Talk:Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

Editing Intro

The intro needs the following edits:

1 - The alleged claim of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad regarding being a qualified prophet is contentious and this should be made clear. 2 - No citation is provided for Jesus being alive in heaven as being an "established" Islamic position. It may be the majority view, but cannot be called established as differing pov's exists within mainstream Islam. 3 - It says (without citations) that Ahmad's view on Jesus and Mahdi is the reason why he was branded an apostate. I understand his alleged claim to Prophethood may also have played an important role in this regard.

Overll some contentions need to be removed or supported with RS and alternating POVs mentioned to maintain neutrality.

Sufaid (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Lahore debate with Pir Mehr Ali

I have edited this section for it seems one sided, if a contentional episode of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's life is included then both sides of the story should be mentioned.

Sirius86 (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

The text needs a complete overhaul - the depth of details in some sections is irrelevant from the perspective of a wikipedia article. Also a number of subtle and not so subtle pov issues need to be addressed. I will be editing the article over next few days and would welcome any comments and suggestions.

You need not alter the text. I have read the entire page. It is written in an extremely appropriate and relevant manner. The depth of details is all that is required to discern the truth from falsehood...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umar1908 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Since there are no active discussions in progress I am archiving the discussion page.

Nazli (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would edit the part talking about how clear and definitive it is that Muhammad is the Seal of the prophets... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.182.95.221 (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are writting history you should be honest, some one wrote that Hadhi Baig was from Iran which is far from fact. How can Barlas Moughal (Persian word for Mongol)be Irani while he was from same sub-clan of Mongol as Zaheer-ud-din Babur

---

I have made some changes to your recent edit of the opening paragraphs of the article trying to keep it as neutral as possible. there is no reason why the Islamic dates of his birth/death should be removed. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad remains a highly unconventional yet important figure within Islam in particular and the religious world in general.

Sirius86 (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's lineage and background

I have made changes to your recent edit in this section.It is disputed whether Ghulam Ahmad's lineage is Persian or Turco-Mongol(Mughal). According to various [1] [2]Hadi Beg's family traced themselves to Barlas. The family lived for a long time in Khorasan, Iran and later migrated to Samarkand, and from there to India. There seems to be little evidence of Persian blood, but neither that of pure mongolian. At most the family in India was known as Mughal's in the governmental records, probably for the high positions it occupied within the Mughal Empire/courts, however, even the Mughals were not purely Mongol, they were originaly, Turko-Mongol, and later also persian, as a result of inter-mingling and inter-marrying of the these races.

Sirius86 (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I made some effort to fix references in several ahmadiyya related articles. I can not agree that you insert with your edits notes as No 3, 11 and 12, also inserts with <!-- Bot generated title --> are not acceptable. This form of work is not productive. Its your charge to fix the references while editing, not charge of others. Please take it in mind. Greetings. --Ahmadi (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I finished cleaning up the refs. Please keep it clean while editing. Greetings. --Ahmadi (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

18:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)18:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umar1908 (talk • contribs)

Dr. Basharat Ahmed in his three volume book '[3]Mujjadad-e-Azam'[Great Reformer], has discussed his lineage in detail and proved that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmed(as) belonged to Persian descent. BTW, Timur also belonged to Barlas family [Please see Timur page in wikipedia] and Timur was of persian blood not mongol. Some people think that Barlas was a mongol clan but that is not true. You can read Basharat Ahmed's book to get info in detail. Moreover, 'Mirza' is purely a persian title used for nobility—Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.15.109 (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Doesn't this page, or even the Ahmadiyya page, even qualify for semi-protection? I have brought this up several times before but users have always side-stepped the issue. Don't these pages get vandalised often enough already? (and add to this the fact that vandalism seems to be on the rise) --Maurice45 (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocking edits from anonymous editors may not be a bad idea - is there some way of checking if the Ahmadiyya articles are subjected to above average levels of vandalism? Nazli (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that there should be some level of protection. Blocking edits from anons would be the minimum. Perhaps even only allowing edits from users with atleast some history of valid edits. --Sufaid (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This article has seen and abundance of abuse and vandalism. Recent edits in the title alone in the past few days contain street language such as 'Bastard, son of a dog, traitor.' Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a religious figure meriting respect and devotion from millions of his followers across the world. There have been several demands for a partial lock on the article to protect it from blatant and vulgar vandalism. Why is this not being done? Does Wikipedia have an agenda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SEMTEX85 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources?

