Talk:Islam in India
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islam in India article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3 |
majority of indian muslims dont follow sufism
"Most likely Majority of the Muslims follow Sufi traditions known as Sufis" I have no idea which idiot has written this words on the article. To be clear sufism is a shrik and is considered as unislamic and for your kind information majority of muslims are against the ideologies practised by sufism. i have removed these words and please without knowing anything about islam please dont edit or add anything. "The Monasticism which they invented for themselves; We did not prescribe it for them." Qur'an 57:27. Muslims know what this means and i will be removing sufism from the article.
And one more thing, islam in india did not spread by sufism. Islam came to india during the lifetime of prophet Mohammed PBUH and sufism came to india during 13th century i.e nearly 550 years since islam in india was preached. So therefore i will be removing articles on sufism.
Mujeerkhan 2:00, 30 june 2006 (UTC)
- Sufism = Shirk is a debate that has been ongoing in Islam for over a 1000 years now and so that statement that you have made is indeed debateable. Sufism = Monastism is also debateable, and indeed Sufism is of many many shades and no doubt among them are some that many will even find heretical. Regardless this is a debate for someplace else, the point is your statements are contentional. The 13th century was actually the peak of Sufism with people such as Rumi, Saadi and Attar not the birth period of Sufism. Most of the reknowned Sufis from that period actually hailed from areas that today form Afghanistan/ Eastern Iran or Western Pakistan, Data Jang Baksh is present in Lahore under the Ghaznavids in 1039 when Islamic rule was beginning to gain a foothold in India. While the first contact with Muslims did come in the time of Prophet it was only much much later that religion get established in Hind.
- Sufism did not come to "India" in the 13th century they were there much earlier though in quite the numbers as after the mongol invasions of Islamic lands, after which they migrated towards "India". Kalabadhi (10th C, Bukhara), author of the Taaruf or even the infamous "Hallaj" is an example of Sufi prescene much earlier. Before coming to India they were responsible for a significant influence in the conversion of Turkish tribes, to Islam in Central Asia and came with them when they invaded India and have played a significant role in influencing conversions to Islam in India.The role tekkes have played in the religious life of the Turks under the Ottaman Empire will also testify to the influence they had. While Sufis may not be only medium or the exclusive reasons they were definitely an important medium especially in the Bengal for the spread of Islam, and islamic philosophy and religious concepts in the sub-continent are more heavily shaped by their ideas in comparision to that of Gulf Arab countries. They have also shaped Islamic conciousness across sub-sharan africa and south-east asia.
- More to the point in terms of Wikipedia there is plenty of literature that demonstrates and is accepted in academia and therefore such information belongs in the Wiki Article as much as the Theory of Evolution until generally abandoned as an explanation. If you remove such references because you do not agree with it then it would be POV. However if you wish to refute this you are welcome to bring in alternative references and place them in the article as a competing/alternative Theory or historical account such as Creationism vs. Darwin. I will agree with you that the statement that Muslims follow Sufism is wrong, if it was even possible to follow sufism that would be wrong because do not adhere to any given order.
--Tigeroo 07:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
my first point was that majority of indian muslims dont follow sufism and the second point was that sufism was not a major cause of reverting people but due to sahaba and islamic invasion of india.I agree that sufism played a part in spread of islam but not to large extent.
Mujeerkhan 9:00, 1 july 2006 (UTC)
- The problem with the Sahaba is that they never came to "India". Under Hazrat Umar there were a few naval raids as such but that was discountinued because it was too far and not mililtarily sound and more emphasis was placed on completing the takeover of the Sassanid Empire of the Persians where the Emperor had taken off to Khorasan, Herat after his initial defeats. Soon after his fall in Hazrat Usman's time there was the fitnah, at anyrate one of the first recorded successul expeditions was by Mohalib under the Omayyads and the Indus Valley and Multan region was only properly conquered by Mohammad bin Qasim after the 712 AD under the Omayyads that is 80 years after the Prophet. Even then within a few years it was only a far away outpost barely held while all the political action and intrigue was happenning in Iran, Khorasan and Afghanistan region as the Abbassids came to power. The Ismailis then moved in and they were the first real significant converters of people to Islam there till Sufis came with the Ghaznis. Somehow I don't think feel you'd want to call the Ismaili, sahaba since one of the reasons that Ghazni came was to fight the Ismaili in the challenge for the Khilafat between the Abbassids and Fatimids.
