Talk:Dawat-e-Islami

i can see that this topic has seem to cause quite a bit of controversy, i have done alot of research over the last couple of weeks and found that dawat e islami wouldnt really need advertising as they have spread across 63 countries so far without wikipidea. from the research i have done i felt that dawat e islami is a very peaceful movement. I will hopefully edit this article over the next couple of weeks, and you will be able to see for yourselves the amount of work dawat e islami has done. not only have they spread knowledge and educated people they have also done great amounts of charity work in earthquake struck areas. once i have finished editing this article i hope everyones views will become positive, and i hope that all will learn something from it. thank you for reading my comment masalaama take care. servantofallah786 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.252.74 (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand why Wikipedia is serving as a mouthpiece of a certain organisation.I live in a muslim dominated area and myself have been a practising Muslim but Iam sorry to say that I have never heard of this organisation. The point of view expressed in the article is biased.

---

I differ from the opinion what MezzoMezzo said, the article may not suite him, but i think that it is perfectly OK for an encyclopedia. I agree that it may seem as an advertisement but it has most comprehensive description and introduction of Dawateislami.

Muhammad Asad Attari

According to latest news (dec. 2006) Dawateislami now has orgnizational structure in 55 countries around the world. Its last annual meeting (in year 2006)in multan had the gathering of about 1 million according to The news (pakistani newspaper) website. The rapid expansion of this relegious group is really amazing.

Laique Ahmed from Kuwait

While I respect your opinion, I would highly recommend you review the official policy about using articles to advertise, as the article looks as though it was almost lifted directly out of a Da'wat-e-Islami advertising pamphlet. In addition - and this is my main concern - the article is a poorly formatted mess with little to no structure and is overly long. In the case of this article Wikipedia's Manual of Style is absolutely essential, as this article needs a tune-up badly whether the current version is acceptable or not. MezzoMezzo 09:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I just checked some of the external links, and much of this article appears to be copied and pasted directly from some of the Da'wat-e-Islami official sites. This is one of them, and in addition I was actually correct about my passing remakr about advertising pamphlet; here is an image of one. I'm not sure if this is necessarily a copyright violation but in the near future we need to go through other official material from the group as the rest of the article reads like an advertisement and considering my suspicions were correct about the portions we can find in the above links, it's not a stretch to say that the rest of the article could be directly copy-pasted as well. MezzoMezzo 09:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity

Man, this article isn't anywhere close to objective. On top of that, it's overly long, contains dtails not necesarily relevant or appropriat to an encyclopedia, and is horribly formatted. Normally I would try to help myself but given the poor nature of this article, it's quite a daunting task and will most likely need to be a community effort. I'm going to tag it for now, for anyone else reading this, please see what you can do to fix it. MezzoMezzo 19:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No Objectivity

We don't Create Pages for Wahabis . If it Suits WIKI policy then it is Ok Msoamu 17:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure who "We" is, nor am I sure whom you are calling a "Wahhabi". Be very careful and please review the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility policies. Also, just because one editor happens to like an article as is doesn't justify removing cleanup and/or dispute tags if the content is indeed disputed. MezzoMezzo 19:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Informative Article

This article provides sound information about a good organizatonal work carried out in many countries across the world. This organization is also active in my country and i have found many people inhibiting better way of life after coming in contact with this organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhm61192 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is written as a blatant advertisement for an organization. It is a candidate for removal via the db-spam tag. Please do not revert candidature for deletion unless you have good reason to and clean up the article appropriately —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.104.226 (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

wahabbis have gather in wikipedia team and trying to confuse people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.183.89 (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Blatant advertisement

Please do not revert tags until discussion or clean up happens —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atheniandemocracy (talk • contribs) 18:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As the reviewing admin, I have removed the speedy tag. The article is still unbalanced, but it is not incapable of improvement, so the tag is not appropriate. The bulk of the public-relations style talk has now been removed, and what is needed in the article is some sourced criticism. Good work so far. DGG (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Petty vandalism

As of late, an anonymous user has been inserting grammatically incorrect sentences into the Critics section. You have been warned on your talk page repeatedly. I am asking you here to stop as well. Please review the official Wikipedia:Vandalism policy. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Whist another has been removing the section completely and threatening us. I've semiprotected the article for a week to give the regular wikipedians a chance to write the section correctly. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Improving this Article

HELLO TO IMPROVE THIS ARTICLE WE MUST HAVE TO FIND THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUETIONS:

WHO IS MEZO MEZO? WHY HE OR SHE IS TRYING TO CONFUSE PEOPLE? WHY HE OR SHE ALWAYS SPEAKS AGIANST DAWATE ISLAMI WITH AN EXCUSE TO IMPROVE THE ARTICLE? WHO GAVE THEM PERMISSION TO ENTER INTO THE ISLAMIC TALK? WHY ARE THEY AGAINST THE REAL ISLAM? WHAT ARE THEIR AIMS? IS THERE A GROUP?

