Talk:Shia Islam in Pakistan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

History section[edit]

I have tagged the article's history section which narrates the account of Al Mufid where it states the following in this article

It has been believed that prior to his martyrdom Imam Husain ibn Ali the grandson of Prophet Muhammad expressed his desire to go towards Al Hind or present day Pakistan and India.

Other traditions named Border Outpost as Al Hind or present day Pakistan.

reason for Tagging: No Where Mr Toby Howarth and nor Shayk Al Mufid has mentioned the name of Pakistan. India as a nation is still in existence and more than 8 times bigger than Pakistan so distortion of historic sentences by including name of Pakistan is against article standards. Al Hind from multiple sources is only name of India and not Pakistan.

Secondly, the lines are the extraction frm the book The Twelver Shi'a as a Muslim Minority in India: Pulpit of Tears by tobay Howath. In his Cahpter from Karbala to India he has narrated these accounts with reference to Shias of South India. Andhra Pradesh the south Indian state is still in India and book is composed after partition hence had if he wanted would have included the name of Pakistan.

Correct text of the article is as follows: In his Account Shaykh al Mufid writes that Husain [as] and the Commander of the enemy forces,Umar ibn Saad met before the battle at ight and talked together for a long time. After that meeting Umar ibn Saad sent a letter to the Governor of Kufa, ubaydullah ibn Ziyad in which he wrote that Husain [a]s has suggested that he go to ‘one of the border outposts’ of the rapidly expanding Muslim empire as a way of resolving conflict.[Al-Mufid, 1981 343]. Other traditions named Border Outpost as Al Hind, Hindustan [Please note Al hind and Hindustan both are names referring to India not Pakistan]. Even though Husain ibn Ali himself was not able to go to India, some of the Shia did emigrate there for various reasons, including those who came as refugees whom Umayyads and Abbasids persecution. [Hollister 1988: 101]. These refugees brought with them rituals which kept alive the remembrance of karbala and their Shia Identity. Pg 7 [from Karbala to India]

What I want to highlight is the use of sentences like Present Day Pakistan is redirecting entire quote to Pakistan and makes one feel that the quote is concentrated only for Pakistan.

Would appreciate if you rearrange the article while original text should be the same. Humaliwalay (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

See stop acting as an ignorant, the fact is you just to able to digest things about Pakistan, hence you are tagging them as dubious and unreferenced. The fact is that Pakistan was a part of Al-hind the Indian Sub-continent, and that the Shia and Sayeds first migrated to the Present day Pakistan, that is Sindh and Multan region. And later spread all across India, hence the Pakistani Shia connection is automatically far more older than yours. Though Pakistan is now excluded from the Al-Hind, it doesn't Pakistan was never a part of it. So Your history and our history is no different. Stop tagging your stuff for the sake for proving others wrong for no reason, and lets work together to collectively improve both respective articles. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Mesum Abbas Naqvi, Stop using abusive words and behaving childish, else your language will be reported directly to Wikipedia moderators unwillingly by me. My question is not with that of Pakistan, my question is you cite the exact text which were written by the Author of the books given reference here that's it.

Secondly, Multan and Sindh is not mentioned by Shayk al Mufid in his book, Multan and Sindh were ruled by Shias so were other provinces as well. You cite the exact words with off course direction towards Pakistan I will have no issues.Humaliwalay (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact I am ready to contribute more for this article but not on disputed lines. and behave matured please.Humaliwalay (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the text for you satisfaction, and their isn't any need to further edit the existing text, i haven't been meddling with the Indian Shia Islam article neither should you, its better if we add further more information regarding the Shia History in the Sub-Continent and the Influence of Shia Theology in the Sub-Continent. And please don't edit the Indian population claim over here, since officially and internationally Pakistan is the largest Shia population no matter if you are stuck to your claim. By the way you call the word ignorant an abusive word, now that is hilarious. You need to grow up instead of telling me that, i am not new on Wikipedia, guess you are. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

One thing is confirmed for sure that though you claim to be legendary figure on Wikipedia nevertheless you are still not a good editor. Sorry for you. you are here to edit articles not to laugh, so if you find something hilarious this is not the right place for you. I repeat again my problem is not with Pakistan not am i seeking revenge by meddling in this article. The following are few points I would like to give you clear picture so that you may understand and work out a solution. Hope today we shall sort out this matter God willing the points are as follows:

  • If you quote narrations form Toby Howarth's book, The Twelver Shi'a as a Muslim Minority in India: Pulpit of Tears . Chapter From Karbala to India, page 07, which you have done. You should not distort the history by editing th texts in your own words. Secondly this book was written by him post partition and after his visit to South Indian Shia community. This reflects that had if he wanted he would have included Pakistan's name but he didn't because his accentuation is particularly based on Shias in India. He used India, rather than Indian subcontinent or Pakistan.