- I will grant that there were small settlements in Sindh, Gujrat, Cochin and Ceylon etc related to trade routes but I am not sure those were the sahaba, plus the spread during that period is small. However if you have some other information let me know because as far as i know or can tell the only way the sahaba influenced the region was by the stories told of them by the sufis.
--Tigeroo 10:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Malik Bin Deenar was one of the companians of Mohammed PBUH and a sahaba and he came to Kerala in 644 AD [5] much before the islamic invasion. Hope this helps.
Mujeerkhan 20:00, 2 july 2006 (UTC)
I am aware of the Cheruman story, and I have already mentioned that there were small trading colonies that and that they did influence the spread of Islam especially along the East African coast, in South - East Asia and parts of India. Similarly I am also aware of the influence of Sufis. Remember, Islam in India came not through just one medium, Sufis played a bigger part in it than those initial settlements, but they were not the whole story either but it would be equally wrong to say Sufis brought Islam to India as well. I would advise you stay away from simplifying stories such as Sufis, Sahaba, Caste or Force. They are all partially true sometimes and false at other times, but a part of a greater whole try adding immigration, syncretism, greed, love, culture, communities, indifference, time to the mix as well. Even those who did not convert were were significantly affected in beleifs and practices. Remeber India was a large place and many different people were involved over many generations, and that it is not just a story of Raja's and Sultans, and wars and treaties, Glory and humiliations, but at the bottom of it all ideas and normal everday people and their personal motivations and prejudices. --Tigeroo 12:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I just wish to add something. I understand what you're saying...that most muslims don't follow sufism in India today, but sufism is a large in comparison in this section. But I think the length is justified, because sufism, although originating within outside of india, was one aspect of islam that both found a strong home in India, but also helped define and shape india culturally--the greatest indian poets and writers in subsequent years were sufi (such as Bullah Shah). I think its length is justified, because Indian Sufism was a section of Islam that that was wholly indian by its end. And was culturally important to Islam's influence in India--even if its numbers began a steady decline in later years. It's cultural influence in the indian subcontinent far outways its population--there isn't a day when I don't hear a new hindi song that isn't ripping off lyrics from Bullah Shah or some other sufi poet.
articles to be edited by indian muslims
Well I am sorry to say that only muslims should edit this page as its talking about islam and not about other relegions. Muslims dont edit hindus or hinduism on wiki and i have not seen any muslim name on the discussion form in the above wiki so why are non muslims trying to bother "islam in india". this article should be maintained by muslims. And finally dont edit or add articles which hampers the integrity of india,you know what i mean. This is a humble request and non muslims can also leave their opinion.
Naziakhannum 04:00, 18 june 2006 (UTC)
- Hey Nazia..Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit...nobody is stoping you or me to edit Hindus or Hinduism....and we are here to convey a NPOV... fact is fact... No bias.. we act here as Editors and not as members of our community...btw Im Muslim.. and you can help wikipedia by devloping this article ...itz big mess:) .. --Sartaj beary 19:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Anyone can edit. NPOV is what counts. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Muslims in present India
This discussion page is too hot, I have noticed a few things and would like to change it.I am not trying to create a hindi muslim conflict in this page but I have a few suggestions and recommendations
- SIMI was an organisation which could have created voilence among the two communities and was based on the idealogies of Osama.
- should add up the atrocities committed by the hindutva groups likeshiv sena, RSS etc as they are organisations which sponspor terrorism just like SIMI did.
- i belive islam in india spread by peace and not by sword and its baseless that population decreased by 80 million ( were there so many poeple at that time, could have been the total population of india at that period).pls give a appropiate stats on population of that period to make this statement to be sensible.
- should add facts that one of the issues in spread of islam was due to the fact of untouchabilty being implemented by the high caste hindus on the low caste hindus.
- should add relationship between other relegions with islam(positive points only and if negative there might be a further clash between members).
