Talk:Tablighi Jamaat/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Founded or Revived

This is in response to the edit by 41.242.187.69, made on 19 July 2011. I understand that the word 'revived' may be used when implying that TJ revived the same work that Islamic Prophets used to do. But the reference supporting that fact does not imply the same. There is nothing wrong with this edit per se, but i'd appreciate if you can find some appropriate reference for this edit. I'll make this edit myself in case i find the appropriate reference. Feel free to drop a message on my talkpage on this matter. —  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 17:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for Temporary Protection

I just filed a request for temporary semi-protection on the article due to the ongoing section blanking. In the mean time, I'll keep trying to revert the vandal's efforts at destroying this page. Terkaal -- <Warning! Self-Confessed Newbie!> (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Got a response on the request a few minutes ago advising that any further vandalisim by the IP should be reported to WP:AIAV for a user block rather than page protection.

If you'd like to see the request and it's response, you can find it here Terkaal -- <Warning! Self-Confessed Newbie!> (talk) 08:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Article "Tablighi Jamaat" Sub heading: 6.1 Criticisms

Hello, This is with regard to the last sentence of the Sub heading: 6.1 Criticisms wherein it states that "It is also prohibited in Iran, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.[51] India is considering banning the organisation." Although the movement has been banned in countries like Russia, there has never been any talk or article about banning it India. Although this same has been referred from the note number 51 by James foundation article but it never appeared in any other article worldwide that the movement might be banned in Indian authorities whether security or political authorities. Hence, we do not have any legitimate data for the same. I hope this sentence will be removed. With Regards, Rakib Akhtar

Hello Gareth, This is with regard to the last sentence of the Sub heading: 6.1 Criticisms wherein it states that "It is also prohibited in Iran, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.[51] India is considering banning the organisation." Although the movement has been banned in countries like Russia, there has never been any talk or article about banning it India. This same has been referred from the note number 51 by James foundation article but it never appeared in any other article worldwide that the movement might be banned in Indian authorities whether security or political authorities. Hence, we do not have any legitimate data for the same. I hope this sentence will be removed. I am questioning the authenticity of the information "India is considering banning the organisation". since it has never been published anywhere in India. With Regards, Rakib Akhtar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.58.244 (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The immediate post above was put on my Talk page after I removed the top (first) post from the article. Can someone familiar with the subject please take over from me.
Thanks,
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 19:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tablighi Jamaat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101203213148/http://www.thenews.com.pk:80/daily_detail.asp?id=158072 to http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=158072
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120813195715/http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=157567 to http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=157567

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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. Link rot had set in before urls were archived.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes it should be protected ....many people are trying to input false information Jayzeekay (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tablighi Jamaat. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130104202538/http://www.tauheed-sunnat.com/sunnat/category/urdu-bayans-taqreers/molana-tariq-jameel to http://www.tauheed-sunnat.com/sunnat/category/urdu-bayans-taqreers/molana-tariq-jameel

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) 00:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tablighi Jamaat. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927220058/http://mangalorean.com/news.php?newstype=local&newsid=47608 to http://mangalorean.com/news.php?newstype=local&newsid=47608
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160108132051/http://archives.dailytimes.com.pk/editorial/13-Aug-2006/postcard-usa-tableeghi-jamaat-all-that-you-know-and-don-t-khalid-hasan to http://archives.dailytimes.com.pk/editorial/13-Aug-2006/postcard-usa-tableeghi-jamaat-all-that-you-know-and-don-t-khalid-hasan
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160108132051/http://archives.dailytimes.com.pk/national/21-Nov-2004/600-couples-wedded-at-ijtema to http://archives.dailytimes.com.pk/national/21-Nov-2004/600-couples-wedded-at-ijtema
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160108132051/http://archives.dailytimes.com.pk/karachi/28-Jul-2007/annual-karachi-tablighi-ijtima to http://archives.dailytimes.com.pk/karachi/28-Jul-2007/annual-karachi-tablighi-ijtima

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) 05:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

No "PBUH" on Wikipedia

Per Wikipedia's manual of style (please see MOS:PBUH) articles should not have PBUH, or the fuller "peace be upon him", added after Muhammad or other Islamic prophets. Ifnord (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Zezen (talk) 07:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for Temporary Protection

I just filed a request for temporary semi-protection on the article due to the ongoing section blanking. In the mean time, I'll keep trying to revert the vandal's efforts at destroying this page. Many people are editing and spreading hate among the Muslim comunity. Jayzeekay (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your contributions. I wish that there will be a neutral, encyclopedic, and reliable descriptions about the Tablighi Jamaat split, without any bias towards Saad Kandhalvi, or the Raiwind Markaz, or any other party. Dhio-270599 09:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

May I ask why PBUH or the fuller is not being added but actually being removed. By having PBUH or SAWW (or fuller) shows respect to the final and most influential prophet of Islam. It’s not right for others (people other than Muslims) to outright say Muhammad in this regard especially when talking about the last prophet of Islam, PBUH must be written . Respect must be shown and this should be changed please!! LightningDTB (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Why? Why should a non-Muslim need to show more respect to Muhammad than to any other person? To request, much less require (as "must" implies), shows a massive level of disrespect towards amyome who is not a Muslim.--Khajidha (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a GA?

