Talk:Ahmadiyya Caliphate

old section

Both Ahmadi factions like to refer to themselves as "Ahmadi Muslims", and are quite sensitive about this. It may be unfair to use this term only for the members of the Lahore party. Nazli 06:44, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Are you referring to the last sentence? The way I read the current version, it actually implies exactly what you are saying—that some Ahmadi Muslims, the Lahori group, do not agree...—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 07:49, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

One party is currently refered to as: "Members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community", while the wording for the second party is "Ahmadi Muslims belonging to the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement". My feeling is that members of both factions would like to be called Ahmadi Muslims. Personally, I am fine with the text as it is, but some memebers of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community may object.Nazli 11:14, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Let me see what I can do. Or you can.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:15, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Though now that I look at it, the main article on Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is even worse on this count.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:19, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

How is it now? I am hoping that working on this will help define an approach that can be used to NPOV the two main articles on the two (sub-)sects.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:35, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Looks fine now.Nazli 02:26, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Qadianism

Anybody that gives any honorable status to Mirza Qadiani whether as prophet, nabi, or mujadid, messiah, mahdi, etc, is follower of Qadianism. You cannot believe in Mirza Qadiani in any shape or form and be a Muslim. The Lahoris are also followers of Qadianism.

Siddiqui 07:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That may or may not be the case. From a Wikipedia standpoint it is immaterial - Its one point of view. You are free to perpetuate it, however not at the expense of opposing povs. Your point of view receives full attention and time in all articles related to Ahmedism/Qadianism. It it only fair that the opposing point of view be given as much importance.Nazli 08:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ahmad.png

Image:Ahmad.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Major cleanup performed

Sources like "Alislam.org" are not reliable. According to a user FreeatlastChitchat's requirements: Firstly this is an encyclopedia, we try our best not to put in what the subject thinks about himself/herself, for example we dont put in Mr XYZ think that he is the king of the world. Secondly we are here to make sure that 'promotional' adjectives and words are deleted from an article to make it neutral in weight and NPOV.... So basically you need to provide 'reliable third party' sources if you want to put this sort of stuff in, and even then it will have to be heavily copyedited. [1]

Thus, all unreliable sources on this page are subject to removal. There is also a lot of puffery in breach of NPOV. All promotional advertisements need to be removed from this page. Code16 (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat, I will point you to WP:BRD, WP:TALKDONTREVERT, and WP:EW. Stop reverting justified deletions arbitrarily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Code16 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Mistake needs to be corrected regarding Calipha of Islam

Right now, Google is showing Mirza Masroor Ahmad as a current caliph of Islam. When we search "who is the current caliph of Islam" then it shows Mirza Masroor Ahmad as Rich Snippet. And, this is the quoted text from where Google finds the answer "The 5th and current caliph is Mirza Masroor Ahmad." This sentence "The 5th and current caliph is Mirza Masroor Ahmad." in Wikipedia should be changed to "The 5th and current caliph of Messiah is Mirza Masroor Ahmad." (Even Muslims do not believe Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as Massiah but Qadiyani do). Mirza Masroor Ahmad is the current caliph of Massiah not of Islam, according to Mirza Masroor Ahmad page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MatiUlHassanChattha (talk • contribs) 17:03, December 13, 2020 (UTC)

@MatiUlHassanChattha:, not our monkeys, not our circus. Google snippets have a reporting mechanism that we are not involved with. This article already clearly states in the lead: Since the Ahmadiyya is widely viewed as a heterodox movement by the mainstream of Sunni and Shi'ite Islam, most Muslims outside the movement do not recognise Ahmadi claims to a caliphate as valid. If you have a problem with what Google shows when you ask it that question, take it up with them. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn Qadiyani claims it valid but they also do not claim him as a Calipha of Islam. There is a clear mention on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's page that he was Calipha of Massiah not of Islam. That's the concern for which it needs to be edited.