Talk:Ahmadiyya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Pakistan (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject India (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion / New religious movements (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Indonesia (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Islam (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Stating as fact that Ahmadis are Muslims violates neutral POV[edit]

Since a very significant part of the Muslim community do not consider Ahmadis as Muslims at all, stating that they are as fact is promoting a certain point of view. For this reason, especially in the intro, they should not be referred to as Muslim without a mention being made of this. GMP Saifi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC).

No, that's not quite right. From a non-Muslim perspective, this is a disagreement with the religion. That needs to be made clear of course, but we can't decide about who is a true Muslim any more than we can decide who is a true Christian, Jew, etc. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

All the Muslims unanimously consider them non Muslims Earlyriser10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There Legal status is "Non Muslims" in Muslim countries(Pakistan Saudi Arabia Indonesia etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlyriser10 (talkcontribs) 01:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

They aint muslims, not even close. end of discussion. (Dioxholster (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC))

It's not up to Wikipedia to judge. We can report what others say, of course. Some Christians say Mormons aren't Christians, but we don't claim that either. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahmadis should be written as muslims because they claim to be muslim. Doesn't matter what most so-called 'muslims' think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.102.7 (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

For all those Muslims or non-Ahmadis, the real non-Muslim is he who calls another a non-Muslim. That is a saying of the Holy Prophet(PBUH). Saying that Ahmadis are non-Muslims will violate the neutral POV because you are stating an opinion rather than fact. Wikipedia only says what the Ahmadis say they are. No more than that. If Ahmadis said themselves they are non-Muslims and Wikipedia writes they are Muslims then it violates the neutral POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.135.193 (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ahmadis in India =[edit]

Kerala(Malabar) has lot of Ahmediyyas and Ahmedi Jama Ath's are often Situated away from different Masjids of various Sunni Groups. However, large number of heretics(sunni,shia) reverted to Ahmediya after knowing the secular study of Ahmediya History. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.2.127 (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Like elsewhere in the world, Muslims from Kerala doesn't even consider Ahamdiyya as part of Islam. And there has never been any reversion in the state of Kerala as mentioned above.--Truebrother (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Truebrother [a question for you:] - Do you regard the Aga-Khanis (= Nizari Isma'ilis) and the Alawites [in Syria!] as "True Muslims"? ... Regards, --DLMcN (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
What important here is this whether ahmadiyya is considered as Islam by keralites or not. My reply was in light of facts to the false claims like 'reversions' mentioned above.--Truebrother (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

POV and references[edit]

While the beginning is certainly well-written, it seems to be pushing an excessively divine view of the faith. Also, I don't really see many references cited for that huge beginning. --Enzuru 00:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but did Mirza Ghulam Ahmed not die in the public toilets of Lahore or is this a rumour spread by Lahori Jamaat to smear the Qadianis? I am wondering why the circumstances of his death are not included in the article to shed light on this matter. Can someone clarify please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moarrikh (talkcontribs) 12:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think it was the public toilets, though we all know how he did die. Why don't we check their website for some information?
Information about M G Ahmad's death in present in the main article about him: Mirza_Ghulam_Ahmad#Death, and in greater detail in Death of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, a page dedicated to the circumstances around his death. Nazli (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
My opinion is it is shallow and "unspiritual" to make an issue of whether he died in a toilet.Best wishes,Rich (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


Ahmadis are not Muslims as they are declared non-muslims by all muslims throughout the world, but they are throughout written as Muslims in this article, which is mis-guiding to many people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.120.250.72 (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

They refer to themselves as Muslims, so wikipedia takes them at their word. A lot of Christians don't think Mormons qualify either, so there you go. 76.255.29.99 (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
christianty has always had different gospels and such, so its slightly different. Islam has only one source of truth directly from the prophet while ahmadis are in direct opposition of that in ideology that blatantly contradict the koran by having a cult leader label himself as the next prophet. islam intrinsically does not believe or recognize any other self-claimed prophet after Muhammad, thats a basic rule, anything else is apostasy. (Dioxholster (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC))
Alawites are [surely?] much further away from the mainstream than the Ahmadis are? In addition, I remember a Nizari Isma'ili leader actually admitting to me that his community was even more 'way out' than the Ahmadis are [when comparing both these groups either with the Sunnis or with the Twelver Shi'ites] ... And we could also look here at the Bohras - although perhaps they are not too different, nowadays, from other Shi'ites? --DLMcN (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC) ... The Kharajites of Algeria and the Ibadis of Oman also regard themselves as Muslims - despite having 'broken away' even before the Sunni-Shi'ite split. --DLMcN (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with being Equal,Pakistani National Assembly and then high court declared them non muslims after an extensive in Camera Debate. Saudi Arabia does not allow Qadiani(Which this article calls Ahmeddiya) to enter holy places. Earlyriser10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

So? We don't care what courts or countries say, although that should be in the article. And even if we did, out of all the countries in the world it's only a very tiny number that say they aren't Muslims. Dougweller (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Persewhat?[edit]

No other faith on Wikipedia has information about its persecution before its actual beliefs, and in fact has such a large percentage of its article dedicated to its persecution. This needs to be fixed. --Enzuru 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

did some fixing up - needs much more. Nazli (talk) 07:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm![edit]

Do we have some kind of plan of attack to address the Ahmadi articles are or we taking on issues as they come? --Enzuru 23:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

All the articles clearly need an overhaul - a clearly spelled out review/edit policy be a good idea to give all parties concerned a heads up. Wish I had more free time to devote to this...Nazli (talk) 02:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest something like the Shi'a Islam Task Force (or whatever we're called) but it'd probably only be composed of you and the Ahmadi-of-the-months who contribute then disappear forever. --Enzuru 17:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Aptly stated!! Nazli (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Contenious line in 'Who is a Muslim':[edit]

I constantly have removed a line from the 'Who is a Muslim' in the 'Comparisons' section. The line states that for an Ahmadi anybody who does not believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a 'kafir' even if they have never heard of him. Not only is the quotation being given a ulterior nature, but also its being taken out of context. The whole chapter is actually mocking the concept, which at the time of writing was a very common view. Many Muslims in the sub-continent believed that no matter if you have heard of Prophet Muhammed or not you are a 'kafir' if you do not accept him. Also this concept was further clarified by Mirza Tahir Ahmed the 4th Caliph of the Jamaat, who stated that a kafir is one who deliberately rejects the message of God after he/she has received it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.97.28 (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The quote states in clear unambiguous terms, Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad's opinion. I fail to see how it is out of context.Nazli (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Like said Mirza Tahir Ahmad explained it in very clear terms that a Muslim not believing in Mirza Ghulam Ahmed is a non-Ahmadi Muslim, not a Non-Muslim. Believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmed is not essential to be considered a Muslim. Here is the reference therefore the whole 'Who is a Muslim' in the Comparison section is false information. http://www.askislam.org/religions_and_beliefs/islam/sects/question_263.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.50.71 (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, but please see the old discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ahmadi/Archive_2#Mirza_Mahmud_used_the_term_.22outside_the_pale_of_Islam.22... Nazli (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, I can't seem to find the Mirza Tahir's opinion in written form. Could you please give a link for that, thank you. Nazli (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

By Usman Khan I changed the article Ahmadiyya from "Differs, but often considered an apostate. Many mainstream Muslims believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was one of the 30 false claimants to prophethood[1] about whom the prophet Muhammad warned Muslims 1400 years ago." to " Mainstream Muslims considers him an apostate. Mainstream Muslims believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was one of the 30 false claimants to prophethood[2] about whom the prophet Muhammad warned Muslims 1400 years ago." as there is not difference among the mainstream Muslim declaring him apostate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usmankhan15 (talkcontribs) 07:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The extensive debate in the National Assembly and the high court decision which declares qadianis non muslims MUST be mentioned. And that Saudi Arabia prohibits them from entering holy places. Earlyriser10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

Is Ahmadiyya in origin Sunni, Shi'a, or neither?[edit]

If Mirza Ghulam Ahmed was raised in a recognized branch of Islam, such as Sunni, for example, the article should say so. Thanks.Rich (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

According to my understanding, the Ahmadiyya is neither Sunni or Shia, but is most closely reOlated to Sunni Islam.Peaceworld111 (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone provide documentation for Ahmadiayya's POV reguarding the first four caliphs. This would clear-up thier Sunni vs Shia nature. --Smulthaup (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It is closest to Sunni origin as it does believe in the four "Rightly Guided Caliphs" as opposed to the Shi'a who only believe in Ali (ra) and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as), if you group Muslims in only those 2 categories, could have been classified as a Sunni before the establishment of the Ahmadiyya Movement. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Missing name[edit]

I'm missing the name 'Hadayatulla Huebsch' in the 'Promoinent Ahmadi' section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.191.4 (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The intent of Jesus in this section is innacurate[edit]

" ....just as Jesus Christ came principally to reform the hearts and attitudes of the Jewish nation.[24]"

This statement is false. Jesus complained about some influential priests in the Holy of Holies as corrupt and some people not respecting Jewish Torah. He also was one of many Jews revolting against the Roman occupiers.

Please correct. Thank you. Thomasbraun321 (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Persecution[edit]

In the aftermath of the Ahmadiyya massacre in Pakistan, we need to discuss the right of the majority to impose its will on minorities in all countries especially Islamic countries. In countries such as Saudi Arabia, there is no religious minority or they are subjugated and it a pity that the world opinion stays silent on this. This aspect needs to be discussed in public and UN be involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.195.196 (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Prominent Ahmadis Segregation[edit]

Hi, looking at the shape of the article, given the divide in beliefs, leadership etc, would it not be prudent to separate the prominent Lahoris from the Ahmadis. I only say this for clarity and objectivity when looking at the two groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.80.95 (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


Further to my previous post, I have tried to separate them out, however I am having trouble with sourcing much of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement for the Propagation of Islam members as being Lahoris as oppose to Ahmadis. Perhaps someone could clarify which are which. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.129.124 (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Only allow registered users to update content[edit]

Three pages this, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Ahmadiyya Muslim Community are vandalized a lot. What is the process to require only registered users access to update this content. Every day I login to see same vandalism (it is not even creative) and I have to undo edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saad.ahmad (talkcontribs) 02:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You need to go here and file a request: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Given the sensitivity of the issue, I imagine that if you can provide clear statistics as to how frequently vandalism occurs, you may be able to make a strong case. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Two new Ahmadi categories: "persecution" and "by country"[edit]

Please note I've created and categorised two new categories: Category:Persecution of Ahmadiyya and Category:Ahmadiyya by country. Any help populating these categories would be appreciated. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks. Useful.Peaceworld111 (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Total number of Lahoris?[edit]

Hi, I noticed there is reference to a "claim to have tens of millions" members of the Ahmadi branch, what about the Lahori Branch?

