Talk:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi

Purpose of this page

As mentioned in this header, the purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. Given the concerns expressed about the article's content, efforts to improve it are warraranted. The addition of adequately-referenced content, based on independent external sources, and worded in a neutral and factual manner, may avoid deletion or truncation of the article. But continued and repetitive professions of belief will be removed, and inhibit the chances of saving this article. The beliefs or faith of contributors are not being challenged, but expressions of that faith are not encylopaedic in tone, and therefore have to be removed under the policies of Wikipedia. Kablammo 21:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia

Dear Administrators,

May I take this opportunity to thank you all for including the profile of His Holiness Syedna Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, internationally renowned spiritual personality and Founder of International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam. I think its been already told to Wikipedia Administrators that His Holiness is the Founder of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam (ASI)only and the Official Website of His Holiness and ASI is http://www.goharshahi.pk/ .We have some other associate websites as well listed below:

http://www.goharshahi.net/EnglishUnder-construction

http://www.goharshahi.org/Urdu

http://www.asipak.com/Urdu

http://www.sarfrosh.com/Urdu

Wikipedia is the largest Encyclopedia on NET and I am of the view that the purpose of an Encyclopedia is to include the information based on facts and realities. Only above listed websites belong to His Holiness Gohar Shahi and are the true representative of His Holiness & ASI. No other website should be consider or include into the page of His Holiness as they have no rights to represent His Holiness or ASI. It is already mentioned that so many enemies of His Holiness and ASI are actively working against His Holiness and ASI, some of them are working on NET by presenting FAKE WEBSITES with the claim that these are the OFFICIAL OR AUTHENTIC websites of His Holiness, which is totally wrong. You must have noticed that as soon as this article was written by one of our fellow, the enemies of His Holiness and ASI started to create obstacles by unnecessary amendments and creating link or irrelevant websites under the umbrela of different names. Therefore, I would like to request WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATORS that either restrict the rights of amendments for this page to only for the Iamsaa (Creator of this page)and WP. Make it sure that nobody who is wrongly representing His Holiness Gohar Shahi, should not be include into the page of His Holiness.

Moreover, I have noticed that this article hasn't got much information about His Holiness, I would like to further request to give sometime and we will get back to you shortly with authentic and appropriate information about His Holiness.

Kind regards,

Press & Information Secretary

Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam

Pakistan --Asikhi 05:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for editing

According to the text "was a Pakistani author, spiritual leader and founder of the spiritual movement Anjuman Serfroshan-e-Islam."

From the above text it seems that he was spiritual leader of most of Pakistanis. whereas it is not true..so please edit it to spiritual leader of his own group..which is a cult/minority{{subst:unsigne|116.58.111.34}}

That is a bizarre reading of the opening sentence. I don't see how your interpretation is remotely logical. He's a "Pakistani...spiritual leader" clearly does not equal "He's a spiritual leader of most of Pakistanis" any more than He's "a Pakistani author" equals "He's the most widely-read author in Pakistan". — Scientizzle 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

This is getting ridiculous. Wikipedia is not here to provide an avenue for propaganda that is either pro- or against any group! I've fully protected the page since it seems there's no agreement about which external links to provide. I've tried to comprimise, keeping all of them, and I've tried removing the whole section. I'm inclined to re-remove the whole section now in a pseudo-King Solomon move: either you people work out what should stay, or nobody gets an external link to whatever warring faction they prefer.

What's it going to be? — Scientizzle 18:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, please familiarize yourselves with Wikipedia:External links. — Scientizzle 18:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Protest

