Talk:Zikrism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WP does not judge groups as "heretical"[edit]

Editor Peacedove had modified the article to read that Zikris are heretics. I removed that, and while I was at it, rewrote the article. Supposed info re the Medvis or Medwis should go in an article on that group, if it can be supplied with references. Zora 18:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well done, Zora. Nice precis, and nice too, to see that at least one knowledgeable person is following me around. Thanks for pointing out the use of heretic but not crediting me with other edits that you have incorporated in your rewrite. :) peacedove 13:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, guys! Sorry to point out but the five pillars became four (I think salat was forgotten); Sorry for not having the time - or the knowledge - to edit this article. Thanks. andipacurar2:36, 10 Jun 2012 GMT

Science[edit]

Baloch 111.88.203.233 (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Disruptive edits[edit]

This edit changing the first sentence in the lede from

Zikris are an Islamic Mahdist sect found mostly in the Balochistan region of western Pakistan.

to

Zikris non Muslims found mostly in the Balochistan region of western Pakistan.

is borderline vandalism, aside from bad grammar. I reverted it.--Louis P. Boog (talk)

Zaynab1418 complaint[edit]

@Zaynab1418:

This message was pasted on my (Louis P. Boog) talk page 21 August 2023:

Hi, I am the author of the page on the Zikri sect and I’m very unhappy with the changes you made to it. You made huge changes to the article without consulting any other editors or me or even putting anything on the talk page. It reads like a personal essay now expressing an opinion on the true origins of the Zikri when we should defer to the most reliable sources and not less reliable ones like “adherents.com”. There are grammatical errors. There are sourcing issues and not nearly enough accurate and high-quality sources. It’s now very repetitive and not chronological. Zaynab1418 (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the complaints
"reads like a personal essay", not "deferring to the most reliable sources", "grammatical errors", "repetitive", "not chronological", are all common wikipedia mistakes and a busy admin or algorithm will see someone complaining about them, assume the article is being improved and move on. But these complaints are not true. See below and judge for yourselves who is using reliable sources and making "grammatical errors", comparing my lede and Zaynab1418 lede.
(I can be accused of not "putting anything on the talk page", but I didn't because the edits were all backed up with citations from reliable sources. Wikipedia policy to "be bold" WP:BOLD in making edits and doesn't have "authors" only "editors".) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my lede:

Zikris are an Islamic Mahdist sect found mostly in the Balochistan region of western Pakistan. They have been described as "a minority Muslim group",[1] "a Muslim sect",[2] a "Muslim offshoot sect",[3] and as "semi-Muslim".[4] Like orthodox Muslims, Zikri revere the Quran, but unlike them they believe the Mahdi has already arrived[5] and do not follow the same ritual prayer practices.[6] The sect has been victim of sectarian attacks since before the founding of Pakistan[7] and recent attacks and insecurity have led to migration by some from Baloch to Pakistan's cities.[8]
The name Zikri comes from the Arabic word dhikr.[9] Estimates of their number are around 750,000[10] to 800,000.[11]

Here is Zaynab1418 revert to the lede before I spent hours researching and working on the article:

Zikris are an Islamic Mahdist sect found mostly in the Balochistan region of western Pakistan. They believe the Mahdi has already come and follow istinct prayer practices different from Shia and Sunni Muslims. The name Zikri comes from the Arabic word dhikr, in reference to their distinct prayer practices.[9]
They have been victim of sectarian attacks since before the founding of Pakistan and recent attacks and insecurity have led to migration by some from Baloch to Pakistan's cities.[7][8]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference :2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) May 1998, 22; Adherents.com n.d, quoted in "Pakistan: The Zikri faith, including its origins, the tenets, number of adherents, whether its adherents are easily distinguishable from non-adherents, and the treatment of adherents by the authorities and Muslim extremist groups (1984 to present)". Ref World. Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board, Canada. 16 December 1999. Retrieved 8 August 2023.
  3. ^
  4. ^ Ethnologue. 1996. 13th edition. Edited by Barbara F. Grimes. [Accessed 16 Dec. 1999], quoted in "Pakistan: The Zikri faith, including its origins, the tenets, number of adherents, whether its adherents are easily distinguishable from non-adherents, and the treatment of adherents by the authorities and Muslim extremist groups (1984 to present)". Ref World. Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board, Canada. 16 December 1999. Retrieved 8 August 2023.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Badalkhan-Dilema-2008-297 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Khan Sabir, "Zikri Dilemmas" (2008), p.300-306
  7. ^ a b Baloch, Inayatullah. "Zikris of Balochistan". Oxford in Pakistan Readings in Sociology and Social Anthropology. Retrieved 9 August 2023. quoted in "Zikris under attack in Balochistan". Dawn. 2 January 2015. Retrieved 9 August 2023.
  8. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Baloch-Responsible-2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ a b Mawani, Rizwan (2019). Beyond the Mosque: Diverse Spaces of Muslim Worship. IB Tauris. ISBN 978-1788315272.
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference Worldmark was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference :3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Replies[edit]

