This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan He should not be given alerts for those areas.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived.

Regarding the title "Shaikh ul Hind," it seems that there may be differing perspectives on its origin and significance. According to my understanding, this title is traditionally associated with Sheikh Salim Chishti and is widely recognized across Sunni denominations.

To ensure the neutrality of the Wikipedia entry, it is important to acknowledge that this title is not unique to a single individual and is recognized by a subset of scholars. If there are specific references that can provide further clarity on this matter, I encourage you to make edits with appropriate citations. Your contributions are appreciated, and I trust that you will take the necessary steps to address this. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

~~~~

Zuck28 (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am glad that you understand. It is evident that this title was not given to Mahmud Hasan by Deobandis alone, and is of course used outside of the Deobandi world. See this for instance, (Islam in South Asia in Practice, p. 236), this (Said the Prophet of God: Hadith Commentary Across a Millennium, p. 152 onwards), see this, (Islam & Politics Afghanistan N, p. 1430). This work by Ziahul Hasan Farooqi suggests some other aspects. The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought also appears to openly support the title's common usage for Mahmud Hasan Deobandi (see p. 131, 295). As for the origin and other uses of the titles, I find them out of merit. This title could be used for others (within or outside the specific groups or movements) but for Mahmud Hasan Deobandi, it was a title not granted by Deobandis alone and is not evidently used by them alone, the article reads, "he was honoured with the title of "Shaykh al-Hind" (The Leader of India) by the Khilafat Committee", and is cited. The title's wide academic usage clearly discards the idea that "he is known with this title within the Deobandi movement only". Interestingly, this work, published by C. Hurst & Co. makes it much more appealing, and neutral academic sources such as this in Urdu also substantially establish this fact. I hope this makes sense to you. I really see it disinterested to make a mention of this title's original and wide usage in the article (see WP:UNDUE). ─ Aafī (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear @TheAafi,

Upon reviewing authoritative texts, such as "Islam in South Asia in Practice," "Said the Prophet of God," and "The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought," it's evident that the title "Shaykh al-Hind," conferred upon Mahmud Hasan by the Khilafat Committee, is recognized both within and beyond the Deobandi community. This title holds significant historical importance.

In the current article, the title is presented similarly to a nickname: "Mahmud Hasan Deobandi (also known as Shaykh al-Hind; 1851–1920)." To preserve its honorific status, I propose a revision:

"Mahmud Hasan Deobandi (1851–1920), an esteemed Islamic scholar and freedom fighter, was conferred the title 'Shaykh al-Hind' by the Khilafat Committee.”

This respectful approach mirrors the sensitivity required for titles like "Amir al-Mu'minin," associated with Ahmadiyya leader Mirza Masroor Ahmad, yet holding broad historical resonance in Islam. Using such titles as names or nicknames could be seen as inappropriate by the wider Muslim community.

I have not made direct edits, valuing collaborative dialogue and your expertise. I'm keen to hear your thoughts on this suggestion and hope we can jointly implement the necessary changes.

Thank you for considering this adjustment.

Best regards,

Zuck28 (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have an instant observation, both of the personalities come from diverse backgrounds. Most of the Muslim community would outrightly feel inappropriate for anyone to be called as an "Amir al-Muminin", and if that is someone from one of the minority communities with which the entire Sunni Muslim community disagrees with, is entirely different from a nickname, approved of, used widely, in and outside academia for someone who is part of the Sunni Muslim community. The two comparisons are uncalled for. Mahmud Hasan Deobandi is widely known as "Shaykh al-Hind" despite it being not his real name, whilst, Mirza Masroor has a title held within his own community, something he is not known as "beyond". However, I do believe that the lede should be supplied with an additional citation which verifies that this is a commonly adopted name for Mahmud Hasan, it being honoured as a title is referenced elsewhere. ─ Aafī (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd also want to say that terms such as "esteemed scholar" are WP:PEACOCK and should be avoided. ─ Aafī (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TheAafi, It seems there's some confusion about whether "Sheikh al Hind" is simply an honorific title or an accepted nickname among the majority of the Muslim community. If it is indeed an honorific title, perhaps it would be more appropriate to present it separately in the title section, rather than as a bolded name.

Could you please provide further clarification on whether this is widely accepted as a nickname or solely recognized as an honorific title within the community? Thank you for your understanding.

Zuck28 (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]