ANSWERS TO THESE WILL SIMPLY RESOLVE THE CONFLICT U KNOW WHY BECAUSE THERE IS SOME BODY WHO DONT WONT TO IMPROVE THIS ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.183.89 (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 

mezo mezo and king turtle are bastard

Hi, it is clear that this article is way below par in terms of quality and some of the claims being made (the critics section appears to be little more than legitimised vandalism whearas some of the other claims are clearly unencylopedic fawning), and needs a real clean up. I would be prepared to undertake a large part of this work but would appreciate some feedback on the following points:

- when information is known to be common knowledge within a particular field (sub-continental Sunni Muslims in this case), or when the information on a matter will largely be in foreign languages (mainly Urdu in this case), how does one cite sources?

- the critics section appears to be a personal dig, little more than vandalism. If the sentence read coherently then I could understand it being tagged awaiting citation, but is this really justified in this case?

- what controls exist with regards Wikipedia being used as a platform for petty slandering? Awaiting sources to be cited is one matter, allowing untruthful content to remain accessible to the entire English speaking world indefinitely is altogether irresponsible?

I hope that the immature individuals who have been previously involved in the editing of this article can be held accountable and prevented from doing any further damage, and that experienced Wikipedia users can work together with people like myself - who possess a long association with the field and the issues and facts surrounding it - to produce a high quality ENCYLOPEDIC reference.

Dawat e Islami is not in need of publicity material, our literature is translated into 20 different languages and distributing in 66 countries worldwide through a non-profit making, volunatary workforce, what we are interested in doing here is to produce a well-referenced, factual article - and to protect this resource from vandalism - from all sides.

Thanking you in advance of your support. MuhammadYusufAttari (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Mention of Tablighi jamat

ITS A FOOLISH ACT . ITS JUST TO CONFUSE PEOPLE.BUT WHY?WHY? WHY? CANT U DIFFER BLACK AND WHITE? CANT U DIFFER SWEET AND BITTER? OF COURSE U CAN BUT U DONT WANT PEOPLE TO DIFFER!!!!!! PLZ PLZ PLZ STOP STOP STOP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.183.89 (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

mezo mezo and king turtle are bastard

• Here tablighi jamat's mention has been repeatedly Inserted though this article has nothing to do with the tablighi jamat .this is a dirty attempt to show article its founder and organization in bad light .It is well Known fact that Tablighi jamat has associations with Terrorism world Over so to make this Peaceful and Moderate Organization of Barelwis associated with it mention of tablighi jamat has been added .Shabiha ^(t 05:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

i think u r correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.183.89 (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

i think there is no reason to compare mezo mezo dont try to be over smart and iwill request wikipedia to stop taking claims of these wahabbis having no religious proof as well making there sect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.183.89 (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The comparison has been made here because both are Sunni Muslim missionary movements originating from South Asia. Seeing as how Tablighi Jamat is a little more well known, the comparison is not only apt but inevitable. Also, if I am not mistaken, Ilyas Attar Qadri was himself a member of Tabligh Jamat, I could be wrong but I believe I have read that before. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC) mezo mezo pls stop ur shuild mouth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.183.89 (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What a disgusting claim "MezzoMezzo" - produce your proof that AMEER E AHLE SUNNAT was a member of Tablighi Jamaat (Allah forbid) or keep your dirty comments to yourself, and out of this ENCYLOPEDIC resource.MuhammadYusufAttari (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT engage in personal insults and attacks, as you have violated the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility policies here. You will not be warned again. Please behave in a polite manner if you want your edits taken seriously. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Mezzo bring some proofs to substantiate Your Claims Stick to the Point.I request yusuf to calm down and write a NON Copied Complete Article/some Important Headings with Sources Specially its Presence in Europe and Africa.