Here are some of the issues with your edits. The reason I essentially reverted it back is because the citation system was botched.
1. Plagarism - you just copied multiple sentences wholesale from other sources.
Such as, "According to historian and writer Dr Inayatullah Baloch, “Zikris faced persecution in the eighteenth century by Mir Nasir Khan the Great", who reigned from 1749–94, "the Sunni Muslim ruler of the Khanate of Balochistan in Kalat. At that time nearly all of the sect’s religious and historical records were destroyed, and the information which survives is from the few religious works which were preserved through oral traditions and the writings of non-Zikris.”[7] According to another historian, Dr Shah Mohammad Marri, "Nasir Khan waged a war to convert" the Zikris in which 35,000 were killed. It is "remembered as the Zikri-Namazi war”.[18]
Plagarism is passing off the work of someone else as your own. It is not quoting someone. Quotations are allowed in wikipedia: "Quotations—often informally called quotes—provide information directly; quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words."WP:QUOTE --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you thought the use of quotations was excessive, or if I missed adding quotations to text, why not paraphrase instead of deleting? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't supposed to use honorifics like "Dr" and you need to paraphrase. I did add this content back in using my own words. I can see on your talk page people have already warned you about plagarism and blockquoting.
So deleting the whole sentence is your solution to using honorifics? Couldn't you just delete "Dr."?--Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are a couple of complaints about my using excessive quotations, and I do use quotations more than most editors. I respectfully disagree with the complainers. I've used quotations when writing about controversial subjects. There is enough dispute without arguing over what some source really said. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Blockquoting - Massive blockquote that was not put into your own words.
Mahdi of the Zikris could have come originally as an emissary or a descendant of Shah Nimatullah Wali, and that he took refuge in Kech and continued his Sufi rituals there, which consisted mostly of the recitation of zikr formulas. In the course of a few decades, the Zikris got control of the chiefdom of Kech. They may have then introduced changes in the Sunni tenets and established an independent branch of Islam as the state religion of the independent kingdom of Makran.
3. Uncited material
Unlike Mosques, Zikr-khanas have no mihrab (there is no need to mark the direction of prayer because God is everywhere) nor minarets.
couldn't you just add a "citation needed" tag? It turns out it " Zigranas do not have a mihrab" is on page 301 of Sabir Badalkhan's work. (Badalkhan, "Zikri Dilemmas" (2008), p.301)--Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. Botched citation system - the Sabir Badalkhan source occurs as a unique citation instead of one reference six different times.
when you have a 30 page long article its useful to give the page the information appeared on in the citation (example: Badalkhan, "Zikri Dilemmas" (2008), p.297). That means a different citation for information on different pages, with the full citation at the bottom of the references (which you have deleted). That's not "botched".--Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. Removing legitimate and cited material - This entire portion was removed.
Zikris have faced persecution from other Muslims for their beliefs. After the establishment of Pakistan, Sunni Muslims attacked Zikris and subjected them to forced conversions. With the general rise of Islamic extremism and jihadism in the region since the 1980s, Zikris have been discriminated against, targeted, and killed by Sunni militants in Pakistan. Under the military government of Zia-al-Haqq, Sunnis sought to have Zikris declared as non-Muslims. In the 1990s, Zikris were harassed, and protestors called for the destruction of their shrines.
The persecution of Zikris by Sunni militants as of 2014 has been part of the larger backlash against religious minorities in Pakistani Balochistan, targeting Hindus, Hazaras, Shias, and Zikris, resulting in the migration of over 300,000 Shias, Zikris, and Hindus from Pakistani Balochistan. The militant groups Lashkar-i-Jhangvi and the Pakistani Taliban were responsible.
That portion was replaced with another longer one with much information about persecution, including:
Zikris have faced persecution for their beliefs from larger Muslim groups (primarily Sunni extremists) who consider them heretics.
Since the establishment of the state of Pakistan, some combination of discrimination, harassment, forced conversions, efforts to have them declared non-Muslims, and killings have flared up from time to time. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zikrism&diff=1169558134&oldid=1076969391 --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Futhermore, there is no reason to have an entire section on differences with the Mahdavia sect because they are completely different. Zaynab1418 (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote you: "we should defer to the most reliable sources". Badalkhan, a scholar who obviously has studied Zikrism quite a bit, seems to disagree with you:
