Talk:Mujaddid

The Position of Mirza Gulam Ahmad

Ahmadi religious group is making mess with this article as they are insisting to keep the name of Mirza Gulam Ahmad in the list of possible mujaddids. Well, Ahmadis have been officially declared non-Muslims in several Muslim countries like Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Virtually all the significant Muslim denominations including Sunnis, Shi'as, Salafis, Brelvis, and Deobandis and agree that Ahmadis are not Muslims and that Mirza Gulam Ahmad was a Kazzab (Big Liar). Of course, like every religious group in the world Ahamdis are free to believe and practice what they like to but they cannot force their own religious understanding on the Muslim tradition. If some Ahamdi fellows intend to put the name of Mirza Gulam Ahmad in the list of possible mujaddids, they better qualify the inclusion something like this: "For Ahamadis Mirza Gulam Ahmad, too, is a mujaddid."Haqju (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for Wikipedia to label Ghulam Ahmad as a "Big Liar". That is the very definition of POV as the Ahmadiyya believe he was either a mujaddid or the Mahdi (depending on the group). Legal decisions in Pakistan are irrelevant. Ogress _smash! 07:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right, it would not be in line with the wikipedia pov policy to declare anybody as a Kazzab (Big Liar). I am however not giving my own judgement here, positive or negative. I am only stating the position of mainstream Muslim community. You cannot censer different viewpoints in the name of POV policy.

As has been stated above, our controversy can easily be resolved. You may put Mirza Gulam Ahmad's name in the list but with the qualification that he is believed a to be mujaddid by the Ahamdi community, and not by the Muslim tradition.Haqju (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's status as a non-muslim in the eyes of most Muslims, has been stated in no uncertain terms. There is no censor of any point of view. Nazli (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

In the light of our discussion, i have made minor fixes in the article which i hope you would find fair.Haqju (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, the article is balanced and neutral now.124.109.36.88 (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added a few names from the Lahore Ahmadi website linked at the bottom of the page. They have one or two names at every century-mark; before, we missed some. It appears that some names have been attached at the wrong dates: noticeably Ghazali, whom I have listed at the right century-mark, too. This will take A LOT of work! J S Ayer (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I wana add that Mirza Ghulam has made so many statements that he is undoubtfully controversial identity. He claimed to be Mehdi than Misal Massiah than Prophet and now Mujaddid. Abrar Ahmed 18:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is considered to be a "Kafir" by main-stream Muslims. However his did claim to be a "mujadid" was serious enough to warrant attention at the level of the national assemblies by some of the largest Islamic nations. The claim continues to be the source of many emotional discussions. To understand the controversy it is essential to mention him in the list. It would be against the npov policy not to do so. His status as a non-muslim should ofcourse be clearly highlighted.Nazli 13:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Mirza G A Qadiani was not a Muslim thus he does belong in this Muslim article. If we allow all non-Muslim religious person then Jewish, Christian, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. shoould also have to be added.

Siddiqui 11:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad may or may not be considered a Muslim. This is a point of view. The fact is that he was the first person of the last Hijri to claim to be a Mujaddid. As I have stated before his claim was required attention at the level of nation assemblies of some the largest Islamic nations. The issue has continued to be the source of heated debate for decades. The very essence of the dispute regarding the institution of Mujaddid in the last century hinges around him. How can you not mention him in this article? Also since you know very well that this is a contentious issue, you need to discuss this issue before repeatedly making the same changes.Nazli 12:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Muslim Mujaddids. Please create Mujaddid for your religion.

Siddiqui 14:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You are not getting my point: You consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be a non-muslim. This is YOUR point of view. It is not a NEUTRAL point of view. This is an encyclopaedia with a neutral point of view. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's inclusion in the list is desirable for the reasons I have repeatedly stated above. Any encyclopaedia article about Mujaddids would be incomplete without reference to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. The article already clearly states the issue of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's Non-Muslim status. Nazli 14:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

He founded a new religion, like Sikhs Guru Nanak. In who`s book alot of poetry is from Baba Farid. Now should one also consider Nanak as Mujaddid? There are around a billion Muslims, the Ghulamiyya cult is hardly "mainstream". Mhas. 28 March 2008.

