Talk:Ahmadiyya

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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".[1] 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 (/ɑːməˈdiə/; 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 (/ɑːməˈdiə/; 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 (/ɑːməˈdiə/; 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (/ɑːməˈdiə/; 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 (talk • contribs) 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)

"Sect"

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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)

• Comment I don't see any compelling reasons either not to use or to use the word sect. I am sure that if we used a description with the same meaning such as "offshoot religious belief/movement" then this would be fine. I don't think that it is necessarily derogatory. In this "movement" it would be perfectly possible to interpret that the main branches associated with the religion had all gone off course and that their "offshoot" belief had got back on track. However I also don't see a reason to use it but have to recognise that calling the group a sect does not mean that they are outside Islam. Its the same as, for instance, describing a group as Islamist which, in this case only means that religious related change is being pursued politically. GregKaye 17:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • If we do that, then [2] suggests we need to refer to the "Shiah sect" and even more, [3] shows that we need to refer to the "Sunni sect". As we have many more sources calling those branches of Islam a sect, why don't you start there. Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

"Qadiani"

The following sentence, "Although considered a slur, the term Qadiani is widely used in Pakistan and is the official term used by the government," added by Sakimonk relatively recently, ought to be removed, primarily because it is derogatory religious slur as referenced here and here.--Peaceworld 15:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Following the thoughts at User Talk:MelanieN#Ahmadiyya, perhaps the floowing sentance "Although a slur, the term Qadiani is widely used in Pakistan and is the official term used by the government", could be shifted to Ahmadiyya#Pakistan.--Peaceworld 16:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

did it myself since no response.--Peaceworld 16:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This article requires a cleanup

Sources like "Alislam.org" are not reliable. According to FreeatlastChitchat's own requirements which he has applied to edit other wiki pages, stated as follows: 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. [4]

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) 16:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble dude, but this sort of battleground mentality is not allowed on wikipedia. Next time you get reported FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat, I will point you to WP:BRD, WP:TALKDONTREVERT, and WP:EW. Stop reverting justified deletions arbitrarily.

"Alislam.org" looks like a reliable source for the views of the Ahmadiyya community, it does say it's their official voice. Doug Weller (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Quite right, it says so right on the front page and almost all media outlets and news agencies refer to it when they talk about Ahmadiyyah. Btw Code16 was just deleting content on every article on I worked on because I deleted some of his work. He has since been reported and blocked. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Sir, according to WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. " and "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Now, keeping this standard in mind, please take a look at the "Articles of Faith" category in this article, just as an example. You will notice that pretty much 100% of the material there is self-sourced, i.e. Ahmadiyya sources only. How is that not in breach of sourcing standards of wikipedia? Is this not promotional/Peacock/advertising? And the same applies to some other sections. Do you think an RfC should be open to get other editors to comment on this issue? I've also noticed the same problem with multiple other wiki pages relating to Ahmadiyya content (actually, the problem is even more glaring on those pages.) I believe editorial attention should be focused on all of these pages. What do you think? cӨde1+6 ^{L o g i c B o m b !} 14:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

See WP:SELFSOURCE, nevertheless I'm sure you're welcome to add more sources.--Peaceworld 15:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with WP:SELFSOURCE, please refer to the restrictions it places. And the restrictions which I posted above apply on TOP of those restrictions. WP:SELFSOURCE does not override WP:PSTS, all these wiki guidelines have to be applied together. Also, it was the responsibility of the person including material to have followed guidelines in the first place. cӨde1+6 ^{L o g i c B o m b !} 15:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

so what restrictions do the sources contravene?--Peaceworld 15:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:PSTS: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.. A lot of content on this page is sourced primarily from self-sources i.e. Ahmadiyya sources. That is against the guidelines. Everything requires a 3rd party reliable source (first) and then a primary source can be used to elaborate on what has already been confirmed by 3rd party sources. The promotional content in question, such as in the "article of faith" category is just Ahmadiyya doctrine/dogmas without any 3rd party citations. It might be best to start pinging top editors from the Islam/Pakistan/New-Religions project pages and open RfCs to get editorial attention to begin these corrections. What do you think? cӨde1+6 ^{L o g i c B o m b !} 15:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I'l tell you what, User:Code16 - you're extremely involved in a negative way with this article, so why not try editing Catholic Church which uses Vatican.va 93 times and see if that sticks? Or, if that's too much for you, point it out on the article's talk page and suggest most of the material sources to the Vatican be removed. Doug Weller (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, sir, all I have to do is call attention to this matter and I'm sure (eventually) other neutral editors will correct the content. Also, I completely agree that the same standards should apply to all pages on Wikipedia, across the board. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 15:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

((ec))Asked atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion #Using religion's primary sources for doctrinal information, eg Vatican.va Doug Weller (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

More or less saying here what I said in reply to Doug's comment at the page he links to above. For matters of official doctrines, for instance, the official site of a body is probably the best place to find the official doctrines described. For some purely internal matters which are discussed in publicly available official documents or are discussed in independent reliable sources, like for instance, the structure and personnel makeup of the Roman Curia, they will also probably be among the best possible sources extant, and certainly meet minimum RS standards.

Official sites of this kind are among the sources I have most regularly found referenced in the various reference works related to religion I have found, and on that basis I tend to think that the majority of the academic world would agree with me in the above. Clearly, they may well be less reliable on really contentious matters, particularly any regarding pending lawsuits and the like. And if they basically are posting what was initially a press release from them, then the website is roughly as reliable as the press release on its own would be. But, even in those cases, we tend to find that they will generally meet minimum RS standards, although they might in those cases be understood to not necessarily be what might be called fair or neutral. John Carter (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input everyone, the matter regarding the use of primary sources regarding doctrinal issues is understood now. I have some Ahmadiyya primary sources that will be very relevant to this article and others, such as the judgement by one of their past caliphs that declared all non-ahmadis as non-Muslims (a fact which is now dogmatically denied by the ahmadi community, but is clearly present in their own primary sources.) Thanks again for highlighting and cementing the importance said texts, much appreciated. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 16:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

It is however worthwhile mentioning that in cases like those you mentioned above, in which past members of something said something, that such statements can really only be necessarily used to describe the opinions of their group at that time, and that it can be and often is the case that groups as a whole change their positions over time. So, while those individuals clearly are qualified to speak for themselves and their groups at their time, it would probably be in everyone's best interests to find basically current well-regarded reliable sources relating to the same matter which say the same thing. Groups can and do sometimes change or "refine" (which is what most of them call it) their views or positions on specific issues which changes their views on any other issues dependent on that one change. John Carter (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Understood sir. I'd just like to clarify that the matter to which this relates is historical and legalistic in nature, and has bearing on the judicial rulings against the Ahmadis which are cited on this article and others. Thus, it will only be providing context to information that is already present. Thank you again. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 19:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat, These are just some of the sources I was referring to (and there's a lot more of these, including quotations of Mirza Ghuallam Ahmed which completely contradict the later caliphs.) They will be relevant on a number of pages where the historical narrative is currently quite incomplete:

• Mirza Bashir ud din, Haqiqat-ul-nabuwat, Mar 1915, Pg 204

If we don’t have a belief on mirza sahib as a nabi (prophet) it brings a dangerous defect in faith