Talk:Dargah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Dargah Sharif)

[edit]

It was rather jumbled. I re-organized and rewrote. I'm writing this at a distance, having never been to a dargah or a mela, so input from South Asian Wikipedians is invited. Zora 06:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to quite a few Dargahs and celebrations. I've edited the article a little. --Nkv 11:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dargah or dargha?[edit]

This website is spelling it "dargha," not "dargah." Which is the proper romanization from whatever language it's being pronounced in in Tamil Nadu? Badagnani 09:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not dargha. "gh" is often used for another letter. That's a geocities site and not something very reliable IMHO atleast for spellings. --Nkv 09:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of maqbara dargah image.[edit]

dargah of maqbara image is my own work, and i have uploaded it with public domain license. do not delete it.- wasifwasif —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasifwasif (talk • contribs) 09:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

 – Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 19:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC) (moved by User:Wasifwasif)[reply]

Can you explain why POV merits this? Why do you think this is highly questionable, is there is a want of reliable sources? Thanks! -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 18:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you reverted again, and left some edit summary. I don't know why you don't want to communicate on the talk page. Please explain the below points. "The Prophet's grave was at His very home. Its section of wahai's POV that tombs. The hadith is msinterpreted".
  • The grave was made inside the house, not the house constructed over the grave.
  • What do you mean by waha[b]i's POV? I don't think that only the wahabis think that tombs are not to be constructed over graves. As far as I know, the practise of constructing tombs over graves was absent during the advent of Islam, and msy be originated in the south asia and persia. And if the wahabis only think that way, how does this convert into a non neutral POV? I may say only the followers of dargahs think in such and such way, so it is a POV, so the article should be deleted.
  • Why are the ahadith misinterpreted? The cited ahadith clearly, say, "May Allah curse people who take the graves of their prophets as Masjids." Now what do you expect to be interpreted the wrong way? Clearly, God's curse is upon them who turn the graves into places of worship.
No, I'm not convinced. -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 18:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please respond here? -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 14:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The hadith clearly says may Allah curse the jews and christians who made the Graves of their Messengers as Masjids. Wikipedia pages Masjid and Dargah itself will give a clear picture of what a masjid is and what is Dargah. Not much explanation is required on this becuase both are universally understood terminologies and the activities performed in both the places are different. WIKIPEDIA is not a Islamic encylopedia for you and me to come to a conclusion to tell what is permitted and what is not in Islam. This is a platfom which gives information on what is masjid and what is a dargah. Please go through the WP policies and you will clearly come to know that your lines are a mere POV. Wasif (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at WP:NPOV,
First sentence: ... representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic...
Here: ...neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. and Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views
Hence, inclusion of different points of view maintains a neutral point of view, but exclusion of a particular point of view makes the article biased. So views should not be removed, but reliably sourced ones which oppose the said view should be added to maintain balance. As to how much explanation is required is different issue, but it is a significant point, which cannot be excluded, since people who oppose the dargahs have written about it in reliable sources, some of which were removed by you in the previous revert. For some more reliable sources, see 1, 2, 3, 4. Here are some more ahadees, which clarify the issue, as they speak about any general grave, not just a Prophet's grave.
"The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said during his illness from which he never recovered: Allah cursed the Jews and the Christians that they took the graves of their prophets as mosques. She ('A'isha) reported: Had it not been so, his (Prophet's) grave would have been in an open place, but it could not be due to the fear that it may not be taken as a mosque." Sahih Muslim, 529, كتاب الْمَسَاجِدِ وَمَوَاضِعِ الصَّلاَةِ.
"Beware of those who preceded you and used to take the graves of their prophets and righteous men as places of worship, but you must not take graves as mosques; I forbid you to do that." Sahih Muslim, 532, كتاب الْمَسَاجِدِ وَمَوَاضِعِ الصَّلاَةِ.
The bottom line is do not remove views, but include reliably sourced opposing views to maintain balance. Cheers! -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 19:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fauzan, I agree with your oint that all views should be inncluded. Yes, but this page is just Dargah which gives definition as what dargah is? So, if you wish to add teh views of scholars who oppose Dargah you can very well create a page Validity of Darghas in Islam or just simply Dargahs in Islam and can add the views from both sides to make that article neutral. But for a page Dargah its irrelevant to add that this scholars opposes and this scholars supports etc etc since all the scholars refer to Quran and Hadith and just the interpretation changes and mere Dargah page cannot be a yard to dump all their differences in view points. Wasif (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A new page is not needed here, according to the guidelines on point-of-view forks. Article spinoffs are only justified if an article is too long or complex to understand. "this page is just Dargah which gives definition as what dargah is". Please see WP:NAD, wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, See WP:5, articles need to have all the relevent information not just a definition. -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 01:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fauzan. Thanks for your WP page references. Instead of adding all these, Please add a WP policy page which says, A page on any religious building/Structue should (or atleast can) contain referenes to the religious books for its validity of existence in that religion. You can take help of seniors/admins available here if you are not able to find out. This would help us to arrive at a clear conclusion on the subject matter in which we both have different views instead of we arguing endlessly.Wasif (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want to add a policy page regarding references to the religious books? It is irrelevant to this discussion. What we have here are third party sources, not just a direct excerpt from the Quran. I believe we can come to a conclusion. What are any remaining concerns you have regarding the inclusion? -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 02:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a proposed policy, Wikipedia:Religion -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 02:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I second User:Fauzan. This is content dispute, talking about creating a new WP policy is deflecting the actual discussion. User:Wasifwasif made accusations of POV pushing and repeatedly removed content without discussion and now deflecting the actual dispute. He showed the same behavior here. Jyoti (talk) 07:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jyoti the way you have commented seems as if i have any personaal dispute with User:Fauzan. Its a minor difference of opinion which we are almost near to conclusion and close. Thanks User:Fauzan i appreciate your effrots in enlighting with the Wiki policy page Wikipedia:Religion. With this, we can have seperate sections for views from each scholar/section/group whatever you call. @ Jyoti, Please have some sense of reading clearly, before abusing a co editor in wikipedia. Where did i so say? Dont you know difference between add and create? Be positive and help create a constructive WP ratehr than abusing co editors. Wasif (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abuse is your presumption, I did not. Jyoti (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any way, lets just get along, there is no gain in calling other editors "abusers". Also, Wasifwasif, you should say "show" or "cite", as "adding" a policy can easily be confused with "creating" one. I was confused and then I added another comment after I gave a second thought to what you had to say. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 08:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mis interpretation of agreed consensus in Talk page[edit]