My suggestion to the above point is : If you include those text you may do so, but don't distort by adding Pakistan with India, or substituting the word India with name Subcontinent. If you are ready then I shall suggest sentences for you which may reflect Pakistan's name not comprising with distortion of history. Till then I will tag the article. Its better if you agree your mistakes and rectify the distortion of History which is an act of Unethical editing. Hope you know etiquette of editing since you are not new here.

2nd Point and suggestion

  • you claim Pakistan's Shia population is largest than that of India, but as you also agree as per other sources do report them lesser than India.

Suggestion: so if you cite only larger sources than you have to cite the sources which refute the claim as well. Else stop claiming that,more than India, because DISPUTED TAG gets applied there. very Simple conclusion: Shaykh al Mufid and Toby Howarth never used the word Pakistan so you can't use their texts and distort by substituting India's name by Pakistan or like Subcontinent.Humaliwalay (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a last warning for you repeated vandalism, i would be left with no option other then asking the admin about suggesting me what to do, No one is editing the Shia Islam in India regarding Pakistan's Shia population claim, so stop adding Self-published sources regarding the Shia population in India in articles about Pakistan, i don't think the Shia population of India is more then that of Shia population in Pakistan, since the Pakistani Muslim population is round about 180 million (alot more then India's), and Shia make 30% of the entire Muslim Population hence no matter what the Indian claim is, it rather looks dubious, all the facts and figures go with Pakistan. Hence your claim is not a legitimate truth. Now stop this vandalism. And yes, give me time to further improve the Shia Islam article of Pakistan, by the way, despite of all the historical facts Pakistan has a far more old Shia connection then that of India due to geographical reality, though both share a same history. Now would please improve articles with out doing vandalism regarding which population is larger and which is not, since you only have two sources to prove your point, while Pakistani Shias have multiple genuine neutral sources to prove the case. And remember Self-published sources are of lesser value on Wikipedia. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to learn that you will report this to the admin, thanks, so that now the problem will be resolved and you won't be able to distort historical sentences. Once again I cite the example of your distortions. You edited in your article Shia Islam in Pakistan :

"Other traditions named Border Outpost as Al Hind [Please click on Al Hind and check whether it's redirecting to India or Present day Pakistan, as claimed by you] or present day India & Pakistan. Even though Husain ibn Ali himself was not able to go to Sub-continent" I tagged this statement as Dubious because: Distortion of History: The correct statement mentioned din Toby Howarth's book which was written after Partition is as follows : Other traditions named Border Outpost as Al Hind [Everyone knows the fact that Al Hind refers to India]. Even though Husain ibn Ali himself was not able to go to Sub-continent [Its not subcontinent but India clearly mentioned in the book].

After verification your distortions will be exposed and this article will be tagged as well as your profile for vandalism and neutrality disputes. Remember that you were blocked last year for these kind of dubious editing and fabrication and distortion of the article sources. You yourself admitted that you think Pakistan's Shia population more than India and for your information your thinking cannot be used as an authentic source. Also Pakistan's Muslim population is not 182 million.

Distortion of Name: Another point wherever you use Subcontinent, please note its Indian subcontinent agrees by all SAARC countries so yu better use the correct name.

Weak Claim over estimates: You claim in this article that Pakistan's Shia population is more than India, you can include that. But if you cite that, you also have top cite the sources that India has more Shias than in Pakistan. Else the tag gets applicable.

