Talk:Bihari Muslims

Criticism

This page seems like a spruke from christian missionaries. Nothing is properly referenced, and the little referencing is towards extremely biased, and untrustworthy sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.92.44 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 29 March 2010

Edit Wars

{{editsemiprotected}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Islamuslim (talk • contribs) 21:13, 29 March 2010

looks like the BJPs , Communists and Christian Missionaries have pissed all over this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.161.219 (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not done: This article is not protected. I see you have requested protection at WP:RFPP. Please do not remove talk page posts which do not belong to you, unless they violate WP:TALK. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoever u are why r u sop keen to invent lies against Islam ?? I see ur desire is the end of ISLAM. I am a Bihari Muslim myself and I can say with certainty that there is absolutely no discrimination atleast in the Bihari Muslim diaspora in Kolkata. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.170.88 (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. While there may be editors with anti-Islam motivations, the vast majority of your fellow editors, myself included, are here to write an encyclopedia and nothing else. Edit warriors, on either side of a dispute, are not tolerated for very long. Your personal observations are not verifiable and can't be used to support claims in the article. If your observations are widely held, there will be reliable sources which make those same observations. If you want to improve this article, find those sources and add content based on those sources. Cheers, Celestra (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Lack of reliable sources

Islamuslim wasn't communicating well, but he was correct that the sources for this article were not even close to reliable. I have removed them again and the more controversial content based on those sources. Feel free to take the sources to WP:RSN if you disagree. Please do not edit war by restoring these obviously unacceptable sources or the content based on those sources. A more useful approach would be to find references to support the non-controversial content and expand the article based on what is found in those sources. Regards, Celestra (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page, since it discusses this article:

what is happening here. we are trying to show the problems being faced by muslims in bihar. still you keep deleting matters to make it look positive. it is a bias you are propagating. i gave many links. in comparison there is no link in your version. does opposing bad elements within muslims society amount to suppporting bjp and rss. are we defined by them. waht about the millions accepting Lord Jesus .

in the same vein, tomorrow you guys will delete references of terrorists and osama bin laden saying that it gives a benefit to usa and christian-zionist missions. wikipedia is an open-neutral community. partiality and personal reasons should not be allowed here. we all know that the scrouge of casteism exists in south asian isla; propagated by sufis who tried to give alternate version of caste-system for muslims.

Morever I can also ask for many links. For example, where is it written that the foreign muslims are richer than natives? is it not a baised perception?

I am myself a native and in fact the poverty level of the two are comparable at 35-58% of population

Similarly, where is it written or published that Bihari Muslims speak Urdu? Most of them DON'T! Falsely attributing a language, a lower status and a foreign diet to an unresearched group is a moral crime!! still you write , The cuisine of Bihari Muslims is more Pashtun-oriented and Arab-oriented. tell me where is the proof?? this is a baised article, no doubt! "Bihari Muslims have a rich culture representing a syncretisation between Arab, Afghan and local Hindu Bihari traditions." where do you find that? Arabs presence in Bihar has been minimal/negligible. gimme proof to the contrary! tell me where is it written, The majority of Bihari Muslims follow the Barelwi movement of Sunni Islam. I have already given links to christianisation of muslims. but you keep on deleting. no doubt you are anti-muslim who wants to keep the muslim population in ignorance about the church plantings and evangelism.

Generally the standard of Urdu declines as one moves down the socio-economic ladder. where did you find these types of info? at the best these are humorous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.244.114 (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing this. Please stop adding back the poorly sourced content while this is being discussed.