I have not found any claim by the Lahori Branch for any numbers. Looking at their income in the UK its around £8,000 [Charity Commision UK ] which would suggest in the UK at least a minimal presence. Just for comparison the Ahmadiyya Branch has a growing income of just over £10,000,000 [Charity Commission UK ] and they have a claimed UK membership of around 15,000-20,000.

Some input on this would be helpful.

Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.70.106 (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

...assuming that both branches have similar average donations, then the total number of the Lahori branch is in the UK is 16 (£10,000,000/20,000 (people) = £500 average Ahmadi Branch donation therefore... £8000/£500 (average Ahmadi Branch donation) = 16. This is on the figure is based on their being 20,000 Ahmadi Branch members in the UK, if there 15,000 then equivalent number of Lahori Branch members drops to 12! Does this comparison replicate itself internationally? Do Lahori Branch members commit at the similar levels to Ahmadi branch? I'm confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.70.106 (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

See Lahore_Ahmadiyya_Movement_for_the_Propagation_of_Islam#DemographicsPeaceworld111 (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Changing the intro to a NPOV[edit]

Dear sirs. Most of the Ahmadiyya sources claim to be a religious movement, therefore, the first sentence intro is phrased to say that the movement is following Islam "bring about the final triumph of Islam as per Islamic prophecy". Regarding this phrase and the following reliable source talks about the claims that were not identified by other Islamic branches. My suggestion is to replace "Islamic religious movement" to "religious movement" to better fit the rest of the sentence. The sentence already mentions that they're fulfilling Islam, so this does not offence any believer. Please comment here before reverting. PEACE! AdvertAdam talk 09:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Adam, I didn't realize that you posted this comment here, anyways Wikipedia doesn't take into account whether some article brings offence to any one, if it did then there'll lots issues all over Wikipedia, particularly Islam-related articles. It gives priority to reliable sources and as far as I'm aware most if not all reliable sources do identify Ahmadiyya as an Islamic movement. Moreover since it is a religious community, it is enough for them to identify themselves as Islamic for Wikipedia to refer to them as Islamic. Thanks!--Peaceworld 08:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Divisions amongst Ahmadiyya section needed[edit]

We should include a section on the divisions within Ahmadiyya, specifically the Lahori community, Qadian-based community, Anwar-Ul Islam Movement, Jamaat Ahmadiyya al-Mouslemeen, Jamaat Ul-Sahih Al-Islam, Green Ahmadiyya, Jamaat Ahmadiyya Islah Pasand, and the Al-Ahmadiyya sect. — Preceding signed comment added by Farhan000 (talkcontribs) 21:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Any reliable secondary sources available to show the existence of other communities but the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and the Lahore Ahmadiyya movement? --Peaceworld 08:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, several. In specific, their websites and documented videos: Anwar-Ul Islam Movement, Jamaat Ahmadiyya al-Mouslemeen, Jamaat Ul Sahih Al Islam, Green Ahmadiyya, Al-Ahmadiyya Movement, and the Haqiqat Pasand Party. The last is now defunct, but the others have active running websites, http://www.anwarulislam.com/, http://jaam-international.org/, http://www.jamaat-ul-sahih-al-islam.com/, http://greenahmadiyyat.org/ and http://al-ahmadiyyat.com/, respectively. I know that the Jamaat Ahmadiyya Islah Pasand held their first convention recently and documented the presentations, but I am not familiar with any central website they run. I'll try to write up something soon. Farhan000 (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry maybe you didn't get me, I requested for independent and secondary sources that are also reliable, not their individual sites. As a matter of opinion I am not doubting their existence though. To speed the matters up, blog/forum references cannot be in general trusted as reliable.--Peaceworld 20:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I just checked the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources page. Regarding primary sources, it says "they must be used with caution". Considering this is an esoteric topic to begin with, with few if any secondary sources documenting other subgroups, it seems appropriate to at least cite these groups and their websites, but not necessary engage in original research. Farhan000 (talk) 06:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes primary sources cannot be used but with "caution" but this is far too generic to consider here and the issue is completely different. I think the main issue is WP:NOTE; there are no reliable and independent sources verifying the existence of such communities, hence they lack notability. Another issue here is that these communities, if they exist are very small even compared to the Lahore Ahmadiyya movement, which in itself is a very small community compared to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community hence citing their individual names/sites will give undue weight to such groups. I see you opened another discussion over the Talk:Islam article some time ago. Notice that it only mentions significant minorities and not all the possible minorities there are/could be in the world. As a final note though, I think that the Lahore Ahmadiyya movement is over represented here, so some work needs to be done dumming it down. Thanks! --Peaceworld 15:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

What is Lie (Jhoot) and what is "Maslehatan jhoot bolna"?[edit]

Assalamoalaikum! May Allah Almighty keeps all of you in His safe aman. Ameen. Sir, with due respect, I have a question about telling lies and the people who says that "maslehatan jhoot bolna jaiz hai" in special circumstances. please clarify about this and what are the circumstances in which one can lie. Regards MFHR321 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MFHR321 (talkcontribs) 03:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Unecessary split[edit]

The Notable people section was unnecessarily split away to Notable People of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. The split was also malformed, the new list was actually not sourced and the notability of the people added was not demonstrated. Please discuss it before performing the split again. --Muhandes (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is totally biased and one side. Needs total recontruction[edit]

This article is more of a propaganda from the Cult itself and needs to be completely rewritten Earlyriser10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC).

You added 3 tags. I've removed the 'fan' one as inappropriate.

What specifically isn't factually accurate about the article? How is it unbalanced? You need detailed specifics if you want those tags kept on the article. Dougweller (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

For one thing the article barely mentions this cult was declared non muslim in the host country during the 70s after an extensive In Camera Debate in the national Assembly [3]where their leader was also given the opportunity to speak. Saudi Arabians considers them non Muslims and refuses permission to enter holy places. I don't even know where to begin.. The debate if Qadianis or Ahmeddis are muslims has been settled in the high court. Even if someone is to contest it that has to be mentioned CLEARLY at the beginning of article. This article is basically propaganda.


It is not an Islamic revivalist movement its an apoclyptic cult, their found claimed he is the second coming of Christ and Mehdi [4][5]. Nowhere it mentions the forced marriages in the sect by the sect leader [6] [7] [8] [9].

Look at the long List of Notable people,one of which is a 10 years old child(And where are the sources),this article is a Joke. Earlyriser10 (talk)

The fact that Pakistan and orthodox muslims see Ahmadiyya as non-muslim is mentioned and detailed in the article. Your opinion that it is a cult can only be mentioned if an independant, reliable source says so and the links you give here are not reliable (the position of very notable anti-cult and cult-watching groups like the Miviludes in France, the European Federation of Centres of Research and Information on Sectarianism or the International Cultic Studies Association would deserve to be mentioned if they had described it as a cult). If you look at List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents, you don't see Ahmadiyya. Your POV is your POV but you will need better sources and a less inflammatory tone if you want to modify this article. Eleventh1 (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Umm,you are right about the tone. Fine,but this article is one sided for one thing and the controversy about them being Muslims is barely mentioned and there are barely ANY links except on from the Sect/Cult itself. And its a question of Sociology which group is a cult then government. If it is about Governments,Government of three countries(atleast)Indonasia[10][11] [12](largest Muslim country) Pakistan(Second Largest Muslim country) and Saudi Arabia have legally declared them non muslimsEarlyriser10 (talk)

The article can't state as fact that it is a cult or that it is not Muslim. That's really a debate which for an outsider is like Christians debating who are really Christians and who aren't (which is a pretty heated debate at times but doesn't involve governments). But of course we can and should report significant material by reliable sources on this conflict. Dougweller (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOVN[edit]

Started a discussion at WP:NPOVN#Ahmadiyya. Dougweller (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The article starts with calling this group an "Islamic revivalist movement". A consensus needs to be reached on that Earlyriser10 (talk)

http://www.alislam.org/ is the official site of this community/group/cult/sect and is NOT a reliable neutral source. Stop removing the tag. More then 90% of the articles come from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlyriser10 (talkcontribs) 11:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I've removed 'revivalist', changing it to 'reform' per a reliable source, and added 2 sources not from the website. Reliable sources call them Islamic/Muslim, thus so do we. Dougweller (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Makes better sense. I am changing the origins of the movement to British Raj as it was the British India where the movement started (18th century).It was not until 1947 that "India" came into existence. I am also moving the information about his claim to prophet hood at the start of article. Earlyriser10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC).

Wildly inaccurate statements about the nature of jihad in orthodox Islam.[edit]

The article states that "In all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence, and the equivalent in Shi'ite law, defensive jihad is the only legal form of warfare permissible under Islamic law. "

1: this line states that in orthodox Islam, the smaller jihad is to be seen as defensive. 2: Moreover it claims that this is so according to all 4 Sunni mahdabs. both statements are demonstratively false.

I refer to the al-Azhar accredited Shafi'í shariah handbook: umdat as-salik, (also known as reliance of the traveller) pp. 602-603. (the legal rules described there apply to all sunni Madhabs) In addition, the classical comparative legal handbook (ikhtalaf) of al-tabari, the 'kitab al-jihad'. (edited and translated by Professor Yasir Ibrahim) clearly demonstrates that the smaller jihad in ALL Sunni Madhabs, from the earliest of times, means defensive AND offensive fighting. Offensive fighting not being a choice but a duty incumbent upon the Caliph.