I strongly protest against the page protection of the article on His Holiness Gohar Shahi as being the Author of this article at least I should have the rights to amend or edit. Moreover, as I have been told earlier that a group of enemies is working against His Holiness Gohar Shahi but they pretend to be follower of His Holiness and have developed several websites using pictures of His Holiness but the matter and the information provided on their websites is contrary to the teaching of His Holiness and Islam. Moreover, its been proved with the provided sources that His Holiness was the chief of International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam, that’s why I strongly recommend that Official Websites which are being operated by Central Serfrosh Publication Committee, Kotri should be included into this article as it doesn’t violate WP’s External Link policy. I take full responsibility of the content on following website being Office Bearer of International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam:

www.goharshahi.pk

www.goharshahi.net

www.goharshahi.org

www.sarfrosh.com

www.asipak.com

I hope you will retrospect your decision in the light of aforesaid facts. Regards, --سگِ گوھرشاہی 11:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As the article's initial author you have no more right to edit this page than any other editor. Currently, if you want to edit this page, you'd need to apply {{editprotected}} here on the talk page with a clear message as the what the edit should be and its justification. The protection time is limited to prevent in-article battling over links but not to permanently prevent editing.

That said, the purpose of the protection was to encourage discussion of the appropriate external links (if any) to apply to this article. Edit warring is inappropriate. — Scientizzle 16:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Missing Details

This article is still lacking in providing extensive information on Shahi. I think his family background, teachings, beleifs should also be added in order to make it complete.

--202.133.76.98 12:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

His Holiness Gohar Shahi & International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam

I am of the view that the Movement and the personality are two different things and they should remain seperate. Therefore, please undo the merge of His Holiness' page with Serfaroshan-e-Islam. --سگِ گوھرشاہی 09:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsaa (talk • contribs)

I completely disagree--the movement article had no reliable sources attached to it. None. All of its notability is associated with this figure. Both pages are constantly being filled with unencyclopedic propaganda and unsourced claims. This allows all the information to be available in one location, making the separate notability a non-issue and making it simpler to keep an eye on the subject to prevent it from being overrun by agenda-driven efforts. — Scientizzle 15:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Every day some IP from the same region of Pakistan continually reverts this article to an unsourced version without discussion. I've protected the article to prevent this from occurring for a while--please discuss here what changes should be made to the article in its current state. The current version is completely sourced--I know, because I wrote it. Anything added should be also. This is for everyone's benefit: unsourced additions by those fanatically devoted to Shahi open the door for unsourced additions from those opposed. Do you understand? — Scientizzle 18:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems totally absurd to say that Gohar Shah, who died outside of Pakistan, was murdered in Jail. Please supply factual information. We want to know which country's jail he was in when he died and what supporting evidence is there for his murder if at all - seems to me that he was one among many other 'Messiahs' and 'Mahdis' who claimed such a status throughout the 19th/20th centuries. Names such as Mirza Ghulam Ahmed, Bahaullah, Elijah Muhammad and numerous others including from Christendom and Judaism come to mind - all frausters out to gain publicity, prestige and material value. Incidently, the moon has always looked the same. Fantasists will see anything in anything and hence psychoticism also comes to mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.9.41.50 (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Quick comment

There appears to be so little in terms of reliable sources about this organisation "Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam" that I suggest we either cover it using available sources in a paragraph or so, or that we remove the section entirely and focus on the article topic (mentioning the organisation in passing). ITAQALLAH 00:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Trimming the Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam sounds perfectly reasonable to me. The organization was originally a separate page (see here) and I merged it into this article. It was clear that the version prior to the redirect wasn't going to pass WP:N/WP:V muster, and this seemed like a reasonable middle ground. I know Asikhi (talk · contribs) is keen on creating a separate page for the group--see User:Asikhi, an apparent working draft. — Scientizzle 00:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

GA

Falconkhe , you are a main contributer to this article and thus can not review it [1]--Be happy!! (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

Review of Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm afraid this article is not a GA, not even close. The writing is really quite bad, with lots of missing punctuation and grammar. And it's obviously written from a non-NPOV. I mean, "His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi"? And it's not broad enough anyway.