Does anyone have any sources that aren't written by religious followers of MGA? The legend-like tales should be either sourced or removed. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, like legends lacking sources. I support the neutrality issue at the top of the article. It is in heavy need of cleanup. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The article seems fairly neutral to me. It considers the viewpoints of Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis. Peaceworld111 (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Descent, attribution

I think we ought to say who claims Ahmad descended from a famous or important person. First, the fact that no one has rebutted the statement could mean simply that no one bothered to, not that the fact can be cited without attribution. My recent edit comment was a reference to Time Cube, which has never been rebutted in a scientific journal. This doesn't mean the TC article should say, matter-of-factly, "Time is a cube with four sides". Second, there's no way to verify that nobody disputes his ancestry. It is best to leave it attributed.

"It is said" is a particularly egregious way of leaving something unattributed. It is said by whom? And how do they know? WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Holy Prophet Mohammed SAAW said: "In My Ummah, there shall be born Thirty Grand Liars (Dajjals), each of whom will claim to be a prophet, But I am the Last Prophet; there is No Prophet after Me." (Abu Dawood Vol 2 p. 228; Tirmidhi Vol 2 p.45) Mirza further degrades Holy Prophet Muhammad Holy Prophet Muhammad did not understand the correct meaning of Surah AlZilzal. (Roohani Khazain vol.3 pp.166-167). (This reference is absolutely false and meant to deliberately mislead un-suspecting readers. The book Roohani Khazain vol.3 (p 166-167) is in front of me right now. There is just no mention of Holy Prophet pbuh in this narration. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has in fact said that the tafseer(explanation)of Sura Al-Zalzaal done by our Ulamaa (scholars)is not correct, because when the earth will get destroyed inside out, where will the non-believers come from to ask the earth as to what happened to it.

Holy Prophet's revelation also turned out to be false. (Roohani Khazain vol.3 p.472). Misleading comment taken out of context. The reader must read the page completely to understand the point.

Holy Prophet has also committed mistakes in understanding revelations. (Roohani Khazain 2 vol. 2 p.224). This is also a misleading comment taken out of the context. The reader must read the complete page to understand the point. This person is not a scholar but someone who is deliberately trying to mislead the readers. It is not fair to take a few words out of context and mislead the readers. One reading of the relevent pages will clear the confusion being created by this gentleman.

Grave of the Holy Prophet is one of the Most Sacred site for Muslims all over the world. This is how Mirza humiliates it (May Allah and His Messenger forgive me for quoting such profanity): "And God chose such a DESPICABLE PLACE to bury the Holy Prophet which is EXTREMELY STINKING and DARK and CRAMPED and was the PLACE of the EXCRETA of INSECTS…" (Roohani Khazain vol.17 p.205) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.51.162 (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

regarding the (Rohani Khazain vol 17. p. 205): This person is referring to footnote where contemporary beliefs regarding hazrat Esa(as) are compared with the facts from the life of holy prophet(pbuh). The reference is not to the grave of the holy prophet(pbuh) but to the Cave of Saur where he(pbuh) along with hazrat abu bakar hid himself while migrating.

I would like to encourage people to read the referenced pages with 2-3 pages before and after and you will get the true picture of what is being said.

so please try not to misinform people. I can bet you haven't read any of those references quoted. typical and good for nothing tactics.

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam ahmed(as) always considered himself a humble follower of the holy prophet(pbuh). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kchughtai (talk • contribs) 18:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a place for a discussion of who is the last prophet or who is Isa/Jesus reborn. In order to enhance the article with arguments on the pro-Ahmad side (Kchughtai ?) and the con-Ahmad side (Mr 92 ?), recent references are needed that critically analyze and compare statements from Ahmad, from the Qur'an and other relevant sources. Besides Ahmad didn't act very much like the Jesus from the Christian Bible, for whatever that's worth... Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well that's your opinion that you have put forward about the similarity of characteristics:-)Peaceworld111 (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Whatupdetroit, 26 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Death

Main article: Controversy surrounding the death of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

While he was in Lahore at the home of Dr. Syed Muhammad Hussain (who was also his physician), Mirza Ghulam Ahmad fell ill from dysentery and excessive weakness. He died in Lahore on 26 May 1908 on the toilet. His body was subsequently taken to Qadian and buried there.