Sigh. ∯WBG^converse 14:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. I too wondered. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

That happened a decade ago. I guess things change.VR _talk 17:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced WP:OR

Well Wisher 111, can you explain why you are repeatedly adding unsourced original research, [1], [2], [3], despite the reverts and warnings on your talk page? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

To proselyte it, I guess. Hence COI. Zezen (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Need quote for verification

This edit introduced material that said: "The Tablighi Jamaat rejects ideas such as secularism, democracy and self-determination and believes in strict allegiance to Islamic lifestyle" and gave two sources. While the first mentions rejection of secularism, there is no mention of rejection of democracy and self-determination. If that information is in the second source, then please provide the full quote here.VR _talk 03:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Important

Please mention the requirements i.e. the Duas,Surahs and Kalimas read out during the jimmedar in the missionaries or mosque Zaman Naiya 29 (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Ties with Bangladeshi military sector

The article says that the group "has ties with the political and military sector of countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh". What is the source for that? This article says, "The Bangladeshi prime minister and top political leadership, many of whom are Islamists, regularly attend their rallies, and Pakistani military officers, many of whom are sympathetic to militant Islam, even allow Tablighi missionaries to preach in the barracks."

That's hardly "ties" to the military sector. For example, the presence of Mormons in the US military doesn't mean that the Church of Latter Day Saints has ties to the US military. Finally, having Tablighi missionaries preaching in barracks isn't exactly "terrorism" or "extremism".VR _talk 03:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Reliable reference

This is not a news station, please look for proper citation and references before edit. Raipurpost (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The thoughts of so-called scholars

I can see that so-called scholar Sajid A. Kayum has written a book is significant event in the life of Sajid A. Kayum.[4] But I do not see why that fact is significant to the Tablighi Jamaat.

Scholar Sajid A. Kayum has written a book on the Tablighi jamaat titled "Advice to those who participate in Dawah along with the Tablighi Jamaat", discussing their mistakes and advising them on basic tenets of Islamic faith.

Kayum, Sajid A. (2012). Advice to Those who Participate in Dawah Along with the Tableeghi Jamaat. Quran Sunnah Educational Programs. ISBN 978-0-9571668-1-3.

Apparently another so-called scholar has made a pronouncement about Khawarij and deobandis.[5] But that does not seem relevant either.

Islamic scholar Zaid Hamid says "All Khawarij are deobandis, but all Deobandis are not khawarij"

"All Khawarij are Deobandis but all Deobandis are not Khawarij – Zaid Hamid – LUBP". Retrieved 2020-04-11.

If these events are significant to the Tablighi Jamaat, please could we have some secondary sources for (1) that they matter, and (2) that they are relevant to an article on the Tablighi Jamaat. If this makes me sound ignorant, sorry, but then it will be easy to find secondary sources. Toddy1 (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Meaning of Tablighi Jamaat

There has been a dispute over the meaning of "Tablighi Jamaat".

• One point of view is that it means "Conveying Group".[6]
• Another point of view is that Tabligh in Arabic means "to deliver (the message)".[7]
• What had been the consensus since 2006 was that it means "Proselytizing Group".[8]

Wikipedia policy is that we base what we write on what reliable sources say.

• Ebrahim Desai says that "Tableegh literally means 'to convey'. Contextually, it refers to conveying the message of Islam."[9]
• An English language newspaper article says "Society of Preachers".[10]

As I understand it, "Jamaat" can mean group, assembly or society. Desai says "Tablighi" supports convey - but that is a synonym for deliver - and in the context of delivering the message of Islam, preaching is a natural English-language translation.