Please do not nominate this again until it has had a thorough cleanup. Noble Story (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Bias

Excuse me for coming on so strong about this, but I feel that the article is still subtly biased, although I can see there has been a lot of editing done. Also, there are some factual errors, and it does not do justice in explaining Gohar Shahi's life and legacy. Other sources say that Gohar Shahi is NOT muslim, but indeed preaching Divine Love to all. They say he is not trying to CONVERT anyone to Islam, but rather teaching people to love God through their preffered religion. You probably shouldn't ignore this point, as it seems crucial to what Gohar Shahi's teachings and message is all about. I'm sorry, but I think it's rather important that you edit the article extensively or simply delete it. I must inform you that many people do not agree with the way Gohar Shahi is presented in the article as it leaves out some important points of his Spiritual Journey as well. Please do fix those mistakes. Actually, I'm leaning towards deleting it and redoing the whole article, because everytime I try to edit the article to include such facts, it is changed back. I hope I didn't offend anyone. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)).

ASI only...?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
ASI Only? Hi... I was reading through the talk page of this article and I came across that comment from Asikhi, who says that ASI is the ONLY movement founded by Gohar Shahi. Excuse me for being skeptical, but Messiah Foundation International seems like a legitimate group, and they have wonderful teachings unifying people from all religions and sects, just like Gohar Shahi wanted.I don't think theres anything wrong with that...and judging from what I know about Gohar Shahi (which is quite a lot), I have to say their teachings coincide with His message--including ISLAM-- and I don't think you should be so quick to discredit. I suppose these people fall under your definition of "enemies of ASI and Gohar Shahi", but they seem far from it and I request that you please stop editing everything I add about them, calling it vandalism. By the way, since when are the great UNIVERSAL teachings of Gohar Shahi restricted to ASI only? I find it highly contradicting and I think anyone in support of Gohar Shahi should be allowed to support him without being considered enemies by your organization. Thanks and please don't take it offensively, I am simply sharing my views on the matter. (154.5.1.212 (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC))

Hi... I was reading through the talk page of this article and I came across that comment from Asikhi, who says that ASI is the ONLY movement founded by Gohar Shahi. Excuse me for being skeptical, but Messiah Foundation International seems like a legitimate group, and they have wonderful teachings unifying people from all religions and sects, just like Gohar Shahi wanted.I don't think theres anything wrong with that...and judging from what I know about Gohar Shahi (which is quite a lot), I have to say their teachings coincide with His message--including ISLAM-- and I don't think you should be so quick to discredit. I suppose these people fall under your definition of "enemies of ASI and Gohar Shahi", but they seem far from it and I request that you please stop editing everything I add about them, calling it vandalism. By the way, since when are the great UNIVERSAL teachings of Gohar Shahi restricted to ASI only? I find it highly contradicting and I think anyone in support of Gohar Shahi should be allowed to support him without being considered enemies by your organization. Thanks and please don't take it offensively, I am simply sharing my views on the matter. Also, THIS IS A USER TALK PAGE.. I didn't know THIS was going to be mercilessly edited so that my comments are deleted..what the heck is going on..THIS IS a FREE encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit..whoever deleted my comments is being ridiculously childish. (Omirocksthisworld (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 08:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Protected

There's been a lot of vandalism & edit warring recently; as such, I've fully protected the article. For those with actual constructive comments, please discuss the relevant issues on this talkpage. — Scientizzle 23:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting this article, Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam is the only movement founded by His Holiness himself, however, to propogate missionary activities in foriegn countries His Holiness formed American Sufi Insititute for USA, R.A.G.S. International for UK and All Faith Spiritual Movement for other European countries. But these all above organizations work under the umbrella of ASI. MFI is a slef-made cult, which pretend to be follower of His Holiness but actually they are active to propogate self-made concepts and teachings, which are contrary to the teaching of His Holiness and Islam. Their target is to provoke Muslims against His Holiness. --Asikhi (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

MFI

Actually, i really disagree with the comment about MFI, as they, presuming they dont edit the words said by Gohar Shahi himself in a VIDEO, strictly follow his teachings. I severely doubt their discrimination against Muslims, as they seem to be propagating DIVINE LOVE, introduced by Gohar Shahi himself, for all..including Muslims. Also, why would they WANT to "provoke Muslims against His Holiness"? By the way, do they KNOW you are degrading them? How do we know ASI is not the one turning Muslims against His Holiness? Its really not moralistic to talk bad about people without letting them know that you are against them. Im just wondering if you have all the authority over organizations by Gohar Shahi. Please stop this nonsense. (75.156.36.226 (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC))