I repeat, there is no Malice or any prejudice on my part, I just want to make the article undisputed. Humaliwalay (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added Nadeem Sarwar's image, you may alter the place if you think would be better than present, because I felt its good in Introduction.Humaliwalay (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you please stop acting as an ignorant because i have repeatedly told you, that despite of the Indian claim Pakistan still is officially the largest Shia Population after Iran no matter what, we have multiple source to prove that claim, while your are basing your claim on two self-published sources, now stop this fabrication, you are first un-tagging the Pakistani name in the Shia Islam in India, hence this article isn't about India its is rather about Pakistan, so stop doing this vandalism and malicious attack regarding protecting your Indian Shia honor. Please stop this biased editing of yours, let the articles be about Pakistan. Since you are claiming India the second-largest, i have no problem with that, but you can't prove it just by a single source, while on the other hand their are multiple genuine sources proving the Pakistani claim. So please stop this, or else, this would take a bad turn. We are both Shia, we should rather respect each other instead of proving each others wrong, Pakistan's total population is 180 million, out of which 96% are Muslims. Hence India is no where near, India's Muslim population is neither more then that of Bangladesh so would please rather focus on the ground reality, instead of firmly standing for your claim. Thanks for adding the picture, i would expect more positive contribution from you now, rather then repeatedly vandalizing the article with third-largest, dubious claim, India larger, and what not. By the way i have added more genuine third-party sources supporting the Shia population claim in Pakistan. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk)

Thanks, finally you agreed to work in co-ordination, nevertheless you have still missed the topic of concern and unfortunately there is no consensus yet. However, after going through the article I can find complete name Indian subcontinent and hence it is not distorted, I am not tagging it. Still there are distortions in historic references about Al Hind which is universally agreed as India and not Pakistan. Further would like to throw light on your statement, that Pakistan is officially NOT recognized as second largest Shia country, where I just have 1 source to prove my claim. My claim is supplemented by India's largest Network, Times followed by second largest Network The Indian Express followed by One of the largest ones DNA. India's senior most authority that's India's Premier has agreed so that too in 2005, which was 4 years post last Census held in India. None of them are Shias and have no interest to exaggerate the figure. As per India's census in 2001, Muslims were 158 million with BBC quoting 20% Shias, makes the figure in 2001 over 31 million. We had a new Census conducted recently, report is due in 2011. No doubt that Shia figure will hit around 60 million taking Times, Indian Express and DNA's opinion, taking the BBC's account around 36 million or even more anticipating the entire Muslim figure around 180 million or more. Pakistan is over 165 million and not 180 million Muslim. However, I am not tagging this article but have edited the claim over India. Simple suggestion either you include both opinion of 2nd and 3rd largest in this article, because no official figure of Pakistan or any reputed source of Pakistan has claimed it 2nd largest whereas on the other hand I have 5 sources, 3 renowned media group, 1 Prime Minister's and 1 BBC again renowned international Media to supplement my claim with. If you still abstain from including both sources then don't claim over India. Please try to think logically, India is 4 times larger than Pakistan, the difference in Muslim population is just due to time difference of Census, India's figure is a decade old now. Another proof of your ignorance please read the below lines: Bangladesh's Estimated population including all Religion in 2002 was 133,376,684. India's Muslim population 158 million in complete Census of 2001 reported, 1 year before that of Bangladesh. You claim India to be no where. Have you completed your Schooling??? That was hilarious to the core for me. Don't trust me??? Here is the link below:

http://www.discoverybangladesh.com/meetbangladesh/statistic.html Another link below, International acclamation India to be second largest Muslim nation: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4235999.stm

About my contribution, I shall keep on adding new sources to improve the article, but with citing authentic sources. I am happy to learn about the facts in this article provided by you other than few disputed ones. Humaliwalay (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Percentage of Shias in Pakistan[edit]

I've added to the article the correct estimated percenage of Shias in Pakistan by using trusted academic and government sources. Below is a list of the sources and next to each is the estimate.

We must accept the outcome of these sources as 5-20% for the Shia population of Pakistan. User:SyedNaqvi90's version of the article starts with "Approximately 30 percent of the Muslim population of Pakistan are Shia..." and attempts to use the following sources as references to back up the exaggerated number and his POV.