Whatupdetroit (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Your second reference does not support your point.Peaceworld111 (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: As Peaceworld111 says, the second reference does not appear to state that he died on the toilet, nor does it support the existing footnote, "The eye witnesses said that when he died the motion was passing from his mouth." This looked suspiciously like old vandalism, so in the absence of a valid reference I've removed it. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

The entire "Criticism" section is an encyclopedic train wreck at the moment, full of WP:original research and WP:synthesis of published material. It reads like a battle of personal viewpoints between two editors. Arguments and counter-arguments are attributed to entire populations ("most Muslim scholars"; "Ahmadis further state that...") without any evidence that these criticisms or defensive arguments have been published before. AtticusX (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It is not exacly correct to say that these are the personal views of the editors. I have cited references to most of the ones requested. Thanks!Peaceworld111 (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the references you've added. There are still a lot of statements in that section that need to be supported but they are probably mostly not from edits that you made. As a reminder to everyone involved in this article, WP:primary sources are potentially misleading, because they require interpretation. For example, in this case, any editor could come along and add some primary source in the form of a Pakistani anti-Ahmaddiya website, and use it to support anti-Ahmadi arguments, claiming that the website's arguments represented mainstream Muslim opinion across the entire world, when it might actually only represent the view of a small group of people in Pakistan. That's why we need secondary and tertiary sources to put things in perspective, of course. Wikipedia permits very occasional and careful use of primary sources, but "all interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." So please, whenever possible, try to cite third-party sources written by outsiders who are neither Ahmadi nor anti-Ahmadi -- for instance news articles reporting on the issue. AtticusX (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I understand you fully here. As far as my edits are concerned, none of them fit the category of 'Primary sources', as often both the anti-ahmadi and the ahmadi side discuss the issues. (well, mainly the Ahmadi side - trying not to be biased here!) I agree that it is incorrect to say that 'most non-ahmadi muslims state...' - as most of them are not faced with the issue - its probably better to state 'non-ahmadis state...' avoiding 'most'. Concering newspapers and reports, it is difficult to find arguments presented by neither the Ahmadis and nor by their opponents. These issues are rarely discussed in detail. But if one pops up, I'll be happy to accept it. Thanks for your advise! Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words

Hi ... some people say, it is believed, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, it was proven ...

From the examples above, I get the picture that none of the phrases used in this article are weasel words, such as opponents say, Ahmadis argue Thanks. Peaceworld111 (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peaceworld111,

A more thorough explanation of "weasel words" is found here: "words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." Other examples cited include "Critics claim..." and ""Some argue..."

If the reader is left wondering, "Which opponents?"... "Exactly which Ahmadis?"... then you have weasel words. Overgeneralization is the problem we're talking about.

My point in drawing attention to the overgeneralizations in the Criticism section is obviously not just a semantic concern. My point is that the text loses credibility by failing to precisely define the participants in the argument. Who exactly is making these claims on either side? When I read that "most Muslim scholars" consider Ahmadis to be non-Muslims, one should immediately suspect the phrase of POV manipulation unless it cites a survey of Muslim scholars worldwide, or some similarly reliable source, which it probably doesn't do because no such survey has been done. Which is why one usually can't safely say "most Muslim scholars" on Wikipedia. It is almost always a gross simplification of the situation. Muslims in different countries and different branches of the religion obviously have different politics, different beliefs, and different levels of tolerance. I think the safest approach when reporting criticisms of a whole movement or people is to pick individual representatives of the opposition and briefly quote those individuals' writings or speech, without attributing their POV to some vague, undefined "they".