Excuse me, I replied to you in this section, why did you delete my comment?-- NY7 ☆ 22:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Small clarification

Intended to edit the text, but it was protected. In section Biography, paragraph 3:

According to Shahi, at about the age of thirty four Bari Imam appeared before him and said ...

should be enhanced with: "thirty four Bari Imam, in a vision appeared", etc. to explain how this 17c guy spoke to a 20c guy. Said: Rursus ☻ 10:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

More small clarifications

Followed the link about that alleged murder and found that he was accused for some things in a lump:

• Murder of an Amina Khatoon,
• charges that he was working for 'secret agencies',

Hmm - regarding the history of Pakistan, it seems this is a common method to annihilate opposition. It would clarify if all accusations are mentioned in the same context, everybody with a clear head will then see things for what they are. Said: Rursus ☻ 10:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Lack of Information

This page does not have enough to say about Gohar Shahi. Rather, just mentions all the positivities. I think this page should mention all facts throughout his life and his so-claimed "death" which many of his followers believe to be disappearance. Another organisation, which I have come across over the internet, the Messiah Foundation Interntional, claim to be the official organisation of Gohar Shahi. This page should mention both facts, regarding Anjuman Serfroshan-e-Islam as well as Messiah Foundation International. This page should also talk about the disciples of Gohar Shahi and what they believe him to be, as I have read on the internet, (www.goharshahi.com) and (www.theawaitedone.com) that people claiming to be his disciples believe him to be the Awaited Mehdi, Promised Messiah and Foretold Kalki Avatar.

Such big claims need to be cached and need to be mentioned, nonetheless, without bias. I would recommend this page be put up for speedy-deletion and be then remade by a more responsible person (if made at all). --Nasiryounus (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Doesn't provide you a space to advertise self-proclaim cults like MFI or Younas. This article is complete in all the aspects and no need to add information about MFI or www.goharshahi.com because it doesn't belong to Shahi nor MFI was founded by RAGS. The only organization founded by RAGS was Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam. --Spiritualism (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree

that this information shouldn't be added, because if an organization even claims to be connected with Gohar Shahi then it should be mentioned in a neutral way. It is clear that both ASI members and MFI members do not have the same beliefs/interests. It should be mentioned that Anjuman Sefaroshan-e-Islam and MFI claim to belong to Gohar Shahi, though they do not acknowledge the other as followers of Gohar Shahi due to their difference in opinion regarding the rank of Gohar Shahi. It should also be mentioned that MFI believes Gohar Shahi to be the awaited messianic figure and ASI believes Gohar Shahi to be a Sufi Saint, and that members of MFI are inclined to believe that Gohar Shahi has gone into miraculous occultation while members of ASI do not, and have rather built a shrine in his honor. And I think it's important to explain that the reason ASI opposes MFI so fiercely is because they believe that MFI is blaspheming Islam by declaring Gohar Shahi to be the universal messianic figure, while MFI believes that ASI degrades Gohar Shahi by calling him a Sufi only and calling him a Muslim instead of the universal spiritual master they believe him to be. These facts should be presented in a neutral way so that the coverage on Gohar Shahi is broader. If there is always a debate over which group is the "self-proclaimed cult" and if there is constant edit-warring between the groups, then it does not serve the purpose of the article, which is to provide information about Gohar Shahi in the most accurate and neutral way possible. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

• I disagree to you too, you have to understand that reasons:

1. ASI need not to claim being belonging to Gohar Shahi because ASI was founded by Gohar Shahi himself, contrary to that MFI is a self-made cult.
2. ASI is following the teaching of Gohar Shahi but contrary to that MFI is working against the teaching of both Gohar Shahi & Islam.
3. The only official platform of the followers of Gohar Shahi is ASI not any other movement.
4. Even in above mentioned para you have said many thing, which are totally against the teaching of Gohar Shahi i.e. You don't want him to be called a Muslim Leader, contrary to your this statement His Holiness Gohar Shahi has mentioned this many times in public gatherings that "I am a Muslim, beleived in Holy Quraan and I am a follower of Imam Abu Hanifa".
5. Debate if fruitful, if there's any possibility to reach on a compromize but I regret to say that in your case you stand no chance, because you belong to a self-made cult, which has one point agenda i.e. to defame His Holiness Gohar Shahi. I don't want to waste my precious time with you.
6. I am very well aware that what is the reality of MFI, MFI is a cult of limited people, which are based in UK and they can be counted on fingers.
7. So, please don't try to do anything destructive.