It is high time that there is a need for diversity in india and common understanding and respect for other relegions but also keep in mind that relegion should not mix with politics..jai hind and zajakallah khair..and peace to everyone... Mujeerkhan 20:00, 17 june 2006 (UTC)
- Go Ahead...Mujeerkhan I was trying to compile Hindu Muslim conflict, also article is in very bad shape make sure your article conveys WP:NPOV --Sartaj beary 18:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
haphazard.. ;)
Hey all ... I think order Content of article is haphazard, Jus have to put them back in order... any sugestions??? History of islam in india should come after Arival of Islam then Sufism and spread of Islam --Sartaj beary 01:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
This whole sections needs a complete overhaul. The same goes for the article actually. I am going to make edits over the next few days and try and improve the article. Kindly do not make this a Hindu v/s Muslim conflict. If you are educated enough to know how to co-author an encyclopedia, you are savvy enough to be tolerant and secular.Sbohra 13:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Sbohra. This article reflects India's deep rooted communal hatred. Usernames of some Wikipedians tells their feelings towards fellow Indians. This article is a perfect example of how to rewrite history. I hope Indian Muslims will not start vandalise articles on Hindus but they will fight back to make justified correction in articles in Indian Muslims.
It's better to sign your statement in discussions. Holy Ganga 21:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Integrity of source
Can materials found on fundamentalist websites be used as proof for writing crap in Wikipedia? Sounds cool. Soon, people would be searching Mein Kampf now to rewrite history. What a Shame!
- I have just observed that you are spreding same crap on other Indian Islam related articles also. ANWAR, Why don't you present your point based on reputed source? -Holy Ganga 22:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
How to complain vandalism by non-Muslims?
I don't understand on what authroity do non-Muslims like user "Holy Ganga" dare to rewrite Islamic history without bothering to discuss or give sources. He has vandalised this page half-a-dozen times. I am sick of reverting it. How do I complain and ban this All you childish people need to set your hindu and muslim differences aside and write an article that is clear and flows well. It is so jumbled up and the article doesn't read well. I wanted to edit it to read better but I don't want to do anything to offend any of you "scholars" on this subject
Islamophobic bent
This article was clearly written by an Islamophobe. He/she claims, without source, 15 million Bangladeshis are illegal immigrants in India. FYI, that's almost 10% of Bangladesh population! Get some common sense lest you become a joke! Anwar saadat 06:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Anwar, don't talk nonsense here. If you don't agree, then present your objection based on reputed sources. Just talking in the air and spreading propaganda will not work on wikipedia.
- BBC -- India says it is planning to deport an estimated 20 million Bangladeshi illegal immigrants.
- The Home Ministry in Delhi said the illegal immigrant issue had to be tackled with utmost urgency.
- In a statement issued after a day-long security meeting of top Indian officials, the ministry said: The presence of a large number of illegal foreign immigrants, particularly from Bangladesh, poses a serious threat to internal security.
President's name
I changed the President of India's name to Dr A.P.J.Abdul Kalam. Somebody got really peeved and deleted it. :-( Anwar saadat 06:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
External link
Kat asked me to comment here about whether the external link was appropriate. It's not ideal but I'd say it's okay. It isn't a blog or a personal website, and some of the writers have professional qualifications. I didn't read that much of it though. Was there a particular concern about it? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:24, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Attention Notice
I feel this article needs broad modernization to properly discuss history, relations with other religious communities and communal conflicts. User: Rama's Arrow, November 23, 2005
Needs major changes
This article has so much incorrect information that it misleads rather than disseminating information. Premji's full name is Azim Hashim and not Hafiz (which means one who knows Quran by heart). Farhan is listed an an actor, Gulzar is listed as Muslim (hello!) and Faiz is listed in the post-independence Muslim category. Faiz was Punjabi (for God's sake) and a Pakistani.
His name was Faiz Ahmed Faiz, if you like the name Faiz please borrow it like you have done so earlier manytimes.
Who is Zoya Hasan? What is the criteria for listing someone as an achiever on this website?
Request interested and knowledgeable people to pool their efforts to help improve this page.
NPOV, Attention
There are too many opinionated sentences regarding sensitive information posted here. A lot of copyediting, wikification and the use of encyclopedic language is necessary. Rama's Arrow 22:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
What about Long Islamic Rule in India, and associated destruction, which many historians, philosphers have described as greatest deastruction in History? Indian Muslims should not shy away from this, as present day folks have nothing to do with that. It must be condemned by every India, and Muslims should take a lead in that. --Bhaskar Chatterjee
Mr.chaterjee you opinion is wrong about destruction of india by muslim rule, if it was so you would not have born to write this rubbish,because your forefather were kept alive with honour and dignity by muslim rule.You want all indian muslim to condemn the glorious and properous muslim rule of 900 years ? it was the very same muslim rule which united the india which you see in it's present day map.
