Talk:Islam in Bangladesh

Sufis

SUFI'IS ARE NOT MUSLIMS, AS U SAY YOUR SELF MOST OF THE MUSLIMS ARE SUNNIS. SUFISM IS OUTSIDE THE FOLD OF AHL AL SUNNAH, THEREFORE THE SUNNIS CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO SUFI'I SCHOLARS.

They claim to be Muslims. Rewording might be necessary but they should be mentioned. If you don't, it becomes POV. A complete picture has to be presented part of which is to also mention that some Muslims do not accept that Sufis are Muslims. Urnonav 19:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sufi's are Muslims. Its not wise to generalize like this. Let God decide who are the True muslims. Otherwise, Sufi's have the same beliefs as the muslims, its only some of their actions are strictly against the mainstream Islam (Sunni). So, yes Sufi's are Muslims.

Not everyone considers Sufi's as muslim, regarding Quran 6:159, 30:32, and [1] Though some believe them to be closer to God than themselves. But anyway, that's another issue. This article mention of sufis as the cause of islam in bangladesh with no citations. It seems preaty POV to me. Faro0485 (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

HOW outrageous can it get. First of all, SUFIS ARE MUSLIMS. Its for God to decide whether their "true" muslims but come on, they conform strongly to the belief of Allah and the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Therefore they fall in line with the very definition of a Muslim.

And as for sufism in Bangladesh, the people above are either non-Bangladeshis or a couple of jamaat-i-islami lovers. Look here, Bengal is one of the only Muslim majority regions in the world where Islam was established not through invasions and great conquests by glorious turkish or persian warriors. NO! Islam came to Bengal through tolerant preachings, through SUFI SAINTS!! ([2]) During the Mughal Empire a great number of Persian and Turkish sufi saints came to Bengal and further expanded the influence of Islam. I mean what about Hazrat Shah Jalal, the most respected and inspiring Muslim saint in Bangladesh. For god sakes, HE WAS A SUFI!!! Our famous Bauls are unique sufis and hope you'd know that bauls played a significant role in preaching islam in bengal.

So please, dont come up writing trash and suppressing or misleading history. We have enough of that on Bangladeshi articles in wikipedia! --ChaudhryAzan (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok I am going to try to attempt to discuss this here before changing anything inshallah but if no sensible discussion goes underway then Im making major changes to teh sufism section. Firstly no explanation of sufism is needed (especially such a heavily POV one like as is currently there) you can simply link it to the sufi page and let teh reader look if they wish to know more about sufism (wikipedia is not a place for dawah) secondly lets keep this non POV. First we need to get rid of any explanatino of sufism and simply link it the sufi page. then we need to agree what role sufism plays in bangladesh that is worth citing and need references.

[[User:]] (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

ive deleted the intro as it was unneccessary. If you wish to try to convert people to sufism then simply link the article to sufism and let teh reader decide if your dawah is appropriate.

"Sufi masters were the single most important factor in South Asian conversions to Islam, particularly in what is now Bangladesh. Most Bangladeshi Muslims are influenced by Sufism.However there many movements who were against sufism and are still running in Bangladesh which includes deobandi, Wahabi or Salafi movements"

firstly teh salaafi do not call themselves wahabi and this is a term used by opponents of sufism showing the bias of the author. Secondly deobandi has sufi links so this is an oxymoron so say deobandi oppose sufism. Thirldy to say "most people in bangladesh are influenced by sufism" is a claim not backed up with any evidence. "sufi masters" is a word only used by sufi's, main stream muslims like myself do not give them such a title. And its a rather large claim that they were the "single most important factor" if noone can see the bias here then wikipedia must have a seriously lacks policy on bias although Im sure thats not a one law for everyone type policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) 21:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Dawud, Whilst I agree with you that there are major things wrong with what's been written about Wahhabi, I'm concerned that the removal of the introduction, which included a wikilink to the Sufism article and explains in a positive way who the Sufis are removes some of the information and balance of the section (what remains includes mention of opposition to the Sufis by Salafis amongst others). As a Salafi who is ideologically opposed to the Sufi Way, this could be interpreted as a POV (biased) edit. Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 19:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Have reinstated this explanatory and introductory paragraph and provided three references using reliable sources to support significant statements in that paragraph. Esowteric+Talk 21:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm really shocked that some people are fighting on Sufism's Identity. Sufis are Muslim. They play a softer part on religion. They played and still playing a vital part in spreading Islam. Berke Khan,the Mongol ruler came to Islam through a meeting with a notable Sufi of that time. Just check Wikipedia pages about Sufism. The real problem is in else where. Some people are worshiping on their tombs. This is not permitted in Islam. So to stop those worshipers,SalafiShah-E-Zaman (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Identification of any sects religious affiliation based on what is permitted by certain sects and is not by others is an issue to be discussed in religious circles. For an encyclopedia if some sect identifies it as part of a certain religion it should be mentioned as such, and if another sect disagrees, that should be mentioned as well. For the sake of balance, the overall majority of the sects, or degree of universality of their views, may decide opinions of which sect gets more space. We must remain neutral and non-judgmental. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Ka