Thanks & regards,--Asikhi (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Asikhi, if you think so, why don't you contribute with the Messiah Foundation International article, but please DO use reputable sources and not nonconstructive ideas as what you've mentioned above.Nasiryounus (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't remove the "Check Neutrality" Tag on this article

Until significant changes have been made to improve the article's neutrality. I think it would be good to first discuss it on the the talk page before trying to remove the tag. Please discuss how to improve the article's neutrality here. (Karenroon (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

Once again, someone has tried to remove the "Check Neutrality" tag. Please at least try to change the article before doing this. Thank you. (Karenroon (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

I think significantly work has been done to make this article NPOV and according to wikipedia. I think pasting a neutrality tag is very much unjust.--Asikhi (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the article was tagged, no changes have been made except for grammar and formatting. Please understand that the tag is there so that other users know that this article may need more information or changed wording, and can contribute more. (Karenroon (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)) For example, from the discussion above, there seems to be two different views on groups attributing themselves to Gohar Shahi, and there seems to be some edit warring between them too.(Karenroon (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

RFC: Is this article missing information?

Is it important for the article's neutrality and overall coverage of Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi to include more information regarding different groups associating themselves with him? See section "I disagree" and "Lack of Information" above. Karenroon (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• • yes, it covers everything.--Spiritualism (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see from how you responded to user:nasiryounus in "Lack of Information", it seems like you carry certain biases. I think it would be better to wait for some other editor to comment on this issue, someone who is not affiliated with Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi or any organization associated with him. Thanks. (Karenroon (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

• • • I think that this article is enough to tell about GS. No need to add any further things.--Asikhi (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, from what you wrote in "I disagree" and in earlier comments, it is understood that you too have biases. Lets wait for a third party to comment please. Thanks (Karenroon (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

• • I don't think that ASIKHI has been dispensing the exact piece of information. Upon my research, I have discovered that Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi is believed by many to have actually disappeared than to have died. And many followers of his have claimed him to be the Mehdi for the Muslims, Messiah for the Jews and the Kalki Avatar for the Hindus. And I believe that there is also a "representative" which this article does not mention. If I am granted permission by official wikipedia editor, who is not bias, unlike some of the editors here. I have researched upon Shahi across the internet quite a lot, and I seem to find that this article does not include the aftermath of Shahi's supposed disappearance, and according to many sites that relate to Shahi, it seems that Shahi actually "disappeared" on the 27th of November, rather than the said "25th of November" in this article. Thanks.Nasiryounus (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible if reputable sources could be provided to prove Shahi's death?

It has been brought to my knowledge, that Shahi's death (as claimed by this article) isn't believed by many, including his followers. For example, an organisation which claims to represent Shahi, Messiah Foundation International claims that Shahi has disappeared (occultation) rather than died.

So, it'd be nice if this article provided a reference which proves the death. Nasiryounus (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• And you are member of it.--Falconkhe (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • A member of what? And, do consider what I've suggested.Nasiryounus (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    • A member of MFI and follower of younus.--Falconkhe (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
      • No, I am not. I am a neutral editor, and would like to pose and put forward points to furnish and improve articles, such as this one, and the ones related to this, such as Messiah Foundation International and some others. And that's weird, I've already told you that I'm not linked to this organisation nor their works. For god sake, consider my point, rather than asking me inappropriate questions.-- NY7 ☆ 22:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
        • You are lying once again, you are emotionally linked with younas khanzeer.--Falconkhe (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you know, your tone is actually quite offensive? You're using swear words from the Urdu language against AlGohar, whom (according to you) I am emotionally linked with (which, as I said earlier, I am not).