The assertion that he founded a 'new' religion is a point of view. The fact that he is considered a non-muslim by may other muslims is clearly stated. He claimed to be a mujaddid and claimed to be a muslim - in fact he was 'officially' declared to be a non-muslim by only one country a that too decades after his death. His importance lies in the fact that he generated tremendous controversy and attention and was well received by many prominent muslims of his time and his claims continue to be believed by a large number of individuals who consider themselves muslims. Whether you consider him a muslim/mujadid or not is a personal/group point of view - this does not however impact his inclusion in this article. Guru Nanak did not claim to be a mujadid or a muslim - no it will not make sense to include him in the list. Nazli (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Identifying some candidates as "the only claimant" seems to be more biased and opinionated than is appropriate. The issue of who is *actually* the mujaddid for a given century is a theological question which wikipedia shouldn't really be a reference for. The most one should really say is that the identification of certain candidates as mujaddid is held by a larger group of Muslims. I got a lot of the names from other webpages (which are listed in the reference section on the bottom) or from wikipedia entries for those individuals. For each person listed, there is *some* non-trivial group of Muslims which identifies them as a mujaddid.

This page is in DESPERATE NEED FOR IDEAS!!!

Salam all...

This page is crying for help! It needs attention! Since an expert is not coming any time soon :D we should work together to make it better. Let us remember one thing...

WHO EVER IS BROWSING THIS IS SURELY LOOKING FOR KNOWLEDGE ON THIS TOPIC!!! WHETHER IT'S A MUSLIM, NON-MUSLIM, POTENTIAL MUSLIM, ACADEMIC, OR SOME COLLEGE DUDE TRYING TO GET A PAPER DONE ON TIME :D

I did some fixing up on the page and I think it still needs more...I will explain what I did in a few days...until then...I want to see some good ideas here..! Abo 3adel (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A Mujaddid as per the Sahih Hadith states that " a person or a group who will remove all evils that have invaded the religion in its pristine form" or " a person or group that will renew the religion to its former and true self". EIther ways- the focal point is to renew the religion or to remove the evils or misunderstandings that have come into a religion. Religion as preached by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) has clearly stated that he was the last Prophet. This has been quoted in the Holy Quran, there are various Sahih Hadiths to this effect. Hence, keeping this simple yet main point in mind- NO ONE can insert Ghulam Mirza as a mujaddid because all of his claims were against the Quran and the Sunnah of our Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). He did not renew the religion but he created a new religion. He claimed to be a Prophet- which is against the religion of Islam as per the Quran & the Sunnah & the overall agreement of the Muslim jurists. He claimed to be Mahdi, the Messiah which also goes against the Hadith as there will be 2 people-separate- one will be the Mahdi & the other will be Isa (AS). Hence, again this disputes the basic tenets of faith. He was a controversial figure whose name in this list has no foundation whatsoever as per the references present. In encyclopedia content- references and sources and logical reasoning is required. Since the Hadith regarding a Mujaddid claims that he will renew the religion & not add to the religion- hence this entirely obliterates Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. In regards to the Qadianis or the Ahmadi's putting his name & claiming that as per their belief he was a mujaddid- that is not correct at all. For Islamic purposes- The Quran & the Sunnah are the origianl points of reference backed up by the majority of the Ulama or the Islamic Jurists- which in the case of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is not there- hence he is not a mujaddid.--Peerbaghdadi11 (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream Muslims vs ALL Mainstream Muslims

There is a significant perrcentage of so called "maintream" Muslims all over the world who have either not heard of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad or have no particular opinion about him. It is mostly in Paksitan, Bangaladesh etc where there is more awareness of this issue. I would be a violation of a neutral point view if every single "mainstream" muslim on earth was included in the blanket statement proclaiming ALL main stream muslims to be in agreement on this issue. I have thus softened the statement by removing the world "ALL". Nazli 06:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, point taken- your edit is considerably better. Tanzeel 16:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

accuracy issues and possible bias

It looks like the references listed are all Ahmadiyya sites, which is by no means a mainstream sect of Islam. Are there no other sources that back these claims? If not, it should be clearly noted that this is the Ahmady perspective and does not represent Islam as a whole. Furthermore, I cannot see how this is anything other than pure speculation and fail to see the merit of it.

rima 23:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wahabi and Qadiani "Propaganda"

The list constitutes the names of possible mujadids - there does not appear to be any issue of propaganda. Removal of the names would be based on a pov and hence a npov policy violation. Nazli 05:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Salafist point of view

Salam. As a Salafist, I will keep this page under close watch in order to make sure that the Salafist point of view is available for anyone who wishes to read about it. I will not interfere with any other point of view, and if it appears that I do then I apologize. This is an encyclopedia and all points of view must be given in an objective manner for all to see. Abo 3adel (talk) 08:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said above, whoever reads this page is looking for information. It is our job as writers to provide it. That's why I think that every opinion of every sect of Islam that believes in this Hadith should be mentioned. Be it sufis, ahmady, baha'ay, or salafy like myself. If you think that a name is not accepted by other groups, write that down next to the name and give references. Don't go deleting names like this anonymous user did 82.23.87.253. Abo 3adel (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The Mujaddid of the 13th Century is Ahmed Raza Khan, whose tomb is located in Bareli of India and whom many Muslims considre as a saint and mujaddid. Kindly ensure that his name remains enlisted.