- Actually it was Britain that gave modern India its present map. Except for the bits that Muslim paranoia insisted on breaking away - so Muslims contributed to the present state of Indian disunity. Honor and dignity? Humiliation and shame more like it. Lao Wai 08:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Connotations to Islamic Insecurity?
-This article seems to propogate the fact that Muslims in India are, by majority, a poor and degenerate lot who long for the old days of Muslim power, with a few notable modern successes. It seems to disregard the Indian background of Pakistani Muslims (of which I am one) and show that Indian Muslims (Muhajirs) helped Pakistan grow (not Pakistanis), suggesting that Indians were a separate entity and that Pakistanis were already separate to begin with. Something needs to be done about the accuracy of this article. -User: Afghan Historian
- Can you please pinpoint your concerns. --Spartian 18:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Accusations of Atrocities Against Muslims
I have removed the entire section, while it was long it was: A) Factually innacurate (calling BJP, RSS fascist like Nazis) B) Definitely a POV (telling one side of the story only) C) Wikipedia is Not a place to air your political views D) Completely unsourced and parts were OR E) To have a section such as this is like having a section on Accusations Against Muslims only it is anti-Hindu. Way too fiery a topic to have on an encyclopaedia. Please reply here before reverting me. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- ehh .. I understand the new editor (jus couple of weeks old) has been adding own POV, if you ask me it is infact a Muslim Point of view in India about BJP, RSS, VHP, Bajrang dal. That section should be allowed with proper sourceing. I left msg at editors talk page..
Also this article is pretty messed up! Needs section about Hindu Muslim relations, Roits,will fix it soon in some time.. --Sartaj beary 02:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- My dear friend Nobleeagle article mention only of Sang Parivar.. being anti sangh pariwar is not Anti Hindu... --Sartaj beary 04:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Recent reverts
Indianmuslim and Naziakhannum - this clearly isnt vandalism on either of your parts but differences in opinion/ NPOV guidelines. Recommend instead of reversions, as I myself accidentily did thinking it was vandalism, you discuss the section of Attrocities on Muslims here. The section, before deletion, and the article in a broader sense, are clearly in need of cleaning up. --Gregorof 02:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Atrocities on indian muslims
I have been editing and writing this article several times and some people just delete it without any NPOV AND THE ISSUE REGARDING VANDALISAM . I have put the article here and if anyone wants to object it, then pls dont hesitate. I have taken information from newspapers on the web and amnesty international. however there are 2 intances which i have taken from other wiki sources and i will modify them. I will be putting this in 2 days time. Anyways this is wikipedia and we have right to do whatever we want and follow NPOV.
Shiv Sena which is a political party has been accused of collusion in programmes aimed at Muslims in Bombay since the 1980s, and is considered by many to be little better than a Fascist organisation(similar to the nazi party [6] , [7]. Bal Thackeray most recently courted controversy by suggesting that Indian Muslims be deprived of the franchise, and denied the right to vote in local and national elections and the party has long history of voilence and hatred for the minority communities.[8]
The RSS ( the organisation which undertook the assisination of Mahatma Gandhi) was banned in India at least twice, during the 1975 Emergency, and after the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition [9]. The bans were subsequently lifted after the Supreme Court of India declined to uphold the bans. They want only hinduism to prevail in india and wants all minority communities to convert to hinduism.
Shockwaves of fear and anger swept through India's Hindu and Muslim communities. Over 20,000 Hindus and Muslims were killed across the country in the resulting sectarian violence. Many VHP activists were accused of having organised mobs and perpetrated vicious attacks upon innocent Muslims, and likewise for reactionary Muslim groups. The Liberhan Commission headed by Justice Liberhan was constituted to investigate the whole episode. A large number of VHP workers testified before the commission. The incident at the Babri Masjid came as a shock to many Indians, who had known the VHP as a peaceful organization. In its defense, many VHP supporters have claimed that the VHP simply represented the increasing alienation and anger of India's Hindu community in response to marginalization by the government in favor of Muslim and Christian minorities. As far as these sympathizers were concerned, the Babri Masjid demolition was an inevitable consequence of Hindu disaffection. [10].