Shabiha ^(t 20:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Proofs for what? That both are Sunni Muslim missionary movements originating from South Asia? This is common knowledge, the leads to both articles establish that already. MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the Islamism box and tags as Dawat e Islami is far from a Islamist organisation and this is further proof of the vandalism of this page. Please DO NOT replace this box without discussing your proofs and motives on this talk page first. MuhammadYusufAttari (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that was added, but please don't accuse others of vandalism without actually reading the policies first. Vandalism is the intentional disruption of Wikipedia, not simply having a different POV from you. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced criticism removed

THANKS

TO ALLAH 

mezo mezo and king turtle are bastard

There is nothing wrong with criticism when we know were it comes from, but I have removed a section of criticism without any indication of its origin at all.[1] The key phrases - "are thought to be" and "what the critics believe". If someone can produce a source to make this section verifiable and fit with Wikipedia's core content policies, feel free to put it back. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

no brother if u r adding critics section it means wikipedia is favouring another sect(wahaabbis) because they only believe this is shirk no one else for eg sunni, shia ,bohri,ismaili or any other . remember what wikipedia says about deobandism is "the indian version of wahabbism"

I have no idea what you're talking about, but remember "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

mezo mezo and king turtle are bastard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.248.101.109 (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Added some New Information

THE GUYS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ARTICLE TO BE IMPROVED ARE : MUHAMMAD YUSUF ATTARI,SHAHIBA,MADINA MADINA ,FALCONKHE

mezo mezo is bastard

i came to know that Maktaba tul Madinah has published some VCDs.......so i added up this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madinah madinah (talk • contribs) 12:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

First, you did not provide an adequate source to site this. Simply putting up this organizations official site is not helpful to the reader and may count as a commercial link. Second, Dawat e Islami has a number of activities it undertakes, you haven't explained why this one in particular would be more notable than any others. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

i think u people are just AGAINST DAWATEISLAMI, thats y removing each and every content without confirming whether it is correct or not........!!! i added the discription about new VCDs just because it is a great achievment of Dawateislami and these VCDs increased the propagation of Qur'aan and sunnah more than before...!!--Madinah madinah (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

i think dawate islami is a fantastic organisation and whatever wikipedia

mezo mezo is bastard

First and foremost, your accusation is a violation of the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. Secondly, it is not on anybody else to verify your own unsourced information; please refer to Wikipedia:Citing sources. It's your opinion that what you put was a great achievement, but this site is not made of opinions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced This article contains no useful information or not upto the standard of wikipedia, it should be either delete or merged with Ilyas Attar Qadri.--Falconkhe (talk) 08:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

ithink dawate islami is agreat organisation wikipedia is avery good encyclopedia source but some deobandi/wahabi elements are playing with this article wikipedia should make strict rules to catch those people and block their access other wise remove the whole article i have seen some shias 'bohris ismailis who love dawateislami by their heart and all sunnis of course its a sunni organisation and as about criticizm portion that was horrible because it represents the faith and believe of only one sect "wahabbis" remember wikipedia says deobandism as "indian version of wahabbism" other no sect of islam shia,bohra ,ismailis etc says what dawate islami or sunni belives as a shirk (polythesism) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.183.89 (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Nobody is against your Imam or your movement, but what we are trying to do is to make things appropriate in line with Wikipedia's guideline.--Falconkhe (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

im not talking about imam brother why u people cant understand? im not sunni first of all and its not my movement understand.and im watching and know i have understand whats going on here. what im trying to say is to stop playing with the dawate islamis article in the name of bringing it with line in wikipedias standard if u want to play, go and play with tabligi jamaats article.u know what i mean i have read the whole article about tabligi jamaat but ihave not found any critic section over there nor any thing going against them and u people know very well that tabligi jamaat is really been criticized by whole islamic world for its wrong faith. its my personal experience all shia,bohri,ismaili,sunni they keep themself away from them and say them as tabligis or wahabbis.fazaile ammaal(the book use by tabligis to teach their believe) was really been cricized by molana maudidi the founder of jamaate islami claiming that it contains very weak ahadees. the pure wahabbis of saudi arabia veiw tabligi jammat as a movement of bidaah and went to extreme when fatawa of imame khane kaaba came where he said going to tabligi jammat is a shirk.there are lot of criticsm against why dont u add these!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????.iwould like to appeal to wikipedia to either remove the whole article about dawateislami or catch those(wahaabbis)who are trying to confuse people about the real face of islam and favouring the deviant sect ,and at the same time i would like to appeal every wikipedian dont believe on any wikipedia article about dawate islami because its not reliable and specially to all islamic brothers shia,suuni,bohri,ismaili dont trust them because the real picture is absolutely different from it thank u jazakallah!!!!!!!!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.183.89 (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Improvement

I have edited and improved this long Pending article article keeping in View the rules and if some one has onjection tell me on talk page where POV is added ?