SyedNaqvi90's version of the article is all his personal POVs and doesn't make sense to the average reader. For example it states "Many international sources claim Shia population of Pakistan to be around 10% - 25%, yet the Shia Muslims in Pakistan claim to be one-third of the country's Muslim population, a claim that seems to be justified by the Political influence in the country... All these are personal POV's and original research, which is rejected by all the top academic sources. Unless we find more stronger sources then Library of Congress, the Pew Research Center, Oxford University, U.S. State Department, CIA World Factbook, and etc., we must avoid pushing our own POVs and just report estimates given by them which is 5-20%.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

FAO AllahLovesYou - Please dont distort statistics and present here to use as a tool to disturb the entire article at least for those which are clear with sources. One such example is Vali Nasr's 30 million claim. As an editor you should have taken into consideration the 30 million claim was made in year 2006 which you have not mentioned in the article while mentioning the figure in as late as in late 2010. Also Pakistan's total Population in 2006 was 165,873,928 of which 30 million constitutes over 18%. Hope you calculate well next time since you mentioned that figure as 15% which no where is correct. If you Claim the Library of Congress to be authentic enough to have reported Pakistan's Shias as 5% of its total population what do you have to say about CIA World Fact Book and the renowned publication of Gall, Timothy L. (ed). Worldmark Encyclopedia of Culture & Daily Life: Vol. 3 - Asia & Oceania. Cleveland, OH: Eastword Publications Development (1998); pg. 549 ISBN-10: 0-7876-0555-7 ISBN-13: 978-0787605551 (ISBNs provided for your reference check) which are reputed think tanks and have reported Pakistan's Shia Population to be over 26-35 million in late 1990s i.e between 20%-25% so why have you not done methodical research of all reliable sources and inserted the claims of these much more reputed think tanks?? I will wait for some time for your explanation and then shall I revert your edits with undisputed and agreed reliable sources. Humaliwalay (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

About Vali Nasr's 2006 estimate, I clearly stated "around 15%" and that does cover the 18% you mentioned. In the article I only mentioned him stating "about 30 million" Shias in Pakistan and since you noticed me forgetting to add the year "2006" then you should've just added it without critisizing me over this minor issue. We are not living in 1990s, to know how many Shias there are in Pakistan we use the latest information provided by reliable sources such as the ones I added to the article. If you keep reverting you're just going to get your self blocked and this isn't what I wish for. We cannot rely on outdated information from the past or by unreliable sources when we have more than enough fresh ones by experts. If you think you are more of an expert than Vali Nasr, Library of Congress and Pew Research Center (think tank) in Washingtond DC, then show us your qualification or otherwise just learn to accept these as authoritive scholarly sources and go on. Your reverting or removing of sources and even your argument here may be considered disruptive because no Wikipedian in their right mind would reject such sources that you are trying to deny here. The article currently states 5-20%, which are reported by Library of Congress (5%) and CIA (20%), comes to 10-15% median and that is how Pew Research Center got their number. So, we can either use 5-20% or 10-15%.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
If anyone is familiar with the Demography of United States, the African Americans are just 12% of total US population but some how they appear much more to the average people. Especially if you live in USA because you see huge number of African Americans in every state, city, county, township, etc. In 1995 they organzied the Million Man March to make everyone recognize their number strength, but nothing like this took place among Shias in Pakistan even when they are constantly attacked. This is just an indication that they are not as many as the CIA claims and gives us reasons to believe that the Library of Congress is more realistic about the numbers of Shias in Pakistan, which they claim at about 5%.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Library of Congress Country Studies is on the face of it a Reliable Source and if you disagree take it to the WP:RS/N, please revert pending this. Codf1977 (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There has been mixed reaction on both Library of Congress studies and Library of Congress I asked twice the opinion separately for both hence the authenticity of these is disputed whereas there are ample of other source cited hence it doesn't seem factual accuracy being disputed, PEW is taken as reliable. If you want to know further refer the discussion on WP:RS/N, keeping into account the authenticity of sources tags are not needed here all references are with perfect citation. Please feel free to discuss further rather than distorting and disturbing the article. - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Do not mislead it is clear - they are reliable sources and should all be summarised. please re instate the disputed tag. Codf1977 (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Per a request on reliability of sources... I don't see that there's been mixed reaction on the LOC sturdy, there is no reason to not consider the it reliable. Per the summation at top here, 5% to 20% is what should be represented per reliable sources.
I also see benefit (addressing some of the other content deletions) to contrasting Pakistan with the global population. Understanding where Pakistan stands in relation to the overall is useful information. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА TALK 01:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)