Proselytizing is the action of attempting to convert someone from one religion, belief, or opinion to another. This term is stronger than preaching or delivering the message of Islam. if people prefer that word, do they have a source to support it? Toddy1 (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes there are several such sources [11]. But I notice that Barbara Metcalf uses "preaching" or "inviting". So, I am happy to go with that. I also agree it is clearer that way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It also occurs to me that this is what the RSS calls pracharak. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Misleading statistics

We have some different versions:

• [12] As on April 5th, more than 30% cases India were related to Tablighi Jamaat and this has increase the rate of positive cases getting doubled from an earlier 7.4 days to 4.1 days i.e. now every 4.1 days cases are getting doubled in India. There is no citation for this.
• [13] As on April 5th, more than 70% cases India were related to Tablighi Jamaat and this has increase the rate of positive cases getting doubled from an earlier 7.4 days to 4.1 days i.e. now every 4.1 days cases are getting doubled in India. The source does not support these statements.
  ChennaiMarch 31, Shalini Lobo; March 31, 2020UPDATED:; Ist, 2020 21:56. "Tamil Nadu reports 57 new Covid-19 cases in one day, 79% attended Tablighi Jamaat. State tally at 124". India Today. Retrieved 2020-04-17. {{cite web}}: |first3= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
• [14] As on April 5th, about 95% cases India were related to Tablighi Jamaat and this has increase the rate of positive cases getting doubled from an earlier 7.4 days to 4.1 days i.e. now every 4.1 days cases are getting doubled in India. The source does not support these statements.
  Sharma, Nidhi (2020-04-04). "647 coronavirus positive cases in two days linked to Tablighi Jamaat". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2020-04-17.
• [15] As on 4 April 2020, the Indian Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Statistics said on 2-3 April 2020 there were 664 new confirmed Coronavirus cases in India, and that 647 (95%) of them were linked to the Tablighi Jamaat. Supported by source.
  Sharma, Nidhi (2020-04-04). "647 coronavirus positive cases in two days linked to Tablighi Jamaat". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2020-04-17.

@Kautilya3: I have no objection to your wanting none of the above. But replacing something that is supported by a source with something that is not is bizarre. Toddy1 (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

There is ample sourced information in the full article. Please don't put anything here that is not covered there. Highlighting two days worth of stats which were loaded with Tabligh cases and then claiming 97% or whatever is insane. If anybody tries to do this again, they will go to WP:ARE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Fundamentalism

While WP:LABEL was claimed to be enough not to mention it in the lead, multiple sources are easy to find, it's not one person's opinion (where attribution would be necessary). The body also has some related information already. —PaleoNeonate – 10:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2020

Change confimed to confirmed, because it is misspelled, it is in the middle of the 2nd paragraph from the bottom of the India subsubsection which is in the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic subsection in the controversies section you may need to use ctrl+f to find it, thanks 74.73.230.173 (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done! Seagull123 Φ 21:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Congregation of Muslim, Tongi, Bangladesh.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 section

On October 19,User:Zombie gunner entirely removed an extensive section on COVID-19 with the edit summary "unnecessary" [16]. I have reverted this as I believe the content needs discussion before a consensus is reached on whether to keep, edit, or remove it. I know this subject is controversial - I became aware of it via https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikipedia-culture-war - but controversy alone is not sufficient to justify complete removal of sourced content. 2020 Tablighi Jamaat COVID-19 hotspot in Delhi also exists, which is the focus for the controversy. Fences&Windows 04:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

lack of academic, research based sources, newspaper headlines are not reliable sources, secondly the pandemic topic can be covered in pandemic related articles, and this amount of detail esp on controversial news is not necessary. Zombie gunner (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, but you have to wait for consensus before removing it again. What policy or guideline are you using to support the position that these sources are not sufficiently reliable? An WP:UNDUE argument could support reducing the content, but not entirely removing this content - we have a dedicated article on one outbreak, so according to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE we should at least summary it here. Fences&Windows 14:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I have requested input at Talk:2020 Tablighi Jamaat COVID-19 hotspot in Delhi, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19. Fences&Windows 15:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree with the removal. The event itself was notable and there are reliable sources which support the content (even if I exclude some of the sensational Indian media articles). As multiple articles exist about the controversies in various countries, a mention here is perfectly fine. There may be argument for reducing content, but I don't see any good argument for totally excluding it.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• There are citations to the New York Times, which I believe is considered to be a very reliable source on here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• The section itself can be kept but the content is too long for an article specifically about the group's history, beliefs, and methods. Otherwise, the article cannot be seen as unbiased. Wakemeup38 (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

"Forced Conversions"

It's very strange for this section to be present in an article about the Tablighi Jamaat, when it seems like a random one off incident, and the group is well known for being very passive and gentle with their proselytization. The group has hundreds of thousands of members, and it only makes sense to have notable incidents in the article that are representative of the group as a whole - Wakemeup38 (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)