And, you've not passed any remarks regarding my suggestion.-- NY7 ☆ 05:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sub-section in Sufism

Gohar Shahi has a sub-section in the generic article Sufism. Apart from the edit war going on there, some editors feel that Shahi should not have a place amongst these few "great sheikhs" such as:

• Bayazid Tayfur al-Bistami
• Ibn Arabi
• Junayd
• Mansur al-Hallaj

but would merit a mention in that article.

See Sufism#Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi

Please feel free to comment on the Sufism talk page. Esowteric+Talk 09:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Name calling

ORIGNAL NAME "GOBAR SHAHI" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.181.108.108 (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In Hindi, Gobar means dung. Esowteric+Talk 12:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That's awfully disruptive, nonconstructive and abusive. Please do not write such abusive things.-- NY7 ☆ 00:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Long-running content disputes

For weeks now, most of the articles involving Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi have been the subject of a slow edit war with several editors spending most of their time undoing other editors' edits. This has also spread in a minor way to the general article on Sufism.

Articles involved include:

• Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi
• Messiah Foundation International
• Younus AlGohar
• RAGS International
• The Representative of Gohar Shahi
• The Representative of Imam Mehdi
• Sufism

For details, see the articles' histories.

There is a dispute as to whether Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi actually died, disappeared, or went into "occultation". I haven't been able to find reliable sources about his death. Hence, edits have involved removing and adding details of death (with possible BLP implications).

There is a dispute over Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi's legitimacy and over the legitimacy of present organizations, and representatives or successors.

As many of his followers believe that he is/was the Mahdi or a messiah, there were attempts to change pages redirecting to Mahdi to redirects to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi.

These disputes have also split over onto talk pages.

Your comments and proposals on how to resolve these thorny issues would be appreciated. Can the issues be solved informally, or does the matter need to go to some kind of formal dispute resolution process? Esowteric+Talk 11:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• There is a no dispute whether Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi actually died, disappeared, or went into "occultation". We believe that he went into Occultation on 25th November 2001. The only organization HE founded was Anjuman Serfroshan-e-Islam and not MFI. Younus has nothing to do with Gohar Shahi, younus is using the name and pictures of Gohar Shahi for his ill-deeds. Through,RAGS International, The Representative of Gohar Shahi & Messiah Foundation International, Younus AlGohar, younus and his companion are using Wikipedia for self promotion of his self-made teachings. So, my point of view is that Younus should stopped on this stage, he shouldn't allow to use wikipedia for his ill-deeds.--Falconkhe (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• With respect, I was looking for a reliable source, such as an obituary or academic source stating that RAGS died in Manchester on such-and-such a date, of pneumonia (or for that matter that he has simply disappeared, whereabouts unknown), not "We believe ...". If there is no dispute, then why are the article histories littered with edit differences like this? Esowteric+Talk 13:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• The article is clearly in the middle of an edit war, which seems to be focused around the section "Claims of Mehdihood". Editors please stop reverting each other and put your arguments for and against the contested change here on this talk page.--JN466 13:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, I'd just like to mention that I'm really glad that a dispute resolution has been raised. Falconkhe, there is clearly dispute regarding Shahi's death or "disappearance" on the internet. I advised you to correct Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi as it was lacking information that was provided on the internet, and let me remind you Wikipedia is not about what you believe, its about what people think about and what information has been provided regarding a certain issue on the internet. You were told to bring about a reputable source that stated that Shahi had died, however, I found sources that said that Shahi had "disappeared" and has not died, and believers think this to be a fulfilment of a prophecy of the Mehdi.

I just think that the information that is provided on the internet should all be on Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, because Wikipedia shows all angels of a certain topic, and Faclonkhe, who claims to be a follower of Shahi, is obviously only providing bias and one-sided information, whereas two or three editors, including me are striving to bring this article to justice, and when I do so, I am accused (by Faclonkhe) to be "emotionally" attached to AlGohar, which I obviously am not.