• total undoing my editing without discussion even without thinking from a NPOV MEZZO has again shown his Biased editing . At some place he insert content telling it is truth and without consensus tried to insert that but here he has removed what was only attempt to improve the Articles.I have removed tags as they lost their relevancy .The Clean Up /POV tags were not needed and the MERGER tag into Article Ilyas Attar Qaudri is Nothing but a Joke.
• Can some One reply me ,an Organization with Millions of Memebership and Popularity in whole Islamic world may be merged into One of Its Founder?
• It meant that I should Propose a Merger tag for [Tablighi Jamat] to be merge intoits Founder's Article.

I added these headings with some old Ones. 2 Aims and Objectives 3 Islamic Institute 4 Weekly Congregation 5 Preaching through Caravans 6 Chain of Educational Institutions 7 Annual Congregations 8 Faizan-e-Sunnat 10 Hospitals 11 See also 12 Source

I also gave Proper Place to images and now hope to see a positive response from all Users.please let me Know Your Views.Shabiha ^(t 07:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not provided any sources for your additions and you even claimed in your edit summary that not all additions require sources, which runs right up against the Wikipedia:Citing sources guideline. The official Wikipedia:Verifiability policy is quite relevant here as well.

Regarding the merger and citation tags, you saying they're a joke is just your own personal opinion and not an objective reason to remove them. Please explain any major edits (which you are now aware are contested) on the talk page before hand. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Page has been Improved and now tags are replaced.The headings I stated above are sourced and images have been given Proper Place. Simple Reading of this Organization will tell aboutinaccuracy of Merging article into its Founder's Page.Moreover that tag was placed to wipe out complete Article which has strong Presence in Muslim world. Now No Pov and disputed material is there.Clean up is already done.

• This article dont need MEZZO's agreement on all Issues for Improvement.
• I am sure that Mezzo will again revert my complete edits again without looking at positive steps so I appeal to Other editors to please Stop him.Shabiha ^(t 15:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your most recent edit was better than last, however there is still some POV in there and a lot of violations of WP:MOSISLAM. Please keep out honorifics such as titles for Muhammad, etc.
As for your personal jab at me, please respect the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy and keep your comments mature and civil. You've been editing here on this site far too long to continue insulting and degrading other editors as you tend to do. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Shabiha, you have once again added a series of highly non-neutral material in addition to the previously mentioned unsourced sections. Your rather snarky edit summary also asked for editors to discuss changes on talk, when you completely failed to do so yourself; you didn't even attempt to.

This site is not a joke and not your toy to play around with. The Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point behavioral guideline is quite relevant here. If you have a pressing reason why your poorly-formatted insertions should remain, then discuss it here in a civil manner first. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am inserting the Functiions of Dawate islami by not copying but taking help from its official site.im regulalry discussing here and u are accusing me now ? Dont u tired in deleting this sourced material?Shabiha ^(t 08:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It very much does appear to be a copy paste job, but even if you just paraphrase none of your insertions are sourced. Please don't say something so obviously untrue, that is clear for anybody to look back in the page history and see. You just threw in a bunch of self promotional external links, completely irrelevant material even including the dress code for the organizations representatives, and the only single citation you provided was a highly POV book written by their founder which was citing a blatantly POV claim that was also violating WP:MOSISLAM.
I don't post all of these policies to impress you, I post them so that you may actually read them. Things like Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability are things you need to actually read (not skim for one out of context line that may help support your own POV, but actually read) all of these policies and guidelines if you ever intend to make meaningful contributions to Wikipedia, because honestly over the six months or so i've observed your editing your only purpose here seems to be to seed pro-Barelwi/Dawat-e-Islami POV wherever you can slip it in. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC) mezoi mezo and king turtle are bastard