Lastly, both the quranic exegesis of Ibn Kathir, and the Shia exegesis of Faghih Imani in their treatment of sura's 9:5-29 (amongst many others) are unequivocal in their explanation of jihad as primarily an offensive act.

Thus the statement that "In all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence, and the equivalent in Shi'ite law, defensive jihad is the only legal form of warfare permissible under Islamic law. " is pertinently false. Anyone familair with the sources might even claim that this statement is not only false, it is a deliberate lie for it necessitates the total disregard of the main works of fiqh, shariah and tafsir whilst claiming to represent them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.123.139.200 (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

ok tell me exactly what you want put in and ill add it into the article since its semi protected Baboon43 (talk) 08:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

New Content[edit]

Steeringly wishes to add the following content to the page with the following references cited:
Ahmadiyya (Arabic: أحمدية‎;Urdu: احمدِیہ‎) is a movement that declares the majority of Muslims as disbelievers and claims to be a reformist Islamic movement. Their claim to be a reformist movement is denied by Muslim scholars from around the world.[13] [14]

What is everyone's thoughts on this addition to this article. As I have no personal knowledge or experience with the topic, I will be more than happy to mediate in this matter <3 ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 13:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

On my talk page I'm told this about the sources: "the first one uses the derogatory "qadiani"-term, and is a webpage of a fundo mosque! the second source is the webpage of the *lahore ahmadiyya movement* who also uses derogatory "qadiani"-term about the mainstream ahmadiyya muslim community. the sources are quite biased and unreliable." Worse than I thought. Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug, Thank you for your comments it certainly adds to the efforts of Wikipedia to be an impartial and inclusive community. I think it is very important first of all to realise that the comment on your talk page are unreferenced. I will use references to support my comments and I hope that you will be objective and return my comments and links after carefully considering the facts. Firstly to quote another link from Ahmadiyya.org - http://www.ahmadiyya.org/qadis/contents.htm - It explains clearly that no offense is intended they simply mean to differentiate between themselves and the other Ahmadiyya group. To simplify it is a similar distinction between Sunni and Shia. So both groups are Ahmadiyya but they are differentiated by the terms being shortened to Qadiani (Qadian being the place they originated from) and Lahori's the Lahore movement (who moved onto Lahore). In the UK we might call someone from London a Londoner, no offence could possibly be taken from such a term. I intend to certainly add to the wikipedia page "Qadiani" to highlight that this is not intended by all that use it as an offensive term, in the wikipedia page only one source is referenced as this being an offensive term. The reality is that Qadiani a term I choose not to use myself preferring the full title of both communities, is an easy way to identify the group since as you can see from the chart on the Ahmadiyya wiki page both groups have differing opinions. To quote the full title of the group or to refer to them simply as Ahmadiyya would not clarify the group you were identifying . This Ahmadiyya article is about both the Ahmadiyya Muslim community and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement, therefore either the two should be divided which would be illogical or sources quoted from both communities should be allowed. This page is currently overwhelmed by links from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and should be balanced with commentary from both. Secondly I would like to address your comments regarding the website I had quoted Central Mosque - This website is a communal gathering of sources from Muslims. Far from being a fundo mosque or indeed a mosque at all, it simply seeks to gather information from a wide variety of sources in an almost encylopedic way. It has a large number of books available to read on a number of Islamic subjects, which are referenced back to the original website as well. It has been established for over 10 years http://whois.domaintools.com/central-mosque.com. Furthermore the website link in question makes references to Fatwa from Islamic Scholars from across the worlds majority mainstream Muslims. A further look into the central-mosque website with regards to reputation will show that it is a highly visited website and actually has a higher ranking on ALEXA than http://www.aaiil.org/ the website quoted on the Ahmadiyya Wiki. As I believe I have established that these links are or should be acceptable I hope that any critics will comment on their suggested amendment to my wording or alternatively reinstate it. Currently it appears to be simply the opinion of a reputable poster on wikipedia (which has some weight of course) but not referencing any authentic sources other than personal opinion that is the cause of removal of this content. If our mutual friend Altetendekrabbe wishes to suggest an amendment to my comments please let him suggest it. However simply removing my additions I feel goes against the ethos and premise of Wikipedia as a source where people knowledgeable about a subject share authentic commentary. I have also quoted in the following http://www.nubuwat.org/fatwa a source refering to Fatwa in relation to the Ahmadiyya, these quotations are from organisations across the globe and are verifiable. Particular attention should be paid to the UK Shariah council who commented on the Ahmadiyya. Quoting directly from their website http://www.islamic-sharia.org/general/are-ahamdies-qadianies-and-mirzai-muslims-or-non-muslims-2.html. If it was an offensive or illegal term to use Qadiani then it would not be allowed in the UK by a large and reputable organisation such as the Shariah council of the UK. Again to further clarify the acceptability of comments from the UK Shariah Council I will reference a member of the council Mufti Barkatullah http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2008/09/muslim-marriage-islamic-mufti quoted in a reputable publication he is the adviser to Lloyds TSB and various other banks on Shariah Finance and furthermore quoted by the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7899000/7899302.stm If you require any further information or have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I think it would be bias to take a simple comment on your talk page from an unauthenticated source and cite this as your reason for removing my comments. Finally the point I have made is referenced in the main body of text in the chart of the Ahmadiyya wiki as an opinion of the majority Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, so to remove it is factually damaging to the article as a whole. (Steeringly (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC))


I had added a new BBC link and text from it. I assume the BBC meet the requirements of fair and unbiased reporting. I hope it will be discussed here if anyone has a particular opinion. Kind regards (Steeringly (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC))

I believe as a new link with a completely different wording and with a direct quotation from the BBC it adds value to the article. Please comment and discuss before simply removing. I will reinstate the item and I would request that we discuss this before removal of any further content which is clearly referenced and adds to the flow of the page. I believe that as a balance to the article it should be clearly stated. I do not see that adding an additional link changes the flow or damages the integrity of the article. If you have a constructive amendment such as adding the link in an alternative location then please feel free to suggest it here. I await an administrator or mediators response. (Steeringly (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC))

Dear Altetendekrabbe, I believe the best course of action would be to reinstate my addition and remove the unreferenced comments regarding the opinions of mainstream Muslims. what do you think? (Steeringly (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC))

the best course of action is that you actually *read* the lead before you make any edits. i don't mind your addition if you remove the stuff about mainstream muslims to avoid duplications. further, your addition should also be at the end of the lead, and not in the beginning. the topic is ahmadiyya and not what others think about them.-- altetendekrabbe  16:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, your sarcasm is duly noted. You are correct the topic is about the Ahmadiyya yet the opening statements are quotations entirely attributed to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, and not to Ahmadiyya in general. I feel very strongly that to balance the article it needs to have impartial sources ex. BBC and more from the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement, main stream muslims and impartial sources knowledgeable about the subject. Before hack slashing my edits why not re-edit them in the way you think works best rather than simply undoing them. I also am confident that an identifying factor of the Ahmadiyya Muslims is how they are perceived by other Muslims since Ahmadiyya are Muslims it is not really a statement about what others think as they are part of the same community, What do you think? P.S Do you have a particular knowledge of Ahmadiyyat? (2.216.172.55 (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC))

Suggestion for Removal of Islamic from the title.[edit]

Dear All, I have investigated the author of the text referencing the Ahmadiyya as an Islamic reformist movement Simon Valentine. To state that they are Islamic, is the opinion of the author who is no authority on Islam, but has spent time amongst different Muslim communities. On balance to this singular author there are religious verdicts from across the world. This includes verdicts from the Islamic authority of the UK the UK Shariah council as mentioned in my comments on this talk page. As Simon Valentine is a lone author, I would strike to remove "Islamic" from the title, preferring the opinion of an accepted UK Islamic body over an authors singular opinion. I would welcome a range of opinions before I remove "Islamic". (Steeringly (talk) 09:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC))

it's islamic per reliable sources and per self-identification. there are christians who denote catholics as non-christian. there are muslims who believe that shias or shia ismailis are non-muslim. in iraq, many shias consider the sunnis non-muslim and vice-versa! these are point of views and have no place in wikipedia. secondly, the uk shariah council has no authority here.-- altetendekrabbe  10:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, can you please clarify these reliable sources you are referring too? Furthermore to clarify does wikipedia accept self-identification for such things, without a clarification that it is self identification? My understanding is that wikipedia is a community forum and therefore it is based on consensus of opinion. Otherwise we might end up with people claiming for ex: (Not a particularly good example) a particular dictator (any will do) is a hero of a particular country in its opening description of a wikipedia page and only in the further sections would we see an alternative opinion. What constitutes consensus? I would move to WP:DR on this issue from an external party. If you have anyone in mind then I would appreciate external input on the matter. Your example of Sunni, Shia differences of opinion is not really relevant. The facts remains that Ahmadiyya was established in recent history and Sunni and Shia denominations trace their history back to the origins of Islam. It could not be argued for a wikipedia page that a shia denomination were not Muslim. For example with Mormons it is stated that they self identify as Christians. I would suggest that we add this in to the Ahmadiyya section as they self identify as Islamic or Muslim. What do you think? (Steeringly (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC))

