some editors here who probably can provide some help and can shed more light on this subject, and have a better knowledge of the details of this topic than I do. I'd like to tag @TheAafi:, @GorgeCustersSabre:, @Vice regent:, @Owais Al Qarni: Do you have any ideas or suggestions to improve the neutrality of this article? Thanks in advance.--TheEagle107 (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hoping to see some comments from the others. The wikilink which Johnuniq posted above is useful but also makes me cautious about such a section. For the record, there was a criticism section on this article up to 2019, if I'm not mistaken, but it seems to have been removed along with a lot of other material due to the mess in talk page sections above. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not prevent the existence of a specific section for criticism, as long as it's written neutrally and briefly as possible, because there are indeed many (or at least several) articles that contain a section for criticism, but at the same time, criticism section may compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject! So it's preferable to integrate the section's contents into the article as a whole. I am just sharing my view on this point and hope to see other opinions soon. Good luck and all the best!--TheEagle107 (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The article still doesn't yet give the full story. After doing some search, I found some interesting books on the practices and ideology of the Barelwis:

1. Mutala'a Barelwi by Khalid Mahmood.
2. Barelwi Fitna ka Naya Roup (Or: Barelvi Fitnay Ka Nya Roop) by Muhammad Arif Sambhli.
3. Deoband Se Barelwi Tak by Abul Awsaf Rumi.

Sources: Askimam.org, IslamQA.org, Darul Ifta Birmingham & Darul Ifta - Darul Uloom Deoband, India.

These books will show other points of view on the doctrine and history of the Barelwis, which will help to clarify many of the things that are missing from the article (I mean the criticism). Unfortunately, these books are written in Urdu and I don't speak this language, but hopefully someone will translate and summarize the content of these books in the near future.--TheEagle107 (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

More dispute over Barelvi vs. Ahl-e-Sunnat

Glancing through what appears to be a good source -- Syncretic Islam, the life and times of Ahmad Raza Khan Barlevi -- which starts chapter 6 with:
"It was through the 1870s and 1880s that the Ahl-e-Sunnat movement took shape in Bareilly";
while the publisher's blurb included the sentence:
"An Islamic scholar, jurist and an Urdu poet, Ahmad Raza Khan was the founder of the Barelvi movement whose defining feature of thought is the active veneration of the Prophet as the most exalted of all beings."

I propose the lede include Ahl-e-Sunnat and its first paragraph read:

Barelvi (Urdu: بَریلوِی, Barēlwī, Urdu pronunciation: [bəreːlʋi], also sometimes called Ahl-e-Sunnat or Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jamaah) is a Sunni revivalist movement following the Hanafi and Shafi school of jurisprudence, with over 200 million followers in South Asia and in parts of Europe, America and Africa. It is a broad Sufi-oriented movement that encompasses a variety of Sufi orders, including the Chistis, Qadiris, Soharwardis and Naqshbandis. The movement drew inspiration from the Sufi doctrines of Shah Abdur Rahim (1644-1719) founder of Madrasah-i Rahimiyah and father of Shah Waliullah Dehlawi, Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith Dehlavi (1746 –1824) and Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi (1796 – 1861) founder of Khairabad School. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey there User:Louis P. Boog, and another disclosure for any other editors that I wasn't aware of who you were when you first posted here. Anyways, I'm drowning in tasks at work, hence my absence for a few days. I'll try to look over your research here during the next few days and then, I hope, log back in before the end of the week.