I personally think that this article should include everything regarding Him that is available on the net, it should be able to mention what people actually think about him as a whole. For example, the issue of his 'Mehdi-hood', that seems to be a great issue over him on the internet, and if you see the original context of this article (formed by Falconkhe) it doesn't seem to mention it at all, and just mentions 'Shahi denied such accusations'. This article has obviously not been doing justice to its potential, and I am just trying to bring this article to its best and to its utmost justifiable state.

Thanks-- NY7 ☆ 13:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• With all due respect to all parties, and let me stress that I'm only recently involved and do not know much of the history of this, but my impression is that there's some conflict of interest on both sides of the discussion, the talk pages seem pretty emotional. Nuujinn (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I mentioned there seems to be two groups following Shahi. One group believes Shahi to be the Mehdi (the same group following Younus AlGohar) and one group believes him to be a Muslim Sufi. I added the subsection "Claims of Mehdihood" to "Claims and criticisms" because I thought it was important to note, as it is one of the most controversial claims surrounding RAGS. I thought it would help give a better overall view of RAGS and the issues surrounding him and his disciples. What I actually did was reorganize the section so that all the controversy relating to Shahi's claimed Mehdihood would be in one section and the rest would be in another see here. Its not really a problem if others want to keep the subsection out, but when my edits got reverted, my copyediting and addition of references got reverted as well. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 20:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this a BLP or not?

The latest edit has made the article an unmarked BLP. Can we have a ruling as to whether or not this is a BLP in the absence of a reliable source giving details of RAGS' death, please? Esowteric+Talk 13:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Have added a request to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi to hopefully obtain a ruling. Esowteric+Talk 14:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from the BLP noticeboard.

Unless there is a wikipedia reliable citation for death or he was born what beyond the reasonable term of maximum life expectancy is, the article should be treated as a Biography of a living person. (there is a specific number of years but it slips my mind) Without a clear reliable citation for his death any date should not be included at all. the most we could do if there are reliable citations commenting that he may of died we could add a comment about that but as unconfirmed reports or something like that and until there is a reliable report the article should be treated as if it is a BLP and as such content added to it about controversial issues such as his unconfirmed death would require exceptional quality sources. Off2riorob (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. With a birth date of 1941 and no reliable source about his death, will treat as a WP:BLP. Have added the category Living people to the article and living=yes to the talk page wikiproject biography. Esowteric+Talk 14:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, as a disinterested observer who isn't a member of any related religion, this edit war has reached the absurd. "No debate" regarding whether RAGS has gone into a non-death mystic state of occultation? I don't object to people having various beliefs, but I do object to the various editors refusing to understand that the difference between "any reasonable person would agree that" and "we believe the following and we are right dangit!". Further, several editors have, regarding Younas, continually made the ridiculously non-WP argument "this notable person is a bad man, and therefore does not deserve an article", and completely, steadfastly, consistently refusing to understand that the article won't be deleted just because they don't like someone. It doesn't matter if Person X ate live babies for lunch, if he meets WP:NOTABILITY his article should not be deleted, period. I've actually mostly removed myself from this dispute since it ate up far too much of my time for an article series getting under 1,000 views a month, but personally I submit that the current debate has became very non-WP. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I am very involved in the content disputes, and I admit I am not without my biases regarding RAGS. However, I think its very important to have cited information about him, regardless of whether the claims made about him are positive or negative. In regards to the issue of RAG's disappearance/death, I agree that the article should be treated as a BLP. I think that until an extremely reliable source mentions the death of Shahi and how he died, it should be mentioned that his whereabouts are unknown. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 20:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I am very pleased that administrators of wikipedia raised this issue. Though, disappearance of Gohar Shahi (GS) is very weak here as no reference has been provided, that's why CN tag is there. But this is fact that MFI is a self-made cult, which was formed by Younus and not GS. The major dispute is that Omi and Nasiryounus are clearly associated with Younus and it is proved through their contributions to WP, they are lying that they don't belong to Younus. Younus was kicked-out from ASI by GS in late 2000 when GS was resident of Manchester, to take revenge from GS younus formed MFI and started defaming GS, soon after disappearance of GS. The major issue here is followers of younus (This could be younus himself) using WP to promote themselves. GS formed ASI not MFI the reference has been provided in this regard. I hope administrator of WP would stop them to defame GS at least on WP. Because Younus is presenting teaching which are contrary to the teaching of GS and younus is using the name & pictures of GS in order to defame him. Should you require any additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks--Spiritualism (talk) 08:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• yeah, that's right Omi and Nasiryounus are continuously violating wikipedia and they are involved in promoting younus and MFI. They belong to younus and its prooved from their contribution to wikipedia.I agree to user Spiritualism.--Your Message (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