I would suggest "Ahmadiyya (Arabic: أحمدية‎;Urdu: احمدِیہ) self identify as an Islamic reformist movement though some of their beliefs differ from mainstream Islam". This is similar to the accepted text "Mormons self-identify as Christian, though some of their beliefs differ from mainstream Christianity". from the Mormon Wikipedia page. Feedback? (Steeringly (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC))

there are sunni organizations who regard them as islamic as well [1], in addition to probably millions of ordinary muslims. even the dutch government regards them as islamic. however, here on wiki we rely on what reliable secondary sources state. according to *reliable scholarly secondary sources*, it is clear that the ahmadiyya is an islamic reformist movement. hence, they are islamic per reliable sources *and* per self-identification. thus, your suggestion is totally unacceptable.-- altetendekrabbe  12:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your point but your logic seems to be somewhat flawed. You had said previously the UK shariah council "has no authority here", on wikipdia after I had referred you to their fatwa stating that the Ahmadiyya are not Islamic. The reason the UK would be acceptable as a test bed for opinion is that both the author liberally quoted in the Ahmadiyya wiki page Simon Valentine, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and a UK Shariah Council which is an umbrella organisation for Muslim organisations in the UK. You appear to have misread it the article simply confirms that one organisation that represents only three mosques in the Netherlands said that they "The Ahmadiyya are an important section of that community and therefore belong to our organisation." Without the full statement it is difficult to show exactly what they meant by this. Other organisations diplomatically refused to answer the question in the same article. I would suggest that this is not a wide acceptance but a limited one for the very specific purposes of the setting up a TV Channel, It is hardly consensus extremely limited in a country known to have intolerance towards Muslims and hardly worthy of basing opinion or a wikipedia page. Governments in democracies recognise everybody its hardly affirmation. Who are this Council of Moroccan Mosques exactly by your previous logic? It appears as if you are happy to recognise sources that affirm your opinion but not those that do not. I still feel that the Mormon approach is the most sensible. I welcome others opinions on this. To clarify if we are to suggest that the link you have suggested is a reliable source we could equally highlight the comment they are controversial as the header. I am suggesting something far more acceptable than your own source confirms. (Steeringly (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC))

don't remove my comment again. and i repeat: read what i wrote. again.-- altetendekrabbe  15:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the sense in you having to resort to swearing, this is purely academic. I don't need to be told to re-read what you had written. I am going to seek support in amending this article as you are clearly not listening to acceptable comments or indeed adhering to your own principles and reasoning. (Steeringly (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC))

From the book you are sourcing as confirmation of the Ahmadiyya being accepted Islamic reformist http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Q78O1mjX2tMC&lpg=PP1&pg=PR4#v=snippet&q=ahmadiyya%20kafir&f=false The author mentions "as indicated throughout this book the Ahmadiyya Jamaat is not accepted by mainstream Islam as being Muslim". Either this book is acceptable as evidence or not? If it is acceptable as evidence of the opening statement then it is equally acceptable to quote other things mentioned by the author. (Steeringly (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC))

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.-- altetendekrabbe  17:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:CTDAPE (Steeringly (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC))

Hi all, I think to self-identify oneself as Muslim or Islamic is enough to be referred to as Muslim or Islamic. Nowhere do we need evidence from external sources to identify the Sunni Muslims or Shia Muslims as Muslims. They are taken to be Muslim without any need for sources though it is undeniably true that many Sunni Muslims leaders have described Shia Muslims as Non-Muslim and vice versa. However just for the sake of completion let me give several articles that point that Ahmadis are indeed Muslims:

How many more sources do you need? --Peaceworld 11:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Peaceworld, Islamic and reformist should remain. I believe they are identified as Muslims by people as they self identify as Muslims by the name of their organisation etc... So what are your feelings on this as as amendment? "Ahmadiyya (Arabic: أحمدية‎;Urdu: احمدِیہ) self identify as an Islamic reformist movement though some of their beliefs differ from mainstream Islam"? Kind regards (Steeringly (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC))

that would violate wp:npov. as i wrote many times before: it is clear that the ahmadiyya is an islamic reformist movement. they are islamic per reliable sources *and* per self-identification. the lead is better as it is now... without the "self identify"-part which ignores the reliable sources.-- altetendekrabbe  14:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

For the purposes of Wikipedia We have established that to self identify as Muslims or Islamic makes a particular group Islamic or Muslim, this point is clear. It is through self identification as Muslims or Islamic that the Ahmadiyyah Muslim Community are recognised as Muslims or Islamic by the wider community this is clear. A large number of Muslims do not accept them as Muslims this is also clear. This does not affect the fact that they are identified as Muslims or Islamic.

However the point remains that the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community established themselves and identified themselves as Muslim. This self identification makes them Muslim for the purposes of this article and therefore they have every right to be identified as such. The foundations of their identity are the self identification of their Islam. The current wording identifies as fact that the Ahmadiyya are an Islamic reformist movement. The evidence perported to verify this is the point of view of a particular author who in his own book (Valentine, Simon (2008). Islam and the Ahmadiyya jamaʻat: history, belief, practice. Columbia University Press. p. xv. ISBN 978-0-231-70094-8), states very clearly that his opinions are not the opinions of Muslims in general. His book is written about the personal experiences he had in meeting the extremely warm and welcoming Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. It is throught the Ahmadiyya's self identification as Muslims that they are referred to as Islamic by the author. Therefore it is not in violation of wp:npov as it is currently as identified by the author his own opinion and not the opinion of a large number of other people (referring to the book as documentary evidence). He states this clearly on page 241 and throughout his book. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Q78O1mjX2tMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=simon+ross+valentine+ahmadiyya&hl=en&ei=TxzyTZTSOMSp8APp55CIBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-preview-link&resnum=1&ved=0CC4QuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=ahmadiyya%20kafir&f=false. I am simply suggesting we look at the Mormon example of self identification on their wikipedia page and apply the same principle here. Despite the fact I do not feel it complies with wp:npov I will accept Simon Valentines comments, although I feel to include it in the title is selective and biased and does not comply with a wp:npov. The amendment I am suggesting is logical, compliant with wikipedia protocol and respectful to the Ahmadiyya Community. (Steeringly (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC))

Just to add the second quotation is from Alislam the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community website and therefore of course this supports the self indentified opinion. I am currently writing an assessment of the links suggested above (Steeringly (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC))

Ok the Ahmadiyya community self-identify themselves as Muslims but this is also the case with virtually every other Muslim sect or community. Should that mean all such articles should be changed accordingly? Steeringly, to me that's the only point you seem to be bringing forward since in the media Ahmadis are commonly reffered to as Muslims like any other Muslim groups. --Peaceworld 17:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I should add Wikipedians should avoid using other articles for resolving disputes per guidelines. Mormonism is not something directly parallel to the Ahmadiyya Community as you seem to put forward. --Peaceworld 17:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not referring to other articles, I am referring to this article specifically. The point would be clearer if you did not use other articles examples when asking us not to refer to other articles to resolve disputes. To quote you "I should add Wikipedians should avoid using other articles for resolving disputes per guidelines". Therefore the changing of other articles is irrelevant according to wikipedia, and I accept this point. Unfortunately I have not been allowed to move on from this singular point as our mutual friend removes any amendments I have made. I would suggest that the block is removed as we have laboured the point enough and we seem to have reached consensus. Kind regards (Steeringly (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC))

  • Let me be clearer. From what I understand, your argument is that we should add "self-identify themselves..." which to me is based solely on the fact that Ahmadis recognize themselves as Muslims. Why? Because it is fairly obvious that Ahmadis along with other Muslims are commonly referred to as Muslims. Moreover there are notable individuals among Muslims who do have an influence over the Islamic thought do refer to other sects as Non-Muslim. These points you don't seem to argue over. Afterwards I did put forward a rhetoric Should that mean all such articles should be changed accordingly? making a generic statement towards all Islamic based sect articles and not specifying any. When I said we should try and avoid referring to articles I meant specific articles (but that doesn't mean you mustn't, i ain't a ruler :) ) because you did say I am simply suggesting we look at the Mormon example of self identification.
  • If you wish to edit you need to put forward a valid point. At the moment to me it seems your still stuck at self-identify idea which has been dealt with already to which you are not responding. BTW User Altetendekrabbe has already made relevant enough points. --Peaceworld 19:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe the Lindsay Jones/Mircea Eliade Encyclopedia of Religions is probably a fairly good independent source here. I had reproduced the "synoptic outline" of the second edition by Jones at User:John Carter/Religion articles. Their article on this subject is clearly counted within that highly reputable refernce work as being Islamic. Therefore, it is now I think no longer a matter of whether they "self-identify" as Islamic, considering that is an independent reference work. There does seem to be a problem in terms of other practitioners of Islam, broadly defined, not identifying the Ahmadiyya as Muslims. However, even if they are a comparatively "expert" group in this subject, they are only one group among many. So far as I can tell, the rest of the outside world also counts Ahmadiyya as Muslims, so, based on that information, I would have to say that it makes sense to remove the "self-identify" from the lead. They are, to all practical purposes, recognized as Muslims by the outside world. This is not however saying that the lead cannot contain information to the effect that the rest of the Muslim world does not consider them to practitioners of Islam as they define it. John Carter (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Steeringly, do you agree that you will not try to add "self-identify" or "claim" to the article? Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Block? I semi-protected the article against IP vandalism. No one here is affected. Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

As john Carter has expressed he is not an expert and expressed terms such as "So far as I can tell". I will however accept that from the limited input of authors who appear to be protecting this article, I accept that to add self identity would be incorrect. Although I do believe that more research is needed. I would suggest "Ahmadiyya is a ((Heterodox)) Islamic reformist movement", as a relevant addition.

