Talk:Islam in Pakistan

message: The assertion in the following text of the article: '..this was due to the fact that Raja Dahir had given refuge to numerous Zorostrian Princes who had fled the Islamic invasion of Iran. The Arabs demanded their return to face forced conversion or death and they refused to return. Mohummad Bin Qasim's army was defeated in his first thee attempts....' is untrue. Mohammad bin Qasim was sent by the Governor of Kufa under the order of the Omayyad Caliph from Damascus to liberate the pilgrims. Mohammad bin Qasim's army was victorious & was never defeated otherwise he would have not conquered the province of Sind & he would not be a 'Hero of Sind'. It is also untrue, he did not conquer the province of Punjab, which was conquered later by others.Ilaila (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Raja Dahir was Holding the Hajj Pilgrims from Sarandeep (Sri Lanka) Island  by Sea Ship Hostage for Ransom

message: This article seems to convey that people of the subcontinent were converted to Islam only due to pirs. Some pirs might have entered the subcontinent in the eighth century (we would like to see some references on that), but all unbiased historians would agree that massive conversion of South Asian populations to Islam -- which accounts for the 450 million Muslims in the region today -- was brought about only during Islamic rule, due to policies which are discussed elsewhere in wikipedia. Selective presentation of history by not mentioning the Islamic invasions, and attributing the presence of Islam in the subcontinent completely to pirs is highly objectionable. 70.105.188.134 02:26, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam brought about by pirs 

message: This article states Islamic dogma as though it were fact ("Because the Prophet established a government in Medina...") and quite clearly expresses disapproval of Ahmadi Muslims, going as far as to append the adjective "heretical" to them, when no adjective is necessary. It defines Ahmadis as "a small group known to be outside the pale of Islam according to the teachings and tenets of all branches of Islam, both Sunni and Shia." I would edit the article, but I really know next to nothing about the subject. Sammy1339 22:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Ahmadis are not considered Muslims under the constitution of Pakistan and by Muslims. The edit war to change the facts is unfortunate. The Ahmadi editors are reverting not only this fact but also other changes I made in media and Education section which has nothing to with Ahmadis.AlphaGamma1991 (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: first of all, i am not an ahmadi (this just displays your lack of maturity). secondly, no one give a damn about the constitution of pakistan. thirdly, ahmadis are allowed to consider themselves muslim in rest of the world (and in most of the islamic world) i.e. in the civilized world. fourthly, there are christian who believe that catholics or mormons are non-christian. there are muslims who think ahmadis, shias or shia ismailis (the sect of the founding father of pakistan, jinnah) are non-muslim. in iraq, many shias consider the sunnis non-muslim and vice-versa! these are point of views and have no place in wikipedia. fifthly, let me also remind you that one of the greatest leaders of jinnah's muslim league was an ahmadi, namely muhammad zafrulla khan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Zafrulla_Khan). ahmadis were declared non-muslims by pakistan only in 1973 (something jinnah would never have approved). pakistan might even consider them as muslims again in the future. so please, stop editing, before you get yourself banned due to vandalism (this has happened to the other anti-ahmadi kids).mustihussain 18:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I said "Ahmadi editors" in general and not specifically to you by quoting your name. As you said "this just displays your lack of maturity". You wrote "no one give a damn about the constitution of pakistan" that shows your disrespect for laws of Pakistan. You said that "ahmadis are allowed to consider themselves muslim ..... the civilized world". So which part of the world is civilized in your judgement ? Zafrullah Khan did not perform Namaz Janaza (death service) for Mohammad Ali Jinnah and sat in non-Muslim section at that time.  The tone of your comments does not help but instead damages your point of view. AlphaGamma1991 (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: apologies for my tone but the laws in pakistan are barbaric. you ask me what part of the world is civilized. the answer is simple: the part of the world that is civilized is the part where all pakistanis try to escape to, legally or illegally. regarding jinnah and khan, i don't care about their personal matters. what matters is that muslim league was not a sectarian organization where ahmadis or shias or sunnis or ismailis or whatever were declared non-muslim. let me also remind you that jinnah was declared to be non-muslim by the same people who forced pakistan (through terror and mob violence) to denote ahmadis as non-muslim. the same people who were against jinnah and pakistan in the first place! the ability to discern between personal and public matters is essential for any civilized country, it's essential for wikipedia. you have a lost case, don't get yourself banned. rather, free your mind. peace. mustihussain 19:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not support Jamaat policially. The Shia sect was created just after death of Mohammad. So it has been part of Islamic history. Ismailis broke from Shia have their Imamate. They are considered part of Islamic historic evolution. None of the leaders of these sects has claimed to be prophets as did Ghulam Ahmad and that even under the colonial rule with divide and rule policy. In any case the Ahmadis have crossed the rubicon by believing that Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet and have been declared non-Muslims. Their continued insistence of being Muslims only creates more hostility. I do not support any violence against Ahmadis or their property. But this issue is one of many reasons used by some people. In my view the issue was resolved in 1974 but it seems it both Ahmadis and Jamaatis wants to keep it simmering. In Wikipedia, their insistence of being Muslims which they clearly are not under Islam theology only creates more problems. Your continued threats of banning me from Wikipedia shows that you have more in common with people, as you say and I quote, who force their views "through terror and mob violence". You have displayed more raw emotions, misplaced anger and threats, which as you say are "uncivilized".  AlphaGamma1991 (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  how come ahmadis create hostility? they can insist on whatever they want. period. if people get agitated by ahmadis it's their bloody problem. it's not a matter of the state. however, it should be worrisome for pakistan that such a large portion of its population is so immature. you also have to remember the barbaric laws that are in place in pakistan against ahmadis. you can read about them here on wiki. when did i threaten to ban you? i said you will get banned. that is a fact not a threat. i personally don't want to ban you, however, someone else will as this has happened before. also, equating getting banned by wiki with "terror and mob violence" is beyond proportions, laughable and ridiculous. cheap rhetorics. showing raw emotions, anger? that's hilarious. i am sarcastic yes. i'll admit that but i'm not emotional. btw, regarding ismailis and other shias: sunni fundamentalists and wahabis consider them non-muslim (just take a look at iraq or the statements made by wahabies in pakistan!). by declaring ahmadis non-muslim the goverment of pakistan opened the floodgates to islamic fundamentalism. you can see the consequences in pakistan today (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YeIr30ASaI). that is why more wiser nations refuse to take part in braindead religious discussions about who is infidel and who is not. that is why religious "point of views" are not tolerated in wiki. one more thing: i am not a pakistani but my sympathies lies with the pakistani people still. but pakistan will not progress until the difference between religious opinions and state matters is understood. i have hope that you will and contribute to change in pakistan which is so desperately needed. peace.mustihussain 12 March 2010.    —Preceding undated comment added 10:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Nonetheless, you wrote "no one give a damn about the constitution of pakistan" and "barbaric laws" and that cuts both ways since Ahmadis and their opponents have the same attitude and follow law of the jungle, When you have this attitude then don't compain about "immature" Pakistanis. They have been more mature and have never elected any Islamic party in position to form a government. Nobody opened the floodgates of fundamentalism it was natural political development as country became more religious. Look at India, they also went on path of Hindutva and resulted in violence. Ismailis, Bohras, Hindus, Zikris in Pakistan don't have an aggresive agenda and they don't have major problems. I think it is same as the squeaky wheel getting the grease. Look at Peaceworld111 going in every "Islam in ..."  and adding number of Ahmadis in that country. I don't see Ismailis doing that. My Ismaili friends mother was born in Nigeria and she mentioned she still have relatives there. There no Ismailis going on every webpage and adding that information. So if you add sugar then don't complain about the flies. AlphaGamma1991 (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  to say that pakistan has draconic/barbaric laws, from the viewpoint of human rights, is unproblematic. many pakistanis have come to the same conclusion, especially women. but this is another and longer discussion. i will not equate ahmadis with their opponents. it's like equating the the victim with the offender. ahmadis have a missionary agenda for sure. but so has sunnis, wahabies ,catholics, protestants, and so on and so forth. will you really get irritated if ismailis began to imitate ahmadies here on wiki? so what if peaceworld provides information about the ahmadis around the world. the ahmadiyya sect is one of the fastest growing islamic sects in the world. many have pointed out that this is one of the bizarre achievement of the stupidities of 1974. this is even pointed out by people who disagree with ahmadis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Mz30QgDROc). the more you suppress a sect or a nation the more resistant this sect and nation will become. in fact, this is precisely how christianity spread and became dominant in the roman empire! ironic isn't it?mustihussain 12 March 2010     —Preceding undated comment added 13:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