In the meantime, if you're so inclined and have a high tolerance for walls of text, perhaps you could look over past comments here on the obsession of a few accounts (mostly socks of each other) with naming/misnaming the movement:

• Talk:Barelvi#Duplicate_content_in_the_aricle
• Talk:Barelvi/Archive 7
• Talk:Barelvi/Archive_6#Term_Barelvi_and_Ahle_sunnat
• Talk:Barelvi/Archive_6#Rephrasing
• Talk:Barelvi/Archive_2#Propose_we_move_this_article_to_Barelvi
• Talk:Barelvi/Archive_2#Claim_to_term_"Ahle_Sunnat"
• Talk:Barelvi/Archive_2#Agree_with_Coercorash
• Talk:Barelvi/Archive_2#Change_in_etymology

There's already a bit of material on other sources there which could be synthesized with what you've found above. It also gives a bit of background info behind the previous discussion on this subject with certain other editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Louis P. Boog, I'm once again drowning at work, but I did make a point to sit down and look things over. I hope that you took a look at the discussions I've linked to. Based on that, I'm still wary of adding text which explicitly states that the Barelvis are also known as Ahlus Sunnah unless we also add that text to the articles on Deobandis, Salafis, Ahbash, Muslim Brotherhood, Ahle Hadith, Islamic Neo-Traditionalists, and every other Sunni group. The four reasons for my wariness are the lack of RS exclusively calling Barelvis "Ahle Sunnat," the bad faith goals demonstrated by ScholarM and other socks in pushing that term, the problem of portraying a religious group's dogmatic belief as objective fact, and the fact that other Sunni groups all claim to be the true Ahle Sunnat.

First of all, there's no source which exclusively refers to Barelvis as Ahle Sunnat without also using the term Barelvi. Even Usha Sanyel, the favorite rose-tinted glass of the various socks working on this article, uses both terms while being in the minority who prefers Ahle Sunnat. It goes without saying that the overwhelming majority of all academic and media sources use the term Barelvi only.

Second of all, the group of socks have been pushing that term Ahle Sunnat for bad faith reasons. I've seen them doing this with all the failed verification checks now, and it's the same as it was five years ago. Barelvis are the largest group of Sunnis in South Asia, but not the only group, and the number of Sunni Muslims in South Asia who remain unaffiliated with any specific movement is just as large. By declaring that the term "Ahle Sunnat" refers to Barelvis only, these users were then going to articles on South Asian Sunni clerics - including articles on living people - and tagging every single unaffiliated Sunni as a Barelvi. This artificially inflates the number of Barelvi articles as can be seen from the recent history of Template:Barelvi. Considering the affiliation of all these socks with the MSO group at Aliargh University, a non-notable group of belligerent and intolerant keyboard warriors, the pattern of trying to exploit Wikipedia for sectarian purposes comes clear, and the naming of Barelvis as Ahle Sunnat is a part of that.

Third of all, reliable sources show that Barelvis who use the term "Ahle Sunnat" use it specifically as a term of exclusivity; by declaring themselves as the true Sunni Islam, for which Ahle Sunnat is the unabbreviated term, they can then declare all of their Sunni opponents as heretics forming new unprecedented movements. The article already reflects that view of theirs, but it shouldn't accept that view as inherently true.

Fourth of all, the opponents of Barelvis in South Asia also call themselves Ahle Sunnat, including the Ahle Hadith and Deobandi movement. Similarly, they make that claim as a form of stigmatizing their opponents, and I wouldn't prefer that such views be presented by the wording of Wikipedia articles as fact. Referring to any one of these groups as also being called Ahle Sunnat would be doing just that.

Given all of the above, can we devise an alternative wording which includes the religious belief of the Barelvi movement without granting them a contentious and disputed title? Your comments two subsections below are apt, and the current wording is unclear and conflicting, but for the four reasons above, I'm wary of picking this Sunni group over other Sunni groups as the only correct claimants of orthodoxy. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

User:MezzoMezzo, I too am quite busy at present, so I'll make this brief.

First, I respect your exasperation and even anger at dealing with partisan, badfaith editors. I came across some surprisingly egregious verification failures without really trying in editing the article recently.

Second, scrap the proposed edit I proposed above -- also sometimes called Ahl-e-Sunnat or Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jamaah) -- doesn't give enough context.