I would welcome opinion on this suggestion as it it referenced from Ahmadiyya Muslim Community websites as well. (Steeringly (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC))

Your source Islam and the Ahmadiyya Jamaʻat: History, Belief, Practice can be used, so long as we represent it correctly. It says tthat they are regarded as heterodox by many Muslims. It avoids actually calling them heterodox. Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - Therefore according to the book it is the authors opinion that many Muslims regard the Ahmadiyya Jama'at as heterodox. He is himself expressing his own opinion. Having read the book we can quote him all day long to prove a variety of points including his own comments regarding the fact he felt the Ahmadiyya may have acted in a certain way around him as they were aware he was writing a book about them. (Steeringly (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC))

Um, you agree that we do not call Ahmadiyya heterodox but say that many Muslims regard them as heterodox? You need to be more explicit. Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah, you don't. Where do you see consensus to call them heterodox? You started this discussion, now you seem to have abandoned it to continue to add your own preference. It is clearly against NPOV to call them heterodox. You say you are new, but you've been warned about edit warring and not just by me. Most Christian groups consider other Christian groups heterodox, but we don't state that they are heterodox in their articles - because of NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops sorry I did it again I thought the encyclopedia reference would be acceptable? I appreciate you are an administrator Doug and respect is duly given for your vast support as a wikipedian. Surely an encyclopedia reference cant be considered NPOV? (Steeringly (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC))

I dont think people ganging up on a new contributor is edit warring. A small interconnected group of wikipedia contributors and administrators reverting references from the United nations. I think it simply reflects the bias of those protecting a particular page. Changing a reference isnt edit warring is it? (Steeringly (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC))

(edit conflict)

I think you mean can be considered NPOV. Minor point, I'm not sure that Paul Robert's Encyclopedia of Canada's People can be considered a reliable source for this. Major point, it doesnt' call them heterodox. It says they are isolated from the mainstream Sunni, but it doesn't call them heterodox. Another major point is that you don't have consensus here. As I've said, this is really an NPOV issue, and if you think policy says you are right and everyone else wrong, you can ask at WP:NPOVN but I think you will get the same answer. We can't call them heterodox, although if we have the sources we can say that mainstream/Sunni/whatever is correct consider them heterodox. I'd appreciate it if you would show your good faith by reverting yourself until you get agreement for this. And searching for searches that call them heterodox won't meet NPOV for Wikipedia asserting in its own voice that they are heterodox. And yes, editing against consensus is edit-warring. You didn't just change a reference, you made a basic change in the article that violates NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Doug the book clearly states on page 177 of my referenced version that it is heterodox it goes on to say it was "a fundamental redefinition of Muslim doctrine". I dont see how this source is any less relevant than the opinion of the author who stated they are an "Islamic reformist movement", which is deemed suitable enough for the title line. He stated that Muslim opinion is that they are disbelievers his own opinion is that they are an Islamic reformist movement. I think that if we are to revert my change shouldn't we also remove the disputed opinion of an author who by his own definition has written a personal account of his experiences, which may have been biased by his personal involvement and friendship with "mainstream" muslims and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Q78O1mjX2tMC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=ahmadiyya&ots=2hm3p-kttt&sig=wDUZF0YxZ5r3kausYcNGyExHU5A#v=snippet&q=mainstream&f=false. It is unfair to cite a rule and not apply it to the content that we are discussing. If we define a principle it should be applicable to all references surely? (Steeringly (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC))

You mean that while the version I see calls Ahmad's message heterodox, your version refers to the religious group as heterodox? I doubt that, and to interpet it as saying that is against policy, see [{WP:VERIFY]] and WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
And whatever, the NPOV issue is relevant. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

That depend's on whether the version you are referring to is the actual book itself or a googlebook. Since you are unaquainted with the text I would advise you to continue reading the page where it states "Two central doctrinal interpretations seperate Ahmadiyyah teachings from mainstream Islam". It shows rather than having particular knowledge of the subject you are simply trying to reject legitimate scholarly amendments to a wikipedia page. It appears you are trying to put your own opinions over the opinions of legitimate scholarly articles simpy because they contradict your opinion. (Steeringly (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC))

Doug the central doctrinal differences are referred to in the Ahmadiyya wikipedia page. They are also referenced, so how can you possible quote WP:NOR WP:VERIFY it makes absolutely no sense. All I can see is that you are flinging accusations of bias at points that are already referenced and accepted in the article. "Whatever?" please Doug we are not children and this is purely academic (Steeringly (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC))

First, even with the quote you include above, I don't see how the inclusion of the word "heterodox" (or any similar word) can be reasonably included as per WP:SYNTH, which I suggest you read. You might also want to read WP:AVOID, because I think for at least active religious groups words like "heterodox" and "heresy" are probably generally counted as being among the words to avoid. Also, as per an unsourced statement I saw elesewhere, there is evidence that at least in Iran, for whatever reason, the Ahmadiyys are not treated as a form of outsider group, but are, apparently, accepted as mainstream or similar. If that is true, and in even one case a group is considered "mainstream", then we would definitely need to have the highest quality sources available to help decide the issue. Also, frankly, I have seen legitimate scholarly statements from some scholars which clearly fall within the range of WP:FRINGE, and even academics sometimes are pushing fringe theories. I agree we are not children, and I think on that basis some of us might want to read WP:TPG and WP:NPA as well. John Carter (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
One source I have defines it as follows: "Ahmadiyya: A proselytizing messianic reform movement in Islam, started in India and based on the teachings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (d. 1908) who regarded himself as the Mahdi and appointed by God to reform and restore Islam."[15]. Not sure if this will be acceptable, but a "messianic reform movement in Islam" seems like an interesting choice. Wiqi(55) 21:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that source is much more informative, with its use of the comparatively well-defined "messianic" and "reform" descriptors, than a source which basically just writes them of as "heterodox" or similar. John Carter (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks John You are welcome to refer to these sources mentioned below to support "heterodox"; I think we should apply the same principles to every reference mentioned in this article. Especially those that refer to them as Islamic reformist. Regarding Iran, at SOAS we have strong political links I am happy to arrange a letter of opinion from the religious ministry of Iran, which would dispute your opinion it might take a little time though. I am sure that mainstream Muslims would find much of the disputed content of this article offensive. Perhaps if someone were to suggest an acceptable alternative we might be able to meet somewhere in the middle. Since the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community believe Mainstream Muslims to be be outside the fold of Islam as mentioned and referenced in the wikipedia page. I dont think it is a WP:FRINGE opinion when it is cited that Muslims who consist of over a billion people mostly reject the Ahmadiyya as Muslim, as per the sources stated in the wikipedia Ahmadiyya page. Simon Valentine It would be biased to call the Ahmadiyya none Muslim but to say that their beliefs are not orthodox i.e mainstream islam is correct according to the references quoted and used in this article and the ones mentioned below.

* J. T. Addison, The Christian Approach to the Moslem: a Historical Study (New York: Columbia University Press, 1942), pp. 209-10. Cf. 
* Samuel Graham Wilson, Modern Movements among Moslems (New York: Revell, 1916), pp. 132-39; H. A. Walter, The Ahmadiva Movement(London: Oxford, 1913); 
* Stanley Brush, "Ahmadiyyat in Pakistan," The Muslim World, April, 1955; 
* W. C. Smith, article "Ahmadiyya," Encyclopaedia of Islam, new edition. 
* British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies - Routledge http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cbjm20/37/3 
* www.thepersecution.org/dl/bangladesh0605.pdf 
* http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Q78O1mjX2tMC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=ahmadiyya&ots=2hm3p-kttt&sig=wDUZF0YxZ5r3kausYcNGyExHU5A#v=snippet&q=heterodox&f=false 
* http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,FREEHOU,,IDN,,4e2450e521,0.html 
* http://www.caribbeanmuslims.com/articles/1200/1/Mainstream-Islam-in-the-African-American-Experience/Page1.html 
 

− (Steeringly (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC))

And you are once again welcomed to read WP:AVOID. And you will note I found that statement about Iran to be unsourced. And, regretably, I am sure that the matter of whether mainstream Muslims find this article offensive is of no importance whatsoever to whether or not it meets wikipedia guidelines and policies. Speaking as a rather devout Catholic, I find any number of articles relating to some of the newer Christian NRMs to be offensively phrased. My opinion however, is just that, and is in no way a basis for changing content. I once again urge you to read some of wikipedias policies and guidelines, particularly those that I mentioned above. I also believe that, as you consider it significant that mainstream Muslims might be offended by the content, that you might benefit from reading WP:POV. John Carter (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I wasnt suggesting it was of any importance that Muslims might find the article offensive. It is a quote from Valentine, Simon (2008). Islam and the Ahmadiyya jamaʻat: history, belief, practice. Columbia University Press. p. xv. ISBN 978-0-231-70094-8. Are you suggesting that the Simon Valentine text is biased? Having read WP:AVOID I cease to see it's relevance, since in the quoted list above you will note the Ahmadiyya website http://www.persecutionofahmadis.org/ which quotes an article by Human rights watch which refers to the Ahmadiyya "An unprecedented climate of fear now pervades Bangladesh’s minority Ahmadiyya community, a heterodox religious group that considers itself part of the larger Muslim world". If the Ahmadiyya seek to use this as reference why not quote them here. Who exactly is offended? Also if an opinion is presented with evidence and secondary evidence for an opinion isnt it required to provide contradictory evidence. Otherwise it would violate WP:NPOV, to discredit it? I am wondering did people put up so many issues when the "minority" Ahmadiyya Muslim Community cited their own article and a single authors opinion for the fringe opinions that they are an Islamic Reformist Movement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeringly (talkcontribs) 22:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

To add support that the Heterodox of Ahmadiyya is commonly accepted http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/06/01/pakistan-massacre-minority-ahmadis I hope you will exercise restraint in calling Human Rights Watch biased. I think rather than NPOV they can be credited as being balanced enough. Other links include;

The persecution website links directly to http://www.alislam.org/ and states (at the bottom of the page) it is an official website of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Alislam is referenced throughout the Ahmadiyya wikipedia page, therefore no offense can be attributed to Heterodox as it is referred to by Ahmadiyya themselves. Hence WP:AVOID is not applicable. For others interested in commenting please refer to WP:WEASEL, specifically "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution". The article refers to; Distinct Ahmadiyya beliefs and refers to mainstream Islam as being different from either of the Ahmadiyya communities. These are referenced and accepted parts of the article hence attribution is throughout the article. (Steeringly (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC))

I wish you would WP:Indent. I've reverted you. You do not have consensus for this, so please do not replace it. If you seriously think Wikipedia should state, in it's own voice, that this particular religion is heterodox, rather than say that others call it that, go to WP:NPOVN or start a WP:RfC here. Don't try to editwar it into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs)