Hi,

What was agreed here was to have views from both sides of teh scholars seperately as what they interpret to Quranic verses and Ahahdith from Prophet PBUH. But they have been included as common without mentioning as whose views are they.? In Islam, Shias have a different view about Dargah. And even in Sunni, the Barelawi scholars, the Deobandi scholars and the wahhabi scholars differ in their views regarding dargahs. So to build a WP:NPOV neutral article please include as whose views are they? A simple statement Muslim scholars.... would surely mislead the readers as there are a lot of difference in interpretations. I am planning to do that if no body takes up.

Also before i delete, please confirm, in what way or in whose views, these Quranic verses are related with dargahs.??

In the Quran,

"If you join others in worship with Allaah, (then) surely (all) your deeds will be in vain, and you will certainly be among the losers."

— Quran, Surah Az-Zumar, 39:65

"…Verily, whosoever sets up partners in worship with Allaah, then Allaah has forbidden Paradise for him, and the Fire will be his abode."

— Quran, Surah Al-Maa-idah, 5:72

In the Hadeeth,

"The most evil of mankind are those who will be alive when the Last Day arrives and those who take graves as places of worship.[1]"

"...Beware that those before you took the graves of their Prophets as places of worship. Do not take graves as places of worship, for verily I forbid you to do so.[2]"

Wasif (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the ayahs and ahadeeth, they are present in the reference and hence relevant. As to other views, I am unable to find reliable sources to include something like views of so and so. What I found and included in the section under the validity section was not attributed to any particular group. The references in no way declare that they are the views of a particular group, but present them as general views, as directly interpreted from the Quran and Hadeeth. So for the current content, we may not need to portray whose views are they.