Third, here are a few quotes preceded by cites from reasonably scholarly sources I think should be raw material for a brief few words in the lede about Ahl-e-Sunnat etc.

• Jackson, W. Kesler (2013). A subcontinent's Sunni schism: The Deobandi-Barelvi dynamic and the creation of modern south Asia. Syracuse University. p. 4. While Deobandi leaders like Muhammad Qasim and Mahmud Hasan were introducing what might arguably have been deemed "new" concepts into Islamic practice (Qasim and Hasan, of course, would have characterized such "new" concepts as those originally upheld and practiced by the Prophet and his companions but subsequently forgotten, ignored, abandoned, or erroneously replaced by the majority of South Asian Muslims), Ahmad Riza Khan crusaded to protect the old. The Barelvis, then, held that their version of Islam—the "true," "Sunni" version—had existed all along.
• Jackson, W. Kesler (2013). A subcontinent's Sunni schism: The Deobandi-Barelvi dynamic and the creation of modern south Asia. Syracuse University. p. 4. (It should be pointed out that Barelvis don't consider themselves as belonging to a sect at all; they are, simply, "Sunni", like "most Muslims" around the world; it is the Deobandis, in their view, who form a breakaway sect.)
• Riaz, Ali (2008). Faithful Education: Madrassahs in South Asia. Rutgers University Press. p. 75. ISBN 978-0-8135-4345-1. ...a defining characteristic of the Ahl-e-Sunnat wa Jama'at, as the name suggests, is the claim that it alone truly represents the sunnah (the Prophetic tradition and conduct), and therby the true Sunni Muslim tradition. ...
• Maheshwari, Anil (2021). "6. Ahl-e-Sunnat: Energising Faith in Rough Times". Syncretic Islam. Bloomsbury Publishing. Retrieved 7 August 2021. The Barelvis, like the Deobandis, insisted that they were leaders [not??] of separate sects but of the mainstream Sunni Muslims. And so, they called themselves the Ahl-e-Sunnat wa Jama'at, the classical name for the Sunni community. [note, the first sentence makes no sense without "not" inserted after "leaders"]. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Louis P. Boog, yeah, I know you've faced your fair share of that too. I suppose it's time to move beyond that, though, and that goes for me first. What we can see from all the sources above is that laying claim to the title is important to the Barelvi movement, so what should the new version of the lede be? The current version still ends with the de-contextualized statement that Ahmed Reza Khan founded a movement called Ahle Sunnat. However, the second paragraph of the lede looks quite good - the part about how the movement viewed its mission as defending tradition. Could a comment about their claim to the Ahle Sunnat term be included there? It might fit since their claim to the term goes in tandem with their belief that they'd the defenders of traditional Sunnism. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

See what you think of what I wrote below. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

full disclosure

ScholarM contacted me 4 August by email via wikipedia, giving me his pitch about all the sources that support his case for changing the name of the article along with some flattery. I hope that doesn't violate any Wikipedia canvassing regulations. Louis P. Boog (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Louis P. Boog, thank you for the full disclosure. I do want to refer to User:Bishonen, User:RegentsPark, and User:Yamla before engaging in this. I respect your own efforts to research this, but I also don't want to engage if this is an extension of ScholarM's open attempts to violate the topic ban, both through contacting you and using the Youbat puppet. As you can see in the long discussions above, the user's bad faith behavior in this topic area caused many problems to the encyclopedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Louis P. Boog. That is a very, very serious violation by ScholarM and so I have converted their one month block to an indefinite block. We simply cannot have ScholarM continue to act so blatantly inappropriately. Louis, I'll note that ScholarM attempted to use you as a sockpuppet, see WP:SOCK. --Yamla (talk) 10:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Lede problem

I have refrained from editing the lede the way I proposed but have to point out that as it stands the lede is a bit confusing. It ends with this:

Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi (1856–1921) who was a Sufi scholar and reformer in north India wrote extensively in defense of Muhammad and Sufi practices and became the leader of a movement called “Ahl-i Sunnat wa Jamàat”.