I removed this section from the article because I fail to see the link with Islam. It should be mentioned elsewhere.

"In November 2003, a Dhaka court banned the sale or distribution of Nasreen's latest book, "Ka," an account of Nasreen's relationships with Bangladeshi intellectuals, in response to a defamation suit filed by a Bangladeshi writer. "Ka" was sold openly on street corners after the ban."

Urnonav 19:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The link with Islam is that the book mocks the religion (which is not explicitly stated above).

Section on torture on non-Muslims by "government supporters"

The following text is not substantiated by any sources. There might also be POV-biased. If sufficient sources or citing is available the section may be reinserted. Section possibly needs rewording for NPOV

"After the election of 2001, many Hindus were attacked by a section of the governing regime. Girls such as 14-year-old Purnima was raped by the members of BNP (the governing party) but the law could not do anything. Intellectuals such as Gopal Krishna Muhuri also killed by the members of the student wing of Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh. According to the human rights organizations around 200 women were raped and 1000 people were silently killed.

The Islamic fundamentalists are encouraging a society, which is cornering the Hindus in Bangladesh. They are encouraging anti-Indian sentiments to encourage anti-Hindu sentiments on Bangladesh. They have been accusing Hindus of being spies of India. The recent problem of India and Bangladesh about the border issue is making the situation worse."

Urnonav 01:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, its true. After BNP(Bangladesh National Party) came to power, there has been numerous attacks on Hindus mainly in rural villages. However, its to be noted that areas of Bangladesh in Dhaka city have still remained safe for Hindus as before. Infact, most business in Tatibazar, Najirabazar etc. are still owned and run by Hindus.

note

"Islamic egalitarianism, especially the ideals of equality, brotherhood, and social justice, attracted numerous Buddhists and lower caste Hindus. Muslim missionaries were responsible for most conversions. "

Could this sentence be reworded? It seems like an opinion rather than a fact. Islam giving equality, brotherhood or social justice is an opinion of the Mohammedans, not necessarily a fact. Hikingdom 15:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is true. Most people in East Bengal (Bangladesh) converted because they belonged to lower-caste, and Islam offered equal rights, services to all Muslims, which was different than the Hindu-caste systems which was followed at that era. Infact, in years of Mughal Empire, the center/capital of Mughal ruling was at Delhi, but, Delhi had only 18-20% Muslims, while Bengal had 50+% muslims, and North-West India (Today's Pakistan) also had majority Muslim during mid 1900's. I donot know about the case of Pak, but about Bengal they converted because they belonged to lower-caste, which is a historical fact. --alif.

Tablighi Jamaat

I made a minor edit to the introductory section. Tabliqh is mentioned but there is no article on the subject; someone with knowledge of this needs to write something as there is currently a pointer to a subject which has not been defined or explained. I also changed a pointer to Tabliqh to Tablighi Jamaat, which I believe is the movement that the writer was referring to. abdullahazzam 14:25 21/10/06

Really sir, its a fact of soulful muslim, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.3.189 (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Muslim population by District

I have added a section/muslim population by distict. --Itsalif 23:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

@Itsalif Good. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Expand

More information should be added about the Bishwa Ijtema, and Islamic traditions or schools such as Hanafi, Tablighi etc. 90.194.14.199 (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the article is missing with sources, which needs to be found in order to make a GA. Tangomaan (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Note 10

I'm not sure about the validity of that link. Faro0485 (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Article should reflect unique, liberal and pluralist nature of Bangladeshi Islam

This article is written as if Bangladesh is a very conservative Muslim country. But Bangladeshis have always rejected Islamic politics and, even though the constitution recognizes Islam as a state religion, it also declares Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity to be equal in status to the state religion. And no religion is subject to "law, public order and morality" as is claimed in the article, there is no such wording in the constitution.