"Various theses have been put forward concerning the identity of the Mahdi of the Zikris. URRAZAI describes four major opinions" [one of which is] ... the hypothesis that he [Sayyid Muhammad Jaunpuri who founded the ... Mahdavia sect] is the Mahdi is the one that has been advocated by many non-local writers (and a few Zikri writers)".(Badalkhan, "Zikri Dilemmas" (2008), p.297) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaynab1418 Here's another point on my allegedly having too much on the Mahdavia sect: The article before I started editing had an Origins section made up of three sentences on the origins of Zikri and two paragraphs on how "Zikris have been mistakenly identified as being part of the Indian Mahdavia sect". IOW, most of the origins section before I got there was about the issue of whether the Mahdavia sect was "completely different"! (and how it actually was not). I expanded the origins part and put the two paragraphs under heading ("Differences with Mahdavia sect") as they were only tangentially related to the origins of Zakrism. Anyway, everything but about one sentence of what is in that subsection came from the two long paragraphs that were already there! --Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think my edits were fruitful. I repaired the citation system. I fixed the Badalkhan citation. I removed your repeated plagiarism and block quoting. I added new content from reputable sources. I restored the content you removed. I put the content you added back in using paraphrasing. Zaynab1418 (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One more question. What about the lede? Why did you revert that? There were no long quotations, no honorifics, no uncited material. I don't believe it removed any of your "legitimate and cited material" either.--Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did paraphrase the content you added and added the content and citations you removed about terrorism and the groups involved back in. I did indeed paraphrase the parts about attacks on Zikris and Zikri history. You can find them in the article. And you did not answer me that you did indeed outright plagarize a line from the news article. A significant amount of your edits consisted of copy-pasting copyrighted material. There was no issue and no controversy with putting it in your own words. If you refuse repeatedly to follow the Wiki standards for copyrighted material you can't be surprised when others don't find copy-pasting from copyrighted content productive.
Second, I am the one who did virtually all research for the original article. I found the Benkin, Akbar, and Badalkhan sources that you are using (that you got from the article I wrote). I know they are not the Mahdaviya sect because they originated in a completely different place, speaking a different language, at a different time, with totally different beliefs and practices and claim no affiliation to each other. What a bizarre level of vindictiveness to purposefully misqoute the Badalkhan source to try to make me look foolish when I found it in the first place. I'm okay with readding your lede if you include the 2022 state department population estimate. I am fine with writing about theories about the mahdi's identity as well. Zaynab1418 (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to get other editors involved for consultation. I believed the portion you added speculating on the identity of the Mahdi consituted original research which is why I removed it. Zaynab1418 (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaynab1418 I agree with having other editors involved. I would like to discuss what you think is O.R. by me, naturally I don't think I have done original research. Louis P. Boog (talk) 03:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaynab1418 I'm reading some of your reply for the first time. "What a bizarre level of vindictiveness to purposefully misqoute the Badalkhan source to try to make me look foolish when I found it in the first place." ----Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaynab1418 First of all assume good faith WP:GF. Second of all thank you for all the work you've done, but I'm not sure if I found the Badalkhan article from the wikipedia article (i.e. you) or from google. 3rd, where am I "misquoting" the Badalkhan source? ----Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaynab1418 Can't we just say failed to use quotation marks, instead of "plagiarized"? plagiarizing implies using someone's ideas or inspired writing to make money for yourself. I am certainly not claiming to have thought up or have found out myself what was in whatever news article I didn't quote properly. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaynab1418 Rereading the lede, I'm taking back my complaint about your changes ... except for your deletion of
They have been described as "a minority Muslim group",[1] "a Muslim sect",[2] a "Muslim offshoot sect",[3] and as "semi-Muslim".[4]