It doesn't say what, if any, connection there is between the "movement called 'Ahl-i Sunnat wa Jamàat'" and Barelvi.

--Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

another lede rewrite proposal

Current lede:

Barelvi (Urdu: بَریلوِی, Barēlwī, Urdu pronunciation: [bəreːlʋi]) is a Sunni revivalist movement following the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, with over 200 million followers in South Asia and in parts of Europe, America and Africa. It is a broad Sufi-oriented movement that encompasses a variety of Sufi orders, including the Chistis, Qadiris, Soharwardis and Naqshbandis. The movement was developed under the leadership of Sufi scholar Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi (1856–1921) around 1870-1890, in opposition to contemporary revivalist Deobandi and Ahl-i Hadith movements.

Unlike the revivalists who wanted to return Islam to the "historical past" or "as idealised in the holy texts", Barelvi sought to preserve Islam "as it had evolved into the present". The movement emphasizes personal devotion to God, adherence to Sharia, and Sufi practices such as veneration of saints, and especially "active veneration" of the Islamic prophet Muhammad "as the most exalted of all beings".

Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi who was a reformer in north India who wrote extensively in defense of Muhammad and Sufi practices and became the leader of a movement called “Ahl-i Sunnat wa Jamàat”.

Proposed change:

Barelvi (Urdu: بَریلوِی, Barēlwī, Urdu pronunciation: [bəreːlʋi]) is a Sunni revivalist movement following the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, with over 200 million followers in South Asia and in parts of Europe, America and Africa. It is a broad Sufi-oriented movement that encompasses a variety of Sufi orders, including the Chistis, Qadiris, Soharwardis and Naqshbandis. The movement was developed under the leadership of Sufi scholar Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi (1856–1921) around 1870-1890, in opposition to contemporary revivalist Deobandi and Ahl-i Hadith movements.

Unlike the revivalists who wanted to return Islam to (what they believe to be) the "historical past" or "as idealised in the holy texts", Barelvi sought to preserve Islam "as it had evolved into the present". The movement emphasizes personal devotion to God, adherence to Sharia, and Sufi practices such as veneration of saints, and especially "active veneration" of the Islamic prophet Muhammad "as the most exalted of all beings". They considered themselves to be "true" Sunni Muslims or simply Sunni, and called themselves the Ahl-e-Sunnat wa Jama'at, the classical name for the Sunni community.

going to make lede rewrite

Have been waiting for editor MezzoMezzo who is still apparently still preoccupied (busy at work), and has only made one edit since 20 August. Consequently I am going to go ahead and make the proposed change described above. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Done here -Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Nikha

As salamu alaikum wa Rahmatullah hi wa barkatuhu mai ne bahut se knowledge walo se pucha to kahene lage ha ho jaayega but aap batayiye dur ki bhanji se nikha ho sakta na 2409:4042:240B:7494:0:0:AE9:28A4 (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content ?

Following sourced content seems to have been removed by User:Indrooooz during one of their edits while engaged in edit war with an IP.

May be we can understand reason of sourced content removal from User:Indrooooz and other users may help review the removal of the content.

There are more reliable sources available quoted below, on how competitive sectarianism and politics some fanatic Mullahs and politicians lead to extremism among people regarding blasphemy issues.

• https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/the-rise-of-the-religious-group-behind-violent-protests-in-pakistan-46039
• https://www.dw.com/en/pakistans-barelvis-transformation-from-peaceful-to-violent/a-41744277
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-pakistan-even-anti-violence-islamic-sect-lauds-assassination-of-liberal-governor/2011/01/29/ABZsy5Q_story.html
• https://thediplomat.com/2021/10/how-south-asias-brand-of-sufi-islam-became-radicalized/

Actually according to this Dawn report by Arafat Mazhar founders of the sects had some liberal flexibility on the issue; but many fanatics among followers behaving differently. That means competitive sectarianism and politics is root cause as believed by media reports, intellectuals and academic studies.