There is lack of sources available. If you are able to find some, you can add subsections below the current section as X's views to maintain neutrality. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 16:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. The quranic verses and Ahadith mentioned here are no way related to dargah ziyarat. Also what i was asking is about theses lines, Mainstream Muslims do not believe in the practice of constructing over graves and turning them into places of worship, and consider it as associating partners to God........... This is can never be a common view of all scholars of Islam. How do you say, So for the current content, we may not need to portray whose views are they... This will not help build a WP:NPOV holding views of all scholars including Shia, Deobandi, Barelawi, Salafi etc. Also please add with Reliable sources as whose views are they for the statements whatever added. A 'who' tag is long pending there. Answer it please to construct a neutral WP article.Wasif (talk) 08:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"No. The quranic verses and Ahadith mentioned here are no way related to dargah ziyarat." But that is exactly what is mentioned in the cited source. Regarding "whose views?", the source does not say anything about it, it is just a commentary on the direct interpretation of the Quran and Hadeeth, not any specific view of "Deobandi, Barelawi, Salafi etc" which are common in the Indian subcontinent. Regarding "Mainstream", it can be changed to "Some". I have added what I could find, and if you think more sources exist that say about the differing views, add them. The article is very badly referenced. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 09:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hambal (al-Fitan wal-Ashrat as-Sa’aat – the trials and signs of the Hour). See Ahkaamul-Janaa’iz, p.278.
  2. ^ Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 8, Hadith 426.

Suggested merger[edit]

Hello, the article should definitely not be merged with Mazar (mausoleum). If anything, it can be merged with Khanqah, as they are similar. The article mentions this as well: "Dargahs are often associated with Sufi meeting rooms and hostels, called khanqah or hospices". -Dominator1453 (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

random blessing in content.[edit]

"Muhammad (peace be upon him) forbade turning graves into places of worship."

Is there really a purpose of peace be upon him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.109.113 (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dargah. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Countries[edit]

Hello,

I thought good to remove "except in Arab countries" from this sentence: "Sufi shrines are found in many Muslim communities throughout the world, except in Arab countries,"

There certainly are Sufi shrines in Arab countries (Morocco, Tunisia, Palestine, Iraq, among others), you can easily look them up. Tasawwuf is not an alien concept in the Arab world. Maybe the editor meant Saudi Arabia (which actually had many shrines pre-1930, less so now), or maybe he meant that they are not as sophisticated and important as in Persia and Hind, but in any case a blanket "except in Arab countries" is counter-factual.


180.183.72.25 (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Most Muslims"[edit]

Hello again,

The intro states: "Most Muslims do not believe in the practice of constructing over graves and turning them into places of worship, and consider it as associating partners to God or shirk"

I have changed "Most Muslims" into "Some religious scholars". This is because:

a. The source cited (an anonymous piece from "muslimhomeschool.net" arguing that that the practice is forbidden) does not make the "most Muslims" claim, and in fact it does not at all discuss the proportion of Muslims who agree or disagree.

b. Seeing as most of the Muslim world is dotted with dargahs or equivalent structures, it does not appear that "most Muslims" through the ages opposed building them.

c. It may well be that the four Sunni madhhabs are against it (source needed), but what the madhhabs do is define what orthodox opinion is, which is not necessarily the same as what the masses think. (Let us remember that historically fiqh is the endeavour of a small elite of Muslims, while Sufi tariqas were the dominant force in the religion as actually practised by the people. And still are in some parts of the world. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-c-chittick-phd/islam-as-a-religion_b_732104.html)

d. If it can be shown, with a reliable source, that most Muslims today do oppose them, this is quite certainly a very recent (late 20th century) phenomenon. The changing historical trends should be discussed too.

Finally, this is not a debate about the merits of fiqh vs popular religion; it is about trying to represent historical facts, trends and the variety of practices and opinions through the ages.180.183.72.25 (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge suggestion[edit]

All the following articles are about the same architectural type in Islamic architecture: Dargah, Gongbei, Maqam (shrine), Mazar (mausoleum), Maqbara, Qubba, Rauza, Türbe.

All of them are Islamic Mausoleums but with different regional names. Most of the articles are stub or in need of more validation. I think with merging them all as Islamic Mausoleums would cause more comprehensive view and a better article. Pouyakhani (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dargah&oldid=1206879558"