It seems to me the different descriptions/definitions of Zikri are highly relevant. After all, Zikri are being killed by people essentially for the crime of being non-muslims, apostates. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching this discussion somewhat from the sidelines, largely because I'm not familiar enough with the content to properly comment, but a couple of observations: first, @Zaynab1418, please do adhere to WP:AGF, and, to the last point mentioned by @Louis P. Boog, yes, it is rather relevant to mention the reason why the group has become the target of persecution (i.e. Mahdists are often treated as heretical by mainstream Muslims), not just to leave that as a disembodied statement with no context. However, it's not necessarily the best thing to list out examples of definitions, such as those mentioned above - that would add quite a lot of clutter. Better to have a section on competing definitions/perspectives of the group, with the material then summarized in the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323 Thank you Iskander323. I think a list is the most straightforward presentation but I'm open to discussion. @Zaynab1418 Any reply Zaynab? Louis P. Boog (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an example of a merger of those terms, I think "minority Muslim group or sect" bridges all of the first three listed descriptors (with the offshoot part being unnecessary, since every Islamic sect is an "offshoot"). The phrase "semi-Muslim" is a bit odd, and not the usual scholarly way of describing these things. Mahdist groups in general tend to be viewed as heretical by the Sunni orthodoxy. The Ahmadiyya are a prime example of this, but it has proven hard to pin down the views of the Sunni orthodoxy on Zikrism in actual sources. This source discussed the historical persecution of Zikrism in some detail, but this paper still provides little explanation of the persecution in terms of reasons resembling theological condemnation. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will attempt to reply tomorrow. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 04:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323 Am at a loss to understand what is wrong with:
They have been described as "a minority Muslim group",[1] "a Muslim sect",[5] a "Muslim offshoot sect",[6] and as "semi-Muslim".[7]
@Iskandar323 ... It's concise, the sources are scholarly, it covers the options.
The phrase "semi-Muslim" is a bit odd, and not the usual scholarly way of describing these things. "Semi-Muslim" may not sound like a scholarly term but "Ethnologue. 1996. 13th edition" certainly sounds scholarly. And isn't it an appropriate term for a sect that doesn't share orthodox Muslim rituals and regulations for salat and masjid?
I think "minority Muslim group or sect" bridges all of the first three listed descriptors. (with the offshoot part being unnecessary, since every Islamic sect is an "offshoot"). What did Sunniism shoot off from? I think if you told Shia or Sunni their denominations are "offshoots" you'd some very offended Muslims on your hands! But Zikrism, like Alawites, Alevism or Druze are both quite small and quite a bit different than the Islamic mainstream.
Its for these reasons I don't think using all four terms being too picayune.
@Iskandar323 Mahdist groups in general tend to be viewed as heretical by the Sunni orthodoxy. The Ahmadiyya are a prime example of this, but it has proven hard to pin down the views of the Sunni orthodoxy on Zikrism in actual sources. This source discussed the historical persecution of Zikrism in some detail, but this paper still provides listtle explanation of the persecution in terms of reasons resembling theological condemnation. Agreed. One think I did find was that "Nasir Khan [ the Sunni Muslim ruler of the Khanate of Balochistan in Kalat] waged a war to convert them and as a result killed 35,000 people".[8]
Maybe because doctrine/theology is not so important to Zikri. (Historian and writer Dr Shah Mohammad Marri based in Quetta quoted in Dawn:) “What people don’t understand is that most Balochi-speaking people don’t get into the nitty-gritty of religion. Majority of them are Muslim by name. In the same family the father can be Zikri and the mother Namazi. What was earlier a planned persecution based on religion against the Zikris, is now being waged for purely political reasons.”[8] --Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why use a list when you can simply come up with a short phrase covering all the bases? Terms like "offshoot" are redundant unless you define what is mainstream, which is itself tricky. It's unacademic language, which is I imagine why it is also sourced to government documents, not scholarly sources - ditto "semi-Muslim" - unless there are multiple sources using such terms, it would be better to avoid or attribute such language. The nature of a minority group/sect is that there are differences. If their persecution was once religious, but is now political, let's just say that. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Iskandar323 Can't agree. "offshoot" is just not the same as minority group. @Zaynab1418 However I propose as a compromise using "minority Muslim group or sect" in lede per Iskandar323 and then adding this section below (in italics) in the general body of the article: --Louis P. Boog (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