Here is Academic study which actually needs to be covered more in the article.

• Schaflechner, Jürgen. “Blasphemy and the Appropriation of Vigilante Justice in ‘Hagiohistoric’ Writing in Pakistan.” Outrage: The Rise of Religious Offence in Contemporary South Asia, edited by Paul Rollier et al., UCL Press, 2019, pp. 208–35, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvh1dx8q.15. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvh1dx8q.15
• https://www.proquest.com/openview/89fa83acc36a78d4ce8fe18e6a9dd0c1/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Removed sourced content:

"According to Safdar Sial of Pak Institute for Peace Studies, traditional narratives of the Barelvis being followers of Sufism, peace-loving and moderate stands negated when it comes blasphemy-related issues. Pakistan Sunni Tehreek, came into being in 1990 to contest take over of the mosques and madrasas of the Barelvi school of thought by Deobandi and Ahle Hadith groups, then there slogan was “Jawaniyan lutaain gai, masjidain bachayein gai [We will sacrifice our lives to protect our mosques]” with anti blasphemy protest newer radical slogan adopted by them is "Tauheen rasalat ki ek saza, sar tan se juda (There’s only one punishment for a blasphemer and that is beheading). According to Zia Ur Rehman's geo.tv news report, Barelvi groups are politically exploiting the issue of blasphemy to exhibit their strength to counter the growing influence of Deobandi and Ahle Hadith groups and started trend of radicalisation, making it difficult to differentiate between them and jihadist groups. According to the Pakistan's law enforcement official, they are sectarian group with background of organised network of criminals mainly involved in extortion cases and targeted killings, turned into a extremist group."

References

Yes, Bookku, I completely agreed with your concerns regarding the removal of well sourced content. So I am going to restore the last stable revision before that User, as I can see only few copyedits by another problematic IP after indrooz, which were reverted by several other users for their problematic copy edits, the concerned can be seen on their talk page, thank you once again for discussing those removals on talk page -- 37.111.217.131 (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Content Dispute March

See the guidelines for WP:DISPUTE and try to acheive WP:CONSENSUS.

Do not WP:EDITWAR. Dove's talk. shadowwarrior8 UTC 12:54 pm 22 March 2022

Actually It seems you were pushing your own point of view by removing the reliable sources. Dove's talk (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Dove's talk Firstly, sorry for the last reversion. It was a typo/screen mistake. Which reliable sources? Point out specifically.Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Sources in the lead section, I saw you have removed all the Wikipedia: Reliable Sources from the lead which were verifiable for the terminology cited for the movement--Ahlesunnat Wal Jamaat. Dove's talk (talk) Dove's talk (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Dove's talk I didnt. I only moved it to the last sentence of the lead para | See Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

But I think those Sources were added to clarify the terminology of that movement. I have checked and found those were verifiable to the terminology, also you have removed Ahlesunnat Wal Jamaat from lead section. In short, you had mess up the article against what was verifiable earlier. Thanks. Dove's talk (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Dove's talk That is why asked you to refer WP:COMMONNAME regulations. There is null usage of this term as per Ngram test as opposed to highly popular "Barelvi" term.

Any encyclopaedic references where Barelvi movement is given Ahl-e Sunnat wal Jama'ah entry? Otherwise your case wont stand. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I think I am aware of Wikipedia:COMMONNAME but you need to read the sources where movement were cited by term Ahlesunnat Wal Jamaat, as I can see the terminology is clearly verifiable with various avilable sources including Sanyal, also you might need to check WP:POVPUSH and WP:RS. Dove's talk (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2022

Please add to the beginning of the Paragraph "Intercession of Muhammad"

The position of all 4 schools of thought with regards to the concept of the Intercession of the Prophet Muhammad are based on the famous Hadith, "Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle" (Sahih al-Bukhari 3445) Independent-thinking101 (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)