Hi Doug what you have done appears to violate WP:NPOV, WP:VAN The article clearly differentiates between mainstream Islam and the Ahmadiyya Muslims. This is exactly what Heterodox is. Heterodox should not be mistaken for Heresy which is not the same as cited. I believe this is exempt under the guidelines of WP:EW as I have clearly demonstrated that the article contrary to your assertions is improved by the changes. I believe you are incorrectly citing the 3RR rule when a contributor is trying to make legitimate change to an article. I would advise you to re-read the administrators guidance for WP:EW as you have a vested interest in the direct discussion of changes to this article. You would appear to be using this to your advantage. The article confirms my edit and your changes seem to be WP:NPOV violations (Steeringly (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC))

If the change is not correct and infringes WP:NPOV then the entire article is in question as it clearly states the Heterodox nature of the Ahmadiyya. I have provided scholarly opinion and secondary opinion on this issue and you have changed the article despite failing to provide evidence to the contrary WP:NPOV The article cites several examples of the Heterodox nature (Steeringly (talk) 09:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC))

If you think my edits are vandalism than I strongly suggest you report me somewhere. I see no exceptions to 3RR in your edits and given your warnings I'm assuming you are aware of what it says at WP:3RR. I've raised the NPOV issue at [{WP:NPOVN]]. Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Top three most populated Muslim countries(Pakistan Bangladesh and Indonesia)have legally declared them non Muslims. Wikipedia is a reflection of ground realities,we do NOT invent material here. Mormons have never been declared "Non Christians" by either a country or Vatican. This so called movement in the host country accepted its stated as a Non Muslim community and regularly claims parliamentary quota reserved for "Minorities"[16]. Now we have to set a standard. These three countries alone (Indonesia Bangladesh Pakistan) are all democracies and have a population of above 500 million Muslims. This article is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlyriser10 (talk \u2022 contribs) 21:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, so your arguments regarding countries and populations means nothing here. It's perfectly fine to mention the stances of those countries, but the current consensus stands. Do not make such a change to the article without establishing a consensus for it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The word heterodox[edit]

I see a rather heated edit war over the inclusion or not of this word in the lead. This is not at all my area of expertise (in fact I had to look it up), but as an uninvolved editor, it does seem that the statement is at least consistent with the content of the Islam section of the heterodox article which gives Ahmadiyya as an example of a heterodox movement. So if we assume a consensus on that page, I can't see a problem with using the word here. Please note I'm just commenting on this one word, not any other areas of disagreement. Mcewan (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Then we'd have to state that Sunni and Shia Muslims are heterodox. There's a big difference between Wikipedia asserting in the religion's article that it is heterodox and pointing out that from some perspectives a religion is considered to be heterodox. Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with Doug here. "Heterodox" is, so far as I can tell, one of the politically-correct synonyms of "heresy". Unfortunately, to use either word, we would implicitly be stating, and accepting, not only that one or more sides of a given religious debate are clearly "orthodox" but also that they are in a position to define others as "heterodox", and I'm not sure that we can really do that and stay within POV guidelines. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, I think I understand this better now and my apologies for wading in. Totally agree that we should not be defining what is orthodox or heresy or heterodoxy in a religious context. Happy for the word to go. However I get the impression that the efforts of the editor to insert that word are intending to try and distance this movement from "mainstream" Islam - and that is something that could be objectively determined. I also take the point in an earlier section about fringe or extreme or minority Christian movements not being so labelled. I just wonder if we can end the edit war with some sort of compromise form of words: "controversial" perhaps? Or move up the bit about mainstream Muslims' opinion Mcewan (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I think that "reform" more or less equates or at least implies that the group is "heterodox" in most cases, although admittedly not necessarily clearly. As it is the fourth paragraph of the lead does say that many Muslims don't consider Ahmadiyya even Muslim. The article Heresy in Islam contains a statement, so far as I can tell unsourced, that in Iran the Adhmadiyya movement is not actively regarded as "heterodox", which, if true, would weaken a bit of the controversy. It does seem to have been the case of significant controversy in at least some countries though, and the word "controversy" is not itself inherently judgmental, so I'm not sure I would object to that word. I'm not sure moving something up three parapraphs would necessarily resolve anything, particularly if it is only three paragraphs or so. And, so far as I can tell, the group is significant enough in its own right that, in this case, the controversy is not so overwhelmingly important that it would need to be referenced beyond a single word in the first sentence or paragraph. John Carter (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
It is indeed a "can of worms" (to use a figurative expression), because I do remember talking to Sunnis who regarded Shi'ites as heretics (and if I had the time, inclination and patience we could probably locate a few sources - but would that really be worth the effort?) Another example - Nizari Isma'ilis (Aga-Khanis) actually admit that they are even more 'different', more detached from the Muslim mainstream than Ahmadis are - but Isma'ilis still like to regard themselves as Muslims. I support the suggestion that we should not appear to be 'taking sides'; i.e. it is best to play it in a very 'low key'. --DLMcN (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Well thank you all for clarifying. I have suggested that Steeringly make some proposals here when he can. Mcewan (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say its a democracy,I just said its a reflection of facts. Its an encyclopedia not a Forum for inventions or validating claims Earlyriser10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The 'last' Prophet?[edit]

Regarding my reversion of the recent edit by 182.185.53.120 - It is probably true that the principal objection by mainstream Muslims [to the Ahmadi doctrine] revolves around the question of "Muhammed being the Final Prophet". So - are we happy with the way in which that point is already addressed in the main article? - [which implies that there is a difference of emphasis between the two rival Ahmadi branches].--DLMcN (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

300 thousand signs?![edit]

Altetendekrabbe's reversion is indeed justified - at least until we have more evidence of what '2001:558:6020:12F:2061:1320:989E:46B5' says. 300 thousand does seem to be an incredibly high number of 'signs' supporting Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's claim. I would like to ask the editor '2001:558:6020:12F:2061:1320:989E:46B5' whether each and every one of those signs has been specifically itemized and described? --DLMcN (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

POV editing[edit]

This has been discussed at WP:NPOVN twice before, and I am asking editors to adhere to the results of those discussions. See [2] and [3]. Note these reliable sources also [4], [5]. Dougweller (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead needs to be rewritten[edit]

At the moment the lead fails WP:LEAD as it is not a "summary of its most important aspects."In particular it doesn't mention the views of mainstream Muslims or its status in some countries. That needs to be in at least the 2nd paragraph if not in the first. Certainly the 3rd and 4th paragraph can be moved somehow to the body of the article. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

agree on that. secondly, the page needs a semi-protection.-- altetendekrabbe  21:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months. After 3 months the page will be automatically unprotected. DMacks (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

what does the word 'reformist' in the lead refers to?--Truebrother (talk) 07:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Amendement to Lead inserting "though this is not accepted by mainstream muslims" (Steeringly (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya[edit]

Ahhmadiyya (Qadyani) are not Muslim, so i request to WIKIPEDIA organizers, please to correct the topic and remove the Ahmadiyya from Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasirlook (talkcontribs) 16:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Obvious decline per miles of previous discussions. DMacks (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Nasirlook - Do you regard the Aga-Khanis (= Nizari Isma'ilis) and the Alawis [in Syria!] as "True Muslims"? And what about the Ibadis of Oman, and the Kharijites of Algeria? There are strong grounds for arguing that the Ahmadis actually have a fair amount in common with the Muslim mainstream, whereas most (or all) of those^ other four groups seem to be somewhat 'further away'. Regards --DLMcN (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC) --DLMcN (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

MIRZA DIED IN WASNROOM >MIRZION PUR LANAT BESHAMAR

I believe the 4 groups mentioned above could be put in the same category as Ahmadiyas but ahmadiyas particularly are more active and known by the muslims then other fringe groups..controversial posts by users show ahmadiyas are aggressively promoting their beliefs internationally & are receiving backlash for doing so Baboon43 (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ahmadis Are NOT MUSLIMS[edit]

Kindly correct your page details and remove Ahmadi from Muslim sects. Kindly bring this to your knowledge that Ahmadis by no means are defined or come into the definition of being Muslims as for being a Muslim you have to have your faith in the Prophet Muhammad PBUH AS THE LAST messenger of Allah. Ahmadis have fabricated their own prophet, so you can enlist them as a different religion which has nothing to do with Islam. They are out of the boundry of Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georaza (talkcontribs) 04:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

See previous discussions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Khwaja Nazir Ahmad[edit]

Help needed with finishing this article - need a date of death. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a propaganda piece[edit]

Does this really meet wikipedia standards? Sounds like a classical propaganda piece for this ahmadiyya organization. It's full of praises. Highly subjective. Should be reviewed by a non-biased, nuetral non-Ahmadi non-Muslim editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.25.97 (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

A number of such editors, myself included, have this article on their watchlist and do not see the subjectivity you see. —C.Fred (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

hmmm. a non-muslim, non-ahmadi editor is non-biased ! btw what is Wikipedia: BIAS ? Read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drali1954 (talkcontribs) 20:07, 16 May 2013‎ (UTC)

Ahmadiyya and the Jewish State Israel[edit]

Hi Andy, Thank you for the guidance. That the Ahmadiyya believe , the Jewish State of Israel is a fulfillment of Prophecies in the Quran (17:105) I cite their Published Sources:

Ahmadiyya Sources


Ahmadiyya Times July 23,2010

1- ESTABLISHMENT OF ISRAEL “And after him We said to the Children of Israel, 'Dwell Ye in the promised land; and when the time of the promise of the Latter Days come, We shall bring you together out of various people." (17:105)”. Creation of Israel and gathering of Sephardic, Ashkenazi and the Jews of many other different races in Israel proves the authenticity of this prophecy and hence Quran.[6]

Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad Invitation to Ahmadiyyat (Book)

2- “Therefore in verse 17:105 the warning of the latter days relates to the period after the second coming of Jesus. The words 'shall bring you together' refer to the present influx of Jews into Palestine. Jews from different countries are offered facilities of travel and rehabilitation. The revelation of the Promised Messiah said, 'I will relieve the children of Israel.' This indicated a great change in the position of the Jews. It indicated the end of the opposition which nations of the world had made for so long to an independent home for the Jews.”[7]

The Muslim Sunrise USA 2012

3- “It was also under his [Mirza Ghulam Ahmad] Spiritual Reign that the Jews would return to the land of Palestine as was prophesied in the Holy Qura 17:105”. (the Muslim Sunrise, Fall-2012, page 38.[8]

