Jump to content

Talk:July 2010 Lahore bombings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"start of militancy" phrase

[edit]

the mentioning of the "start of militancy in Pakistan" seemed a bit vague so I changed to the "since the storming of Lal Masjid" because that is generally when the "militancy" is said to have begun. However, i dont think that is adequate (and its also uncited (i dont know where i read that to cite), thus could be seen as WP:Synthesis). Perhaps "since 2007" or some specific date. Even 2001 would seem better (has there been an attack on a Sufi shrine in the early years of the decade?), as the attack template mentions 2001 as the its starting point.Lihaas (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC reference states this is the biggest attack since militancy started in 2001.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, lets stick with 2001.Lihaas (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mention of sufism in the article

[edit]

hi, i'm not a regular contributor to Wikipedia or anything, but would like to point out that the discussion of Sufism (Tasawwuf) is simplistic and seems based off of Western stereotypes. Sufism has traditionally been considered a part of mainstream Islam; however, there are and have been Sufi groups which do not stick within the bounds of Shariah (Islamic law). A prominent Mufti (a scholar qualified to give fatwas) from South Africa, Mufti Ebrahim Desai, has posted several articles explaining Tasawwuf (sufism) here: http://www.daralmahmood.org/articles.html Sorry I couldn't discuss my objection in more detail; however, anyone who learns about the origins of Sufism from authentic sources would not consider it to be a form of Islam which is based on music and dance, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.141.77 (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the article on Sufism, but go ahead and a brief summation if you want (backed by sources of course). Dont really need more than a paragraph here.Lihaas (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Making the majority into the minority

[edit]

"Though there has not been a claim of responsibility, previous bombings in Lahore have been blamed on the Pakistani Taliban because of their disagreement with minority interpretations of Islam, such as Sufism.[5]"

I would like to know when the Barelvis became a minority in Pakistan. It is the largest sect in Pakistan. Even the outdated CIA fact book can verify this. It seems that alJazera does not know what they are talking about. If anyone have a doubt about the connection between Barelvis and sufis, then simply read an article about Barelvis(which is insufficient and at parts incorrect - like many other articles here). They are sufis or they have a sufi master to whom they belong(speaking on the individual level). Personally I can tell you that for a Barelvi, sufis are considered our elderly; our wise sages who we seek for enlightenment and religious knowledge. Barelvi == Sufi more or less(to simplify things for the reader). People need to stop selling their propaganda and belittling the sufis. Barelvis usually call themselves ahle sunnah wal'jamat(this would be the international representative name barelvis refer themselves as - unlike in Pakistan and India due to complexities arising due to impostors). This is the largest sect in the Islamic world(no quotation - simply based on experience and personal research); where sufis are considered as mentioned, our elderly, our sages, our spiritual guides. Hence sufi's are not some sect, but simply our respectable elderly. The sect is called Ahle Sunnah wal'Jamat. An ok translation would be "The people of the Sunnah". Unlike Christianity, the right to claim of the true sect is of utmost importance for muslims due to Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w mentioning of the divide among us and that only one sect would be the truly guided one - which shall happen to be the largest one(from the hadith). Again seek out the source if you are interested. Its in the major Hadith collections. Hence quantity is an important question when it comes to pinpointing any discrepancy in this regard. Strictly speaking from an encyclopedic perspective, how can it be considered acceptable to disregard quantity ? If anyone doubts that most Pakistanis are sufis/barelvis/(or belong to)ahle sunnat wal'jamat, then simply take a look at Sindh. I don't have the exact number, but its like 90-95 % sufis. Its only in NWFP that the majority are Wahabis. But that corresponds to ca. less than 10%(there are shia as well in NWFP and some other sects) of the total population in Pakistan(census 2010). How difficult is it for people to at least conduct their own research and try to separate truth from fallacy ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.64.201 (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Making the majority into the minority

[edit]

If you are claiming that most Pakistanis are Barelwis, then please back up your statement with authentic sources. Also, Barelwis would certainly be considered Sufis; however, not all Sufis are Barelwis. Are most Sufis also Barelwis? This question must be answered not by conjecture or "personal experience" but by authentic verifiable sources. Also, anyone who has studied the origins of the Taliban would know that they are not Wahabi (aka Salafi). Rather they follow the Deobandi interpretation of Islam, although perhaps their rather militant interpretation of Islam differs with those of the Deobandi scholars of India. And note that Sufism forms an integral part of the Deobandi school; therefore, the statement that the Taliban hate Sufis/Sufism must be further studied and analyzed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.141.77 (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it would help if you could provide some citations to WP:RS about what you are saying. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true" . WP:TRUTH, WP:VERIFY & WP:OR go into this in more detail. best regards.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on July 2010 Lahore bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:July_2010_Lahore_bombings&oldid=1256446253"