More importantly, Islam in Bangladesh developed independent of the rest of South Asia, and is different from the trends seen in the Middle East. The article should talk about of the unique nature of Islam in the country, which combines Islamic piety and spirituality with diverse cultural traditions from Bengal, the subcontinent and the Muslim world. And Bangladeshi Islam is absolutely compatible with a modern democracy. This article should be updated. --111.221.0.2 (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Shah Jalal

This section needs depreciation, as it is too long and too detailed for the scope of the article. Besides their is also POV issue with the section.Messiaindarain (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Influence of revivalism

@User:BoogaLouie, although I take exeception to your title, I will not alter it without consensus,. but please be aware that the allegations on the New York Times are attributed to clumsy errors. See: http://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2017/01/09/textbook-embarrassments-the-strange-mistakes-on-schoolbooks119.148.3.14 (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Have tried to cleanup that section, noting changing made by 119.148.3.14 . --BoogaLouie (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

PS, the statement "the texts in question were omitted by error and were promptly rectified" is not correct. What was prompt or relatively prompt was a promise to rectify the error. BoogaLouie (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Population

article refers to Bangladesh having the third largest Muslim population after Pakistan and Indonesia but this is not correct as India as a larger population of Muslims. If the sentence referred to 'Muslim majority' countries or alternatively if India's muslim population was properly referred to in the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtype909 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rtype909 Ok. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

জাহান্নামের প্রশস্ততা ও গভীরতা | The width and depth of hell!

এই ভিডিওটি তে জাহান্নাম সম্পর্কে আলোচনা করা হয়েছ। এর প্রশস্ততা ও গভীরতা কেমন হতে পারে, তা কোরআন ও হাদীসের আলোকে বুঝানোর চেষ্টা করা হয়েছে। যা আল্লাহর অবাধ্য বান্দাদের জন্য সৃষ্টি করা হয়েছে। https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIGLCYcJwP8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonfm (talk • contribs) 03:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

islam in bangladesh

The muslim missionaries had minimal effect on the local population. First the bengalees did not know arabic or persian , nor there is any evidence the missionaries spoke bengali when they arrived , couple of generation later may be. Also earliest muslim bengali texts such as Yusuf Zuleikha tells the story as if it is a story of radha and krishna , and also incerdibly transports them to Brindaban(yes you areding it correct) . That means the early converts were hindu in their soul , but wearing a muslim badge . Same with the book Nabi Bongsho , which shows prophet ploughing in pakestine . Not only that it has references to Bramha , krishna etc. This proves they had no idea of islam , and they converted not because of any theological attraction , but for other reasons. The other reason everybody knows in bangladesh but does not want to discuss. Thae reason is Social liberation theory. They were so grinded under the bramhinical yoke of hinduism , they converted , just for physical protection , and not for any spiritual reasons. This lie of embracing islam is bandied again and again. In one of the early islamic bengali book , the author laments that muslims are spending more time reading mahabharat. Also blood group studies have proven remarkable similarity of bengali muslims to low caste hindus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:E051:CB00:2493:483C:7352:6ED0 (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The article contains bias, unsourced, irrelevant opinions and does not contain important information

I've reviewed the article. I have several concerns that I believe need addressing to improve its quality and accuracy. Here are the key problems and important notes that I've identified in brief:

1. Bias opinions - Various parts of this article contain bias opinions.
2. This article consists of Non-notable irrelevant information.
3. This article overall is not neutral and does not meet Wikipedia's standards of neutral POV.
4. Various parts of the article mostly regarding history should be similar to its mother article Islam in Bengal.
5. The whole article requires overall cleanup.

In summary, addressing these issues will greatly enhance its reliability, neutrality, and overall quality. I am happy to assist with the editing process and encourage other editors to join in improving this article. Thank You BrightConstellations234 (talk) 08:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)