Pressing Israel (ISBN 1-4145-0727-5)

4- Jewish Scholars also believe the Quran 17:105 contains this prophecy: “Roots of Islamism The Qur'an assigns the Land of Israel as a dwelling location for the Jews to which they will be returned as the end of days approaches (Qur'an17:105), so a faithful Muslim could support the Jewish people's presence in the...” [Pressing Israel: Media Bias Exposed from a – Z , by Lee S. Bender, Jerome R. Verlin (ISBN 1-4145-0727-5, (260 pages) Pavillion Press (2012, October 1)]

Ahmadiyya Commentary of Quran (page, 659)

5- The Ahmadiyya Commentary (the Official version of their interpretation of the Quran) see 17:105 (foot note 1658 on page 569 [9]

Old Tafseer Tabari

6- For an ancient Islamic source, see Tabari, [Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī or Jāmi` al-bayān `an ta'wīl āy al-Qur'ān,by Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (838-923). See Commentary under Verse 17:104]

Sincerely,

ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


I have added Views about Israel in the Article, quoting 4 sources from the Community Khalifa, the Community Quran's Commentary, and two Community's Organs. I would welcome a critical comment, if the addition is invalid please delete it. ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
In the edit summary i gave links to articles where you could place the edit instead. Pass a Method talk 07:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh thank you, i got it. ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Notable people[edit]

The "Notable people" listing includes a number of jazz musicians; some of these cite When Nations Gather by Sultan Abdul Latif. This is problematic because (1) some of the individuals cited do not actually appear in the source, and (2) the source is self-published. (See also WP:Source list.) Charlie Parker is in the list, yet that article notes that he was an atheist, and cites its own (different) source to that effect. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted that. No time now, but I think everything sourced to Latif should be deleted if it has to do with people. Clearly fails WP:RS A blurb about it says "Ancient Native American prophets foretold the coming of Europeans to the North American continent bringing the destruction of life as they knew it. These prophets predicted the rise of America, the two world wars, and the dropping of the atom bomb. They also predicted the fall of America and the destruction of the world as foretold in the Holy Bible, the Holy Quran and other holy books. This too will come to pass, unless...Read what we must do to prevent Armageddon." Dougweller (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Discuss Move[edit]

Read further here: Talk: Ahmadiyya Muslim Community#Proposal --Peaceworld 22:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

DRN: Islam template[edit]

Discussion regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the Ahmadiyya from the Islam template is now open at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Template:Islam discussion. Previous consensus here is duly noted. --Bejnar (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge Proposal[edit]

Dear all, I laid out my proposal here Talk:Ahmadiyya_Muslim_Community#Proposal some time ago. I have almost completed my draft version here User:Peaceworld111/Sandbox. I intend to totally merge Ahmadiyya Muslim Community to Ahmadiyya page. In brief summary, from the Ahmadiyya page, I have removed Ahmadiyya#Comparison, Ahmadiyya#Leaders, Ahmadiyya#Relationships and Ahmadiyya#Notable people. As for the latter two, I intend to create new pages. Please leave comments. --Peaceworld 16:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph should make it clear that all major Muslim groups reject the major Ahmadi stream. This is notable because I think the Ahmadis are the largest group self-identifying as Muslim but not recognised by Muslims in general.--عبد المؤمن (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Your assertion is simply untrue, and therefore we should not edit the introductory paragraph as such. Ogress smash! 20:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear all, I have updates the page. It's not perfect, but hopefully it is somewhat better than the previous version. It's September and I'll be getting busy and at the moment I feel that it still needs better referencing.--Peaceworld 11:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
One more thing, I'd like to request an admin to remove semi-protection from Ahmadiyya Muslim Community as that will need to be merged. Thanks.--Peaceworld 11:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I see a problem both wit the merge and with the Ahmadiyya article in general. There are two prinicipal Ahmadiyya groups - the Ahmadiyya_Muslim_Community and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement. It is incorrect to equate Ahmadiyya entirely with the former, as is biased to disregard the views of the latter when describing the Ahmadiyya faith. I suggest that either both the traditions are merged into Ahmadiyya or they are kept separate after removal of information that duplicates the main Ahmadiyya article. Until then, treating the Movement as synonymous with Ahmadiyya is POV. kashmiri TALK 12:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Ahmadiyya already mentions Lahore Ahmadiyya movement, far more prominently than,say, Islam mentions Ahmadiyya, even though proportionally there are far more Ahmadis to Muslims than there are Lahore Ahmadis to Ahmadis. An article for the Lahore Ahmadiyya movement is required because otherwise it will be too much undue, whereas the article Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is essentially a duplicate of Ahmadiyya but in a worse condition. In media itself "Ahmadiyya" generally refers to "Ahmadiyya Muslim Community", but whenever there is a reference to Lahore Ahmadiyya it is rarely (or never) without the qualification "Lahore", for example 1. A similar case can be drawn with the Bahá'í Faith even there are Bahá'í divisions.--Peaceworld 14:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya forcing their way into articles regarding Muslim communities in various countries[edit]

The Ahmadiyya are not recognized as Muslims by the Amman Message, there is a very common trend in wikipedia articles to include the Ahmadiyya in the articles regarding Muslim communities in various countries. For example the article on the Muslim community in Denmark had a picture of an Ahmadiyya worship house same is the situation when we have an article on the Muslim community for example in Canada; instead of the usual Islamic Mosque.

Therefore it is very important to differentiate between the Ahmadiyya and the Muslim community, wikipedia must facilitate Ahmadiyya editors to write about their communities worldwide and not jumble themselves in articles about the normal Muslim communities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.102.114 (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

We treat the Ahmadiyya the same way we treat Mormons. Many Christians don't think that Mormons are Christians, but the Mormons do and NPOV means we accept that. Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
With regard to such interfaith ecclesiology issues, I may add that as a Protestant, I may face doubts of the Pope wether my church is a Church at all, but we haven't cared too much for that since doors have been nailed and sausages been eaten ;) Ahmadiyya has been on the forefront of allowing to embody Islam as a part of the german legal system. Thats a Berlin/Frankfurt message which overrules Amman lightly. Serten II (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Dispute over Types of Prophethood[edit]

[Pasted from BoogaLouie talk page and rewritten]

Thank you for looking up the source and for helping in the article, but I apologize to say that the information you provided makes no sense. The Ahmadiyyah have always believed that the Prophethood of their founder is "reflective". The author you quoted is mistaken for not a Single other source exists which says that any reconciliation was arranged. And as he says that this did not go through he has very "conveniently" side stepped the need to provide proof. To be honest without any written proof this is just a "conspiracy theory" which is not notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia.

Ahmadiyyah have always believed in the presence of three types of Prophethood. They have always believed that the founder is the Mahdi. This has never changed. I hope I can convince you to self revertFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

A few points
Ahmadiyyah have always believed in the presence of three types of Prophethood. Then why does the article say However, there are two kinds of prophethood as understood by the Community? If you could take the trouble to delete my edit couldn't you correct that?
I qualified the edit with "According to Charles Kennedy ..." Nonetheless, Kennedy is published in scholarly journals and has spent spent many years in Pakistan. There is no reason to think he is not WP:RS. Do you disagree that there was a change in doctrine that a "reflective" prophet is a third kind of prophet? and that "reflective" prophet are not on the same par as Isa, let alone Muhammad?
What Kennedy is saying, or at least suggesting, AFAICT is not that any "reconciliation was arranged", but that it appears that Mahmud Ahmad hoped that this adjustment in doctrine would calm the rage of the anti-Ahmadi. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what Kennedy thinks. The article isn't about how the idea regarding prophets came about, just like Islam#Prophets doesn't touch upon the "idea" that Prophet Muhammad introduced belief in Jewish prophets merely to gain "Jewish acceptance" in Medina.--Peaceworld 15:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The article is about Ahmadiyya and the section is about Ahmadiyya beliefs on Prophets, What is relevant to the beliefs based on a reliable source has a place in the article -- regardless of what went down in another article.
What about the first question????
Ahmadiyyah have always believed in the presence of three types of Prophethood. Then why does the article say However, there are two kinds of prophethood as understood by the Community? If you could take the trouble to delete my edit couldn't you correct that? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The prophethood according to Ahmadiyyah has two broad types. 1)the one which brings new faith and 2) one which does not bring new faith, but they also differentiate in the second type meaning Prophets who do not bring new faith can either be 1)independent like the israelite prophets who did not bring new books but they were not "reflections" of moses. OR 2) a prophethood which is bestowed by following a prophet, like that of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam ahmad.

Having cleared this up I would like to comment on your edit. Your edit is just a conspiracy theory, the source is not valid because no newspaper reported this, no person involved commented on this and no one knew about this until your source picked this up. Just where did he get to hear of it if it was not in media and no one connected to the proceedings commented on this? therefore your source is not worth printing in Wiki.