text: The problem started when Ghulam Ahmad declared himself a prophet and messiah. So chronologically, we have to mention that first. I would say in 19xx Mirza Ghulam Ahmad declared himself to be prophet and messiah and he was declared non-Muslim as per Islamic law. You don't start the paragraph complaining about treatment of Qadianis. All events has to be mentionioned as they happened over time. Ahmadis "claim" that they are Muslims but their claim is not accepted by Muslims. AlphaGamma1991 (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  ImprovedPeaceworld111 (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahmadis 

message: >> Pakistan's madrassas reined in by government(Lihaas (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Islam in Pakistan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Walsh":
From Inter-Services Intelligence: 
From Sufism in Pakistan: 
From Sufism in India: Walsh
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Islam in Pakistan]] 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Islam in Pakistan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "World Scientific":
From Hudood Ordinances: 
From Pakistan: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Islam in Pakistan]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Islam in Pakistan. 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/20070929132016/http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp to http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 117.234.18.224Yes, take a look at Nasabi and Rafi HammadShakeel911 (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, take a look at Nasabi and Rafi 

message: I politely request (so as not to invite any retribution for whistleblowing) the Indian editors not to edit Sufism in Pakistan in a way that Hazrat Lal Shahbaz Qalandar, who was an orthodox saint is made to look like the founder of Qalandariya (which is something different even though he does have many Hindu followers now) as well as the most important Sufi saint in Pakistan, even more important than  Bahauddin Zakariya, Jalaluddin Shurkh-Posh Bukhari  and Fariduddin Ganjshakar. Why are we the majority Ahle Sunnat/Sunni/Barelvi muslims always made to look like non-muslims and anyone who keeps money in Islamic banks is labelled  Najdi Wahhabi and Kharijite or Iranian Rafidha when it is actually India that doesn't let Pakistan have a Barelvi bank? 103.232.102.25 (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: we are maliki shadhili muslims by deen. we believe uk and russia are supporters of muslims and uk is friend of muslims. we also believe india, eu, china and usa, particularly india, are not supporters of muslims. M-shahruz-z (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have noticed my wrong use of language and want to apologize for it. When I said Hazrat Lal Shahbaz Qalandar has many Hindu followers now, what I meant was many Hindu claim to be his followers now, not that Hazrat Lal Shahbaz Qalandar Rahmatullahi was not a serious muslim.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.232.102.25 (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polite request not to vandalize articles about Islam in Pakistan. 

message: when the article says "The majority are Sunni (85-90%)[14][15][16][17][18] while Shias make up between 10% to 15%.[19][15][20][21][22][23] However, the Hanbali school is gaining popularity recently due to Wahhabi influence from the Middle East" it seems to imply that the Hanbali school is another sect of Islam instead of a part of Sunni Islam 216.15.15.59 (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading discussion of Islamic sects