Talk:Khanqah-e-Moula

controversial in lead

why is the word controversial used in the lead without citation and with no further details what the controversy is about?Mhveinvp (talk) 11:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The article has been vandalised by an editor.[1] Reverted now. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

why did edit not show up in my watchlist? okay... so they made the edit right after my edit in march 8.... [2] i must've missed this somehow... still there seems to be quite an activity on the edits. Mhveinvp (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

adjacent kali shri shrine

"usually worn by married women along the parting of their hair) but not a temple and water oozes at a place, which Kashmiri Hindus say is dedicated to goddess Kali. This spot is now a shrine where they, and local Kashmiri Pandits offer prayers.."

what is the editor supposed to mean? i think what the idea to be conveyed is 

Toward the River Jhelum, there is a wall marked with Sindoor (or Sindooram, a traditional vermilion red or orange-red colored cosmetic powder from India, usually worn by married women along the parting of their hair) where historically the kashmiri pandit community used to worship goddess kali alongside muslims who would pray in the mosque itself. The kali temple is right on the bank of river jehlum, where the kashmiri pandits would have a dip as part of their religious duties.

there is no such thing as far as i know "kashmiri hindus" because they are known simply as kashmiri pandits. So kashmiri hindus and local kashmiri pandits are the same thing and the editor is trying to explain something which isnt there. I will need to confirm if the proper name even is "kali shri shrine" Mhveinvp (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Saleem Beg

According to Saleem Beg:

....Till 1990, Kashmiri Pandits used to perform Shradh every year at this place and there was never a conflict between Kali temple and Khanqah,” ........ “Muslims never objected to the annual Hindu Shradh and until 1990, Kashmiri Pandits too never objected to,” he said. “This conflict is off campus, created by non-practitioner Hindus who are creating it now although they never had any conflict with Kashmiri Muslims when they lived in Kashmir.”......

Here Salem Beg is interchanging Pandits and Hindus which obviously becomes confusing. To make sure it further doesn't create any confusion, I am removing quote of Salem Beg, as I can't change Pandits to Hindus in his quote, as this is the official statement by Beg. ML ^talk 15:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The sentence before it seems to have been lifted from the source. Can you paraphrase it and make it clearer? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. ML ^talk 19:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

removal of content about kali temple

why has the recent edit completly removed a huge portion of the page just by saying "Removed fabricated and baseless claims which could have lead to communal tensions". This is wrong. I have lived near that mosque for all my life and the temple is a part of the history of that mosque. No question about it. I agree we could improve some wordings, the narrative that "It is believed by some that Sayyid Ali Hamdani had the temple of Kali demolished and built the present mosque with its material" This portion is clearly wrong but doesnt make the historical part invalid. As a native, the idea is that when Sayyid Ali Hamdani came here to preach a new religion and many if not all people of that area converted to islam, they needed a mosque and DID NOT need a temple, so they replaced it, and no, they did not use the old material. The wood for the mosque came from a small forest from across the river. The people of the time had converted to islam so they did not need a temple. There is no conspiracy about it. The pandits who did remain with their faith were allowed entry because a portion of that old temple was left untouched, This video from 1930's i think that the current video stamp is about the mosque. Also, the temple was operational right until 1989, pandits used to pray on the banks, where the sindoor is, and muslims inside. There are people who are attempting to manage the narrative in their own nefarious ways but that does not mean we will have to remove an entire section of history to evade their plans. Not done. I am reverting this edit . The editor who removed this, please discuss it here so that we can find an amicable solution Mhveinvp (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely right, History should be unbaised but here we have these clowns distort it and trying to give it a hindu vs muslim colour. Absolutely disgusting, we should raise our ideas against such vandalism of history. Adienpearce1965 (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

References