We are trying to produce an encyclopedia article about the Bahari Muslims; nothing else. The religious sources which were previously in the article are both highly biased, focusing as they did on missionary work to convert people, and not subject to any editorial review. The other source was someone posting what they claimed to be an excerpt of a paper titles "Caste and Contemporary India". The paper might be a reliable source, depending on the author and the forum, but a post of excerpts in some Muslim Forum is not, in my opinion. The content which appeared to be based on those sources was removed. I agree with you that the remainder also needs to be sourced, but it seemed less controversial amd the overall article seemed neutral. If you want to selectively remove unsourced content which you feel is controversial, I think that would be useful. When I removed those sources and this content I suggested the other editors should find reliable sources for the remaining content and grow the article from those sources. You are also welcome to find reliable sources for anything which was removed, which you feel needs to be in the article to present a neutral point of view. Regards, Celestra (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There is difference between being politically correct i.e. neutral and being correct. If being neutral is the aim, I will remove all the references to Muslim terrorists which is generally included in mainstream. Nothing is black or white in this world. We have gray shades. Just to show neutrality, you are deleting verified contents. Then I would have to delete those contents too for which you have not answered my questions. I am not creating any controversy. I am just trying to reform a dark and tribal society. Unlike the west which kills millions in the name of democracy in Vietnam and Afghanistan; I am following democratic procedures. Were not those steps controversial? Still American Population supported them. To cut short, your points are baseless. If being neutral is what you want, let me tell you beforehand I am going to delete all and any controversial points against Germans in the Holocaust articles. Similarly I will remove any controversial points in the articles dealing with casteism in india.

Should not the same logic apply? We are creating an encyclopedia not a political manifesto. We should follow truth, not religious whims of Christians, Muslims or Hindus. Islam is a Arabic religion, no doubt

• enough... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.244.114 (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty following your response. The issue we are discussing here is the lack of reliable sources for this article. If other articles have equally unreliable sources for content; you would have to deal with that on those pages. The sources previously used here were unreliable and nothing based on them is "verified contents". The contents which was removed was removed because it was controversial and had no reliable source. If I say that the tribe upstream is pissing in the stream, I need better sourcing than if I were to simply say that they exist, or that they speak Swahili. If you were aware somehow that speaking Swahili was more controversial than I thought and wanted to remove that unsourced claim, you would be welcome to do so. Do you have anything to share about the sources or about some removed text being less controversial or about some remaining text being more controversial? Celestra (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Lack of objectivity

There seems to a real lack of objectivity, with claims made with out any references. I specially found statements like caste being worse among the Muslims. Work on Bihar Muslim is limited but Gottschalk study on a Bihari Muslim village makes no reference to caste being worse among Muslim. Secondly, where is the evidence of large scale conversion to Christianity.

Secondly the issue of Bihari Muslims as a community being involved in controversial events is blaming an ethnic group for individual misdeamenour.

WALTHAM2 (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss the changes you would like to make to address this perception. Simply reverting to a two week old version is not reasonable. Thanks,Celestra (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Copied from my (Celestra) talk page. Please discuss articles on article talk pages:

I have deleted the following segment of this segment of the article. Makes a huge amount of claims, but does not back it with references.

“The Muslims of Bihar are divided along Caste lines, with Sunni Ashrafs tracing descent from Turkish, Afghan, Mughal and Syed Arab gentry; a prominent middle group comprising of descendants of Muslim soldiers, merchants, artisans and settlers from Central Asia and converts from Backward Caste Hindus; and a lower class both in rural and urban areas, mostly comprising of Agricultural and Artisan Castes, converted to Islam from the lower strata of Hinduism. The unique feature of this Caste system is its emphasis on foreign ancestry which alienates both high and low caste Hindus from Islam. The segregation is not based on economic status as the poverty levels of all three groups are similar at 38%.

A large number of Bihari Muslims, about 1-2 millions have converted to Christianity in recent years owing to multi-dimensional evangelism and church planting by Christian missions. The massive conversion is also attributed to the poverty of Muslims in the region and the widely held bias against native converts by the foreign origin Muslims which is the basis of rigorous caste system in Islam. Moreover the fact that most converts are Muslims is attributed to the fact that the Ashraf Muslims deny the existence of Casteism in Islam in Bihar and no therapeutic measures have been taken to heal the casteism in Islam like Hinduism. Most importantly, the fact that both high and low caste Hindus are considered ineligible for marriage and assimilation in Muslim society due to the concept of Kafaa has led to negligible conversions among the society. This situation is similar to that of most other Muslim societies in India and partly explains the resistance of Hindus to Islam. Most amusing is the fact that only three waves of Arabic immigration had happened to Indian subcontinent; the largest being of 35,000 people. But the number of Muslims claiming Arab origin is disproportionately high and millions claim direct descent from Prophet Muhammad.