"Ahmadis claim" and "Ahmadis argue" are less problematic phrases in this context, but only to the extent that one can cite the claims and arguments of a centralized organization that accurately represents Ahmad and his followers. If you can't cite a source, you might as well not dignify the opposition's accusations with a response. I have to say, from an outsider's perspective, some of the arguments presented "against" Ahmad are downright silly, and don't merit being included in a serious biography, let alone given further weight by an apologetic counter-argument defending the poor guy against every little ad hominem insult.

But all of that is peanuts compared to the real problem: the entire Criticism section is wordy, poorly written, full of POV language. It reads like an argument back and forth between two people, which is emphatically NOT the Wikipedia style. I am looking at articles on other religious leaders like Jesus and Gautama Buddha, more specifically the articles that go into detail about how they are viewed by other world religions, and somehow those articles haven't devolved into the thinly disguised bickering that I see in this section. So it can be done, and it can be done succinctly. Short of starting the Criticism section over from the ground up, I think somebody's going to have to have the guts to trim this section mercilessly... integrate the quotes into the prose (16 quotation boxes in one section is way too many)... edit out the unsourced insults and petty criticisms (which is almost all of them, from my perspective)... and make it flow like one train of thought rather than two.

In the end, I have no interest in getting involved in the edit wars I see going on here. My sympathies go mostly to you, Peaceworld111, because you have shown respect for Wikipedia's guidelines, and have continued to engage other editors even when they were being horribly rude to you, or when their edits were just bad by Wikipedia's standards. Most of the stuff other editors keep trying to cram into this article frankly doesn't belong, and I personally think you are right in trying to take it out. But I'm not knowledgeable enough in the subject to help rewrite it. My main interest is in helping encourage adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines. So that will probably be the extent of my occasional involvement here. AtticusX (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your advice. However, the examples regarding Jesus and Buddha, I think are way off this issue. Those articles focus on their personal views of his status under a positive attitude whereas this article is about criticisms and Ahmadi perspective on criticisms. Thanks a lot for your thoughts once again. Ill try and keep them in mind. Peaceworld111 (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding criticisms

If any editor wishes to add criticisms please discuss on this page, particularly if it is leading to edit wars. Peaceworld111 (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected the article page as there's an edit war in process. Please reach consensus on the talk page first. Consider dispute resolution techniques if that helps, such as a request for comment. Thanks. GedUK  11:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

My view on current edit war warning

Mr newobserver mentioned two dreams in which Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad saw in his dream one woman in naked body . He put the heading of Nudity for these two dreams.

ahmadiyya stance is that these two dreams do not become under the Nudity definition.

As a prove , a dream have been shown in which Prophet Muhammad saw naked men and women.

Muslim all over the world do not consider the dream of Prophet Muhammad (saw) a NUDE DREAM.And none of the person in this world bother to add this dream in the wiki page about Prophet Muhammad (saw).

That is why , i deleted the Heading Nude Dreams.

I request newobserver to tell me why i am wrong? and why he consider this a Nude dream when he does not consider dream of Prophet Muhammad (saw) a Nude dream .

i am new to wiki , my appology if i am not following the wiki standard . but i shall learn soon.Khalidnawaz123 (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

it seems to me User talk:Newobserver do not have any interest in current dispute resolution . Khalidnawaz123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC).

typo

{{edit protected}} Please correct the spelling of "Spetember" to "September" in the "Ahmadiyya and the British" reference. Nick Number (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Done Dabomb87 (talk) 04:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

I have removed some parts of the ever-increasing list of criticisms in this section but have kept some of the older (major) ones. I had thought of removing the whole section but thought it should be discussed first, as the person of this article HAS been a subject of much criticism enough to form an aspect of his legacy. We have to keep in view that this is an encyclopaedia, not a forum that is increasingly becoming a medium for Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis to criticise and vindicate. If this continues this article will turn into a joke.

Sirius86 (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Sirius86

That's fine with me, though there is always a possibility to start a separate article on it.--Peaceworld 14:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

New Page: Criticisms of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

I'm strongly thinking of moving this section to a new page. two reasons, it deserves its own page and 2nd to maintain the quality of the current page per reasons given by user AtticusX Talk:Mirza_Ghulam_Ahmad#Criticism_section. Please comment and give views thanks.--Peaceworld 20:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)