The Human Right's Watch established facts that VHP and Bajrang Dalwere the ultimate culprits in the hate crimes that followed the several massacres across the country. During Ghodra incident More than 2000 muslims, mostly women and children were violently killed by agents of Hindutva and the state government took no measure to stop the voilence and many politicians were seen to participate.</ref> Amnesty international on gujarat</ref>.
Majority of Indians are against on the idealogies of VHP, Bajrang Dal, RSS and Shiv Sena and cause a threat to a india's future and as a secural country.
Naziakhannum 14:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- You will Have to reword the entire section and balance it fairly, it sudnt convey the poit of View... I guess instead of Section header Atrocities on indian muslims we can have Sangh Parivar and Muslims. --Sartaj beary 04:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- It is in NO way NPOV. I suggest a thorough rewording. Disputed statements include:
- and is considered by many to be little better than a Fascist organisation(similar to the nazi party Not many...few...and nowhere near the Nazi Party.
- The RSS ( the organisation which undertook the assisination of Mahatma Gandhi) was banned in India at least twice, during the 1975 Emergency, and after the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition [11]. Is this about Islam in India or the RSS's past history?
- They want only hinduism to prevail in india and wants all minority communities to convert to hinduism. POV, the ideology of Hindutva supports ALL Dharmic religions and supports all Muslims that truly accept India.
- The entire next paragraph about 20,000 deaths and shockwaves of fear is unsourced POV.
- Majority of Indians are against on the idealogies of VHP, Bajrang Dal, RSS and Shiv Sena and cause a threat to a india's future and as a secural country. Majority of Muslims...probably...Indians? No. The BJP were in power a few years back, indicates that a majority supported them doesn't it?
- Please conform to WP:NPOV. The section, if it were ever to be added, needs a re-titling such as Hindu-Muslim relations and will need to include terrorism etc. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Hindu Muslim Conflict
Two anon ips have been deleteing the section from Hindu Muslim conflict, please dont remove the section from the article, discuss here if there is a issue. --Sartaj beary 23:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Population of muslims in india
From the time of independence of india to the current day the indian leaders have said that the muslim population of india is greater than that of pakistan. we should remember that bangladesh was also a part of pakistn before 1971.and in that year the population of west pakistan (that is the current day pakistan) was 80 milliom and that of east pakistan (that is the current day bangladesh) was 90 million if we add that we get apopulation of 170 million in 1971 of which 90% were muslim or 153 million . so how many muslims are today in india ?
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam_by_country" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madman 0014 (talk • contribs)
- At least, the population figure for East Pakistan (1971) stated above is *wrong*. The population of independent Bangladesh, according to the 1974 census, was 71.3 million [12]. Even considering the large number of Bengalis (between 1-1.5 million) (both Hindu and Muslims) killed by Pakistan Army in Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, the number was never above 75 million at that time. The population of west pakistan was lower than this, as Bengalis were 56% of the population of united pakistan. --Ragib 20:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
i was reading an interview of the imam of fatih pur mosque delhi imam mufti muhammad mukkaram nakshbandi. In the interview he said that the population of muslims in india was at least more than 300 million.(you can find the interview at http://jang.com.pk/jang/aug2006-daily/12-08-2006/dunia.htm)
The page cites the 2001 government census (http://www.censusindia.net/religiondata/index.html) as its source for the religious composition, yet posts figures that differ from those provided by the census. For example, the census says that Hindus and Muslims make up 80.5% and 13.4% of the population respectively yet this page states 77.7% and 16.2% while still citing the census as its source. What is the real source for these new figures and why are they considered more valid than the 2001 government census figures?
- I corrected the figures. ArsalanKhan 05:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- The Madman has changed the percentage and population of Muslims in India without giving any credible reference. The census of India in 2001 reported Muslim constitute 13.4% of the population and number 138 million. Reference http://www.censusindia.net/religiondata/Summary%20Muslims.pdf. The Muslims constitute over 97% of Pakistan's population of 166 million people and number 161 million and are the second largest Muslim population in the world.
- ArsalanKhan 13:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
according to this report the indian muslim population is 30.38% [13]7day 16:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)