Judging by the article history for 9 March 2010, we are very close to an edit war. I'd advise contributors to familiarize themselves with, and abide by, the 3 revert rule in order to avoid administrative sanctions. I'm not an admin and this isn't a threat, just an observation. Esowteric+Talk 09:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see today's edit history of Messiah Foundation International. Another single use account has now been created, too. Esowteric+Talk 10:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Disappearance section

This section needs sorting out asap, if anyone wants to keep it, perhaps trimming back to a simple statement cited somewhere or the whole thing cited. Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've done some research and there are a lot of different reports about Shahi's alleged death. The Guardian mentions that "Gohar Shahi, who claimed to have met Jesus, is reported to have died in 2003. Mr Algohar said he merely disappeared." and this claims that Shahi was murdered in a Pakistani jail (I don't know about this one, as Shahi had allegedly fled to the UK).This report on MFI by UNHCR states, 'According to a January 2006 article by The Sunday Telegraph, though, Gohar Shahi died in 2003 (“three years ago”, The Sunday Telegraph, 15 January 2006), whereas 'the news agency Pakistan Press International (PPI) reports in December 2001 on the burial of Gohar Shahi,“Spiritual figure and founder of Anjuman-e-Sarfarooshan-e-Islam International”, on 12 December 2001 (PPI, 8 December 2001)'. In the same report it states 'In November 2008, the Indian news agency PTI reports on the MFI as“a multi-faith spiritual organisation that promoted the doctrine of divine love since 1980. The organisation was headed by Ra Riaz Gohar Shahi, who had fled the country and is presently based in United Kingdom (UK) after Sindh High Court sentenced him to life imprisonment on charges of blasphemy.” (PTI, 20 November 2008)'. It seems the news agencies are just as confused as the rest, which is why I've come to the conclusion that Shahi's whereabouts are relatively unknown. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 22:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well done, I am busy to read the citations, that the bulls horns and write a simple section that is cited, the one about murdered in jail is not reliable....yes? The gardian is ok but all there is is ..

Mr Algohar, who claims he can heal people of incurable diseases, follows the teachings of Gohar Shahi, who he met in Pakistan 20 years ago.Gohar Shahi, who claimed to have met Jesus, is reported to have died in 2003. Mr Algohar said he merely disappeared ...this could be added but not really, it is very weak indeed and the red cross PDF is also little value. Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, its weak, but its better than nothing I suppose...Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 01:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• May I correct you Gohar Shahi died on 25 November, 2001.--Your Message (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." See WP:VERIFY. Esowteric+Talk 09:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

With a birth year of 1941 and no reliable sources concerning the death, we have been advised that the subject should be treated as a biography of living persons, until we know for certain whether or not he has died. Esowteric+Talk 10:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The artiles are:

• Messiah Foundation International
• Younus AlGohar

Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi is not disputed at all. Why don't you put tags on Messiah Foundation International & Younus AlGohar, because they are disputed.--Your Message (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that is ridiculous. Proof that there are disputes and edit wars is self-evident in the RAGS article history for today alone. Esowteric+Talk 10:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It means you are not neutral administrator of wikipedia, who can't see poor articles like Messiah Foundation International & Younus AlGohar and tagging an article, which is establish on wikipedia.--Your Message (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware that there is trouble with several articles. I'm the one who brought about this RFC about editors' actions in all those articles. Also see today's edit history of Messiah Foundation International. This is just by way of example. Esowteric+Talk 10:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW its not justify your claim remove tag from this article or tag Messiah Foundation International & Younus AlGohar articles as well.--Your Message (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)