Secondly, this is a page about Ahmadiyya beliefs "AS they Think about them". This is not the place to put in what conspiracy theorists think.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Ahmadis cannot be refered to as Muslims or a branch of Islam[edit]

This article has to state in the leader that ahmadiyah is a new religious movement which only claims to be a reform of the religion of Islam and is rejected by all muslims as deviant and its practionioers as apostates and non-muslims

Otherwise it is inaccurate and misleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.94.46 (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Needs a source, otherwise that's just your opinion. Rothorpe (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
make that 'reliable' sources, and even then it wont be done. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we can state that whatever the sources. We can say that is the opinion of attributed sources, but we can't state it as fact. Just as we can't state as fact that the Latter Day Saints aren't Christians, despite the fact that many Christians make that claim. Dougweller (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

We can at least say, that muslims universally view ahmadis as a new religious movement and not as a reform of Islam and that muslims all reject them as non- muslims

http://islamqa.info/en/45525 In the answer to question no. 4060 we have explained that this group, which is known as Ahmadiyyah or Qadianiyyah, the followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, are kaafirs. In that answer you will find a discussion of their kaafir beliefs and what the scholars have said about them. Just one source, you can find so many others yourself, but this is the most popular islamic question and answer site on the Internet and it is clear ahmadis are kafir or disbelievers

It's simply not acceptable for this article to state that ahmadiyah is a branch of Islam when the only people who think that are themselves

Otherwise by this logic we should have the islamic state Wikipedia page saying they are pure, original, perfect islam, which they are, but I can't get anybody to accept to put that in the leader because so many sources deny that obvious truth

So how when every source says that ahmadis are not Muslims can we have wikipedia saying they are? It's outrageous

87.244.94.46 (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You have raised zero new points compared to the previous many times this issue has been raised and found zero WP:RS to support your position. Hint: if a source uses a derogatory term to refer to a group being discussed, its whole position on that group's validity would be rejected for purposes of a neutral encyclopedia. If something is so obviously a truth, then there's no need to say it because it's obvious and everyone knows it already. DMacks (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Concurring with DMacks, I don't really think a lesser-known opinion site wherein the authors posit their own personal views on Islam qualifies as an authoritative source definitively declaring Ahmadi Muslims to not being "truly" Muslim, especially when they denigrate and insult Ahmadi Muslims by referring to them as "kaafirs". It's not a particularly strange for this to occur, though, seeing as many Christians denigrate Mormons as not being "true" Christians, and many Roman Catholics don't even consider Mormonism to be "true or good" to Christianity.
Interdenominational and internal conflict between religious groups is common, and it's nothing new, but it is not Wikipedia's obligation to choose sides. From my understanding, when considering Ahmadiyya and its beliefs, it is a branch of Islam, just as Mormonism is a branch of Christianity. It may be a sect, and it may be rejected by many mainstream adherents, and those adherents may not even like their classifying those sects as branches of their religion; but that is where we stand because it is the most neutral and secular standpoint. Ahmadi Muslims consider themselves Muslims, and they adhere to many of the same doctrines as do mainstream Muslims. If you think they are not "true" Muslims, then perhaps you should proselytize or debate with them in a forum of your choosing. As an encyclopedia, however, our only obligation is to consolidate and summarize the world's knowledge and verify it so as to ensure its accuracy. I don't believe the source you provided, 87.244.94.46, qualifies as a verifiable source.
Having said that, I do believe we should find some more reliable sources verifying Ahmadiyya as a branch of Islam, and as the third largest branch in Islam. The current sources are, in my opinion, not very strong, and one of them appears to be a dead link. I'll try to improve this. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 06:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I have added numerous citations, perhaps too many, in my recent edit. I was unable to find anything other than that Adherents.com site claiming that Ahmadiyya is the third largest branch of Islam. There are are many sources claiming that it is a branch of Islam, and many providing statistics on various branches, but adding this together may be WP:SYNTH. In any case, you can see my edit here. I also added a sentence at the end of the lead detailing that Ahmadis are not only widely persecuted, but also considered heretical or non-Muslim by most Muslims. Hopefully this will help quell those complaints that we are misrepresenting Islam. There, now it's verified that public opinion is not favorable about Ahmadis. Until proven otherwise, however, Ahmadiyya will continue to be referred to as a branch of Islam, since I noticed significant consensus among scholars that Ahmadiyya is a branch of Islam. Most everyone treats them as a branch of Islam, so we should, too.
Also, I found this Human Rights Watch report about the persecution of Ahmadis. The page I linked to has a footnote detailing that they believe that estimates of around 20 million "would be appropriate" in determining the number of Ahmadis globally. Should this be added, and if so, which citation template should I use? It's not a book, nor a journal. Which should be used here, assuming we cite this? I found this on the Ahmadiyya by country article. I also found this encyclopedia entry about Ahmadiyyah, which also details how they are considered heretical. Should this be added? If so, I can do so with the encyclopedia template.
If anyone disagrees with my edit, or has a problem with it, feel free to bring it up here. Thanks ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 10:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@Nøkkenbuer: good job. The more RS and sourced information you add the better. I find the article at its present form very biased and as highly exaggerating the number of Ahmadis in the world. Please someone fix. Khestwol (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Why do you think the article is currently biased, or that the number of adherents are greatly exaggerated? Some estimates have put the number of adherents closer to 170 million, from what I've read, though they are confirmed by any independent research. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 13:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Adherents.com is not reliable. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_116#Adherents.com. Wiqi(55) 13:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Would you recommend that we remove the source, then? What about the claim it's supporting, namely that Ahmadiyya is the third largest branch of Islam? Should we remove that per WP:SYNTH, or leave it up as an unverified claim? If we do remove it, we could state that Ahmadiyyah is simply a branch of Islam. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 14:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the source and claim should be removed. Also when dealing with controversial/disputed information, I would recommend that we summarize or use wording found in high-quality sources (and not make up our own descriptions). For instance, EI2's "Ahmadiyya" starts with "an organized religious community, ...", while Britannica uses "modern Islamic sect".[10] These two descriptions are neutral and more informative compared to what's currently in the lede here. Wiqi(55) 16:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I suppose so. Here are three proposals with slightly different wording. If we were to replace the introductory sentence, which, if any, do you think is best?

Ahmadiyya (/ɑːməˈdiʲə/; officially the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community or the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at) is an Islamic religious movement, founded in British India near the end of the 19th century.

Ahmadiyya (/ɑːməˈdiʲə/; officially the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community or the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at) is a religious sect of Islam, founded in British India near the end of the 19th century.

Ahmadiyya (/ɑːməˈdiʲə/; officially the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community or the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at) is an Islamic community, founded in British India near the end of the 19th century.

Alternatively, we can keep it as referring to Ahmadiyya as a branch of Islam. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 17:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Please note that britannica is a non-reliable tertiary source and we cannot count it as an RS on an article relating to Islam. I suggest removing the term "modern" recently added because that wording would imply other, major sects are not contemporary. Also, I suggest using the wording "...is a minor Islamic sect..." in the lede for clarification and neutrality. Plus, I would like someone to add RS about the total number of Ahmadis worldwide (I am sure it must be far lower than the dubious adherents.com estimate, perhaps even far lower than 0.5% of all Muslims). Khestwol (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
So I have added the word "minor" to the lede, and fixed Arabic transliteration as well. It now reads

Ahmadiyya (/ɑːməˈdiʲə/;[1] officially the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community or the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at; Arabic: الجماعة الإسلامية الأحمدية‎, transliterated: al-Jamā'ah al-Islāmiyyah al-Aḥmadiyyah) is a minor Islamic sect founded in British India near the end of the 19th century.

I hope it is more neutral, although it still refers to Ahmadiyya as a sect of Islam that the OP objected to. Khestwol (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I haven't seen "minor" used in any reliable source. I mean this is the type of claim that needs to be sourced before being added to the article. For now, I think we should remove "minor" and just leave it as "an Islamic sect founded ... ", which is common in many sources. Wiqi(55) 17:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
What about "religious movement"? "Sect" possesses some negative connotations of it being heretical. Should we use sect here, or would movement be a better descriptor? ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 18:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I agreed with the suggestion by Wiqi55. Changed to "...is an Islamic sect founded...". Khestwol (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@Nøkkenbuer: RS use the wording "sect" so it is ok to also use it on wikipedia. "Sect" only indicates Ahmadis have a major difference from the other over ~99.5% of Muslims. Khestwol (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Ahmadis are still regarded to be Muslims in official terms. Hajme 02:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Ahmadiyya". Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. September 2005. 

"Sect"[edit]

The word sect has negative connotations, it's use here is highly POV. I understand that many orthodox Muslims believe it to be non-Islamic, but that is irrelevant in this case, that has been noted throughout the article anyway. No other branch has been described as such, e.g. Ibadi Muslims, Yazidi's, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, none of them are called "sects". If the link links to branches of Islam then call it a "minor Islamic branch", or "new Islamic movement", or even "Islam-based movement" but I oppose the use of "sect", that implies a Manson-esque style movement.Abcmaxx (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources support using the term "sect". Google Books results confirm using the term "sect" is ok to describe the Ahmadi sect. Khestwol (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
That does not prove anything, books can be biased as well, I can search tons of books saying even mainstream Islam is a dangerous sect, that doesn't render it true. This branch is far too large to be considered simply a "sect", and it has derogatory connotations. We have to be neutral and consistent, using the word sect when other religious branches are not called so who perhaps have even more claim to be considered so is POV. The Ahmadi's don't consider themselves a sect, and that is what counts. In fact the 3rd result of the search you've provided says The Ahmadiyya Movement had not been created as just another sect of Islam so you just shot yourself in there foot there Abcmaxx (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if you consider the Ahmadis "too large" to be considered a sect it does not change anything. How is less than 10 million out of all Muslims too large? WP:RS still describe them as a sect and that is what matters here. Khestwol (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
10 million-20 million is more than most countries' population. Also, Google Books also shows Sunni Islam is a sect, but in the article it says "branch" Abcmaxx (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I must say I'm torn on this matter. It's true that some reliable sources describe Ahmadiyya as a sect, and Ahmadiyya does qualify to be described as one, but they have been described in numerous other ways, many of which are more neutral. Sect does carry a bit of a negative connotation (you can thank Christendom for that), so I would say that "religious movement" is more neutral. Like Abcmaxx pointed out as well, we don't describe Jehovah's Witness, Mormonism, or many of the other religious groups which qualify as a "sect" as sects. Why should we single Ahmadiyya out? Just because some reliable sources describe it as much? We are only obligated to report the information the reliable sources provide, but we are not obligated to use the same exact wording unless it's a quote. In my opinion, I think more discussion is needed, or at least more input from other users. I personally believe "religious movement" should be used, but if more people prefer "sect" and they have valid reasons for choosing it, then perhaps we should keep "sect". ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 09:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
It looks like a never ending debate now, but fact remains that they are Muslims and officially considered as such by most of the nations. Hajme 02:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree. The problem, however, is describing their category. Are they a sect? A branch? A cult/new religious movement? A denomination? A community? This is where things become less clear. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 02:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes every of those particular terms would describe their existence, that they are official Muslims. Hajme 08:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)