==''Religious status''==

In the census reports of Pakistan, Zikris are "counted under the general title of Muslim",[9] but according to two scholarly sources (Carroll McC Pastner, Stephen L. Pastner), Zikris are considered "unbelievers" or "heretical" by their Sunni neighbors.[note 1] (Although this doesn't mean there are strong ancestral or sociological differences between the two groups in their homeland. Two other scholars -- Shah Mohammad Marri, Sabir Badalkhan -- write that intermarriage between Zikri and Sunni Muslims is "common" ;[12] with first cousins and even siblings sometimes having different beliefs.[13] Irrigation and cultivated land is shared between mixed families and there are few occupations that are exclusive to one sect or the other.)[13] Sources have described Zikrism as "a minority Muslim group",[1][14] "minority Islamic sect",[10] a Muslim sect",[15] a "Muslim offshoot sect",[16] and as "semi-Muslim".[17] Almost all Zikris are speakers of Baloch, and none come from the "other ethnolinguistic groups of the region".[13]

Iskandar323,@Zaynab1418 I've expanded the proposed "Religious status" section above. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also I added Iskandar's "minority Muslim group or sect" phrase to the lede. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anherents.com[edit]

@Zaynab1418 ... and about adherents.com -- "we should defer to the most reliable sources and not less reliable ones like “adherents.com” -- I don't know too much about that organization/website but I do know it was quoted by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, which sounds like a pretty serious organization. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323 and Louis P. Boog
Please check the website adherents.com. It's a content/spam mill. Zaynab1418 (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaynab1418 @Iskandar323 Could the original site have gone under and been taken over by spammers? The current content has nothing to do with "adherents", just celebrities, entertainment and crypto. Anyways, if others agree I'm willing to delete all information sourced to adherents.com. It's information is not particularly out of line with other sources.--Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC) --2601:445:601:8920:ACDB:4CC5:FA6F:B0CA (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaynab1418 @Iskandar323 This certainly doesn't look like clickbait. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's a source that simply aggregates information from elsewhere, it can simply be bypassed, where it is used, by going directly to the sources that it actually cites. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference :2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) May 1998, 22; Adherents.com n.d, quoted in "Pakistan: The Zikri faith, including its origins, the tenets, number of adherents, whether its adherents are easily distinguishable from non-adherents, and the treatment of adherents by the authorities and Muslim extremist groups (1984 to present)". Ref World. Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board, Canada. 16 December 1999. Retrieved 8 August 2023.
  3. ^
  4. ^ Ethnologue. 1996. 13th edition. Edited by Barbara F. Grimes. [Accessed 16 Dec. 1999], quoted in "Pakistan: The Zikri faith, including its origins, the tenets, number of adherents, whether its adherents are easily distinguishable from non-adherents, and the treatment of adherents by the authorities and Muslim extremist groups (1984 to present)". Ref World. Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board, Canada. 16 December 1999. Retrieved 8 August 2023.
  5. ^ United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) May 1998, 22; Adherents.com n.d, quoted in "Pakistan: The Zikri faith, including its origins, the tenets, number of adherents, whether its adherents are easily distinguishable from non-adherents, and the treatment of adherents by the authorities and Muslim extremist groups (1984 to present)". Ref World. Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board, Canada. 16 December 1999. Retrieved 8 August 2023.
  6. ^
  7. ^ Ethnologue. 1996. 13th edition. Edited by Barbara F. Grimes. [Accessed 16 Dec. 1999], quoted in "Pakistan: The Zikri faith, including its origins, the tenets, number of adherents, whether its adherents are easily distinguishable from non-adherents, and the treatment of adherents by the authorities and Muslim extremist groups (1984 to present)". Ref World. Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board, Canada. 16 December 1999. Retrieved 8 August 2023.
  8. ^ a b "Zikris under attack in Balochistan". Dawn. 2 January 2015. Retrieved 26 August 2023.
  9. ^ MALIK, Iftikhar H. 2002: Religious Minorities in Pakistan. London: Minority Rights Group International, 11, cited in Badalkhan, "Zikri Dilemmas" (2008), p.293
  10. ^ a b McC. Pastner, Carroll (January 1979). "Cousin Marriage among the Zikri Baluch of Coastal Pakistan". Ethnology,. 18 (1): 33. doi:10.2307/3773182. Retrieved 27 August 2023.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  11. ^ Pastner, Stephen L. (1984). "Feuding with the spirit among the Zikri Baluch: the saint as champion of the despised". In Ahmed, Akbar (ed.). Islam in Tribal Societies: From the Atlas to the Indus. London: Routledge. p. 303. ISBN 9781315889146. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |DUPLICATEurl= ignored (help)
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference dawn-attack was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ a b c Badalkhan, "Zikri Dilemmas", 2008: p.295
  14. ^ Khan, "Zikri Dilemmas" (2008), p.293
  15. ^ United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) May 1998, 22; quoted in "Pakistan: The Zikri faith, including its origins, the tenets, number of adherents, whether its adherents are easily distinguishable from non-adherents, and the treatment of adherents by the authorities and Muslim extremist groups (1984 to present)". Ref World. Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board, Canada. 16 December 1999. Retrieved 8 August 2023.
  16. ^
  17. ^ Ethnologue. 1996. 13th edition. Edited by Barbara F. Grimes. [Accessed 16 Dec. 1999], quoted in "Pakistan: The Zikri faith, including its origins, the tenets, number of adherents, whether its adherents are easily distinguishable from non-adherents, and the treatment of adherents by the authorities and Muslim extremist groups (1984 to present)". Ref World. Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board, Canada. 16 December 1999. Retrieved 8 August 2023.


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zikrism&oldid=1201054795"