That sounds good. Different groups will have different conceptions of who is a mujaddid. What this page needs most right now is reliable sourcing citing which groups believe what. gren グレン 22:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Great to finally see some response to my call :D. I will try my best to get some references for Ibn Taymayah and Muhammed bin Abd-al-Wahab. Abo 3adel (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Every time I come here I find that someone has removed some names with out giving any reasons or mentioning anything on this page. The way I see it, all points of views must be mentioned. If you think a name should be added, feel free to add it but don't remove other names just because you don't like the Salafi or whatever, give reasons, discuss, anything!!! Abo 3adel (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

All know that Gulam Ahmed Kaidani and his followers are even not considered as Muslim by the Ijma of Scholars of all the Muslims be they sunni, deobandi, shia or ahle-hadis, how far his name can be added in the list of muslim scholars, when he himself and his followers do not follow tenets of Islam and they are not muslims. "Arr-rumi"

Current additions

The recently added names and their designations are a case of duelling banjos. This is not the place to delineate sectarian/partisan arguments; I also question the use of a Pakistani law case as a cite in regard to Ahmad Ghulam, as Pakistan does not equal "all Muslims". The whole Deobandi-Barelvi rivalry issue is irrelevant as well and their venomous and vituperous debates should not be included in a general discussion of mujaddids. Ogress _smash! 11:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent reversion

Please do not revert the entirety of this page to an older version. Wikipedia guidelines do not allow us to treat this page as a hagiography (giving persons elaborate titles and blessings) nor to include POV weight to any one group. Ogress _smash! 18:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Does the List of "Possible" Mujaddids make a Sense?

I believe that the list of possible mujaddids, or claimed mujaddis, at the end of the article is quite unneccessary for the purpose of understanding the notion of mujaddid. For one thing, according to my knowlege no classial or contemporary source on Islam contians such a centurywise list of mujaddids and we know the fact that Wikipedia is not a forum to introduce original research. From this article, a reader less familiar with Islam can get a wrong impression that sources of the Muslim tradition enlist mujaddids for every century, which is not true.

Secondly, the list has generated a pointless editing war concerning the inclusion or exclusion of certain names. Such claims and counter-claims are hardly constructive or informative.

Therefore, it is proposed that either any of the editors find a good citation which proves that such list(s) of mujaddids is/are found in reliable source material on Islam or we agree to remove the list. Please share your views.Haqju (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please put new comments at the bottom of the page. Ogress _smash! 08:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with removal of the list of Mujaddids. Possibly a reference to the widely acknowledged "mujaddid alif sani" could be made in the main text as an example. Nazli (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the list should be removed entirely. It seems obvious that each name entered into the list should provide a reference supporting that person's position as a mujaddid. This would reduce the list to a mere fraction of its current size as well as providing editors with grounds on which to remove the more absurd suggestions. I have never even heard of half of the people on the list - it seems some people are nominating their local heros without any justifiable grounds to do so. Supertouch (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont think the list should be removed as this is used for referencing and hence gaining more knowledge which is the main objective of an encyclopedia. But I do suggest that any additions to the list for the last century and the current should be backed up by references- this is a must. As just because I consider the Imam of my local masjid a hero and a mujaddid- his inclusion in this list makes no sense at all. A mujaddid as per the Haidth has to have done major work in streamlining the religion to its former original self & this should be widely accepted by a majority of the Ulama & the Islamic jurists of that time & later times. Hence, I suggest a team that would check all referencing provided by the people and their additions to the list. This should be immediately adhered to in my opinion.--Peerbaghdadi11 (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

AHLE SUNNAH WA AL-JAMA'AH

Why is this phrase written in all caps after the majority of names in the list of possible mujaddids? For a good deal of the names this terms is apllied to it seems to have been done so rather loosely. Perhaps the term 'sunni' would be more apparopriate as its present connotation implies reference to someone who is not shiite - the manner in which the previous term seems to have been used. Shouldn't there be a requirement of some documentation for each claim instead of leaving open the very real possibility of people simply adding their personal favorites to the list? Just a suggestion... Supertouch (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The list

The list of possible mujaddids is getting out of hand. People are simply adding their favorite Islamic figure to the list - some are getting Wikipedia accounts and making their sole contribution the addition of their local 'saviour' to the list. There really has to be criteria put in place - the three mentioned in the Dihlawi quote are a sound example for how this process should go. Supertouch (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone has to add Shaikhul Islam Ibn Taymyah since there many known scholars who agree that he is a mujadid.--74.57.85.149 (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)