The caste segregation among Bihari Muslims is worse than their Hindu counterparts. The society has remained static and new converts to Islam are virtually non-existent due to widespread discrimination. Indeed due to these combining factors and the so called Arab Machismo ; the rate of Christianization seems to be increasing with the continued alienation between the native Muslims and the foreign Muslims, the former's oppression and discrimination purely due to their descent and Kafaa and the general poverty of Hindu and Muslims in Bihar. Marrying a Sayyid girl to non-Sayyid boy is considered against Shariah while marriage of Sayyid boy to non-Sayyid girl is permitted and encouraged. The same logic is extended for Ashrafs and Ajlafs. Moreover no appreciable steps have been taken to stop and decline Arab and foreign ancestry discrimination among Bihari Muslims. Neither there seems to exist rich, powerful, native high caste Hindu-origin groups of Muslims in Bihar like Muslim Rajputs and Baniyas in Pakistan who were decisive in winning Pakistan to Islam. The economic situation of the Ashrafs and Arjals are similar; poverty being around 35%. But a large number of about 1-1.5 millions of Bihari Muslims numbering 15-20% of Bihari Muslims, mostly Chamar and Bhangi Muslims have accepted Christianity in recent years.

There are also many Muslims converted from the Untouchable Hindu castes such as Chamar, Bhangi, etc., who are regarded as Arzal by the rest of the Bihari Muslims."

Makes a huge amount of claims, but does not back it with references. I am not denying the existence of caste among Bihari Muslims, but to say it is worse then among Hindus needs sources. The only real academic study of rural Bihari Muslims is by Peter Gottschalk in his book Beyond Hindu and Muslim Multiple Identity in Narratives from Village India. He specifically looks at relationship between a community of Divani Pathans (converts from the Hindu Rajput caste) and Ansaris (Muslim weavers). At no time does he say that discrimination is worse, and accepts that there is no restriction of food or entry in mosques. So unless there is academic research to the contrary, these are simply statements.

Secondly, I cannot see any independent evidence that there is large scale conversion to Christianity. The census of India over the last 130 years have always shown a slight increase in the Muslim population of Bihar, which is concentrated in the north east in the Purnia Division. If there was large scale conversion to Christianity, it would certainly have an impact on the percentage as a whole.

WALTHAM2 (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Although one reference is stale, the other does make the claim that the "church planting movement" has resulted in more than one million baptisms. The source clearly has a bias, but simply removing the claim and saying it was unsourced is not reasonable. Please restore that part of the content. Your arguments about expecting to see evidence in the census data is moot. It is not our job to test the validity of the claims.

The rest of the content you removed doesn't appear to be sourced and has a non-encyclopedic tone ("Indeed, due to...", "Moreover, ...", "Most amusing is the fact...") which would make me lean toward supporting you in removing it despite the WP:I don't like it nature of your reasoning. If it were written in a more neutral manner, I'd prefer to tag it and give someone time to find references to support it. Celestra (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

References

Recent changes

Pasting in blocks of unsourced text in place of the existing text is not reasonable. The infobox is a nice addition, though the information is largely unsourced. The other changes remove criticism and a wikilink (which admittedly should be moved to a See also section.) Can you please cooperate to include your positive additions and corrections without this wholesale replacement? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

IP editor

CELESTRA ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.202.24 (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

None of that seemed to have anything to do with improving the article, so I removed it per WP:TALK. I reverted your edit from yesterday because it made several detailed claims without sources. Please provide sources for the claims which you make in the article. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Christian Missionaries

They are quite active on this page. Please can somebody clean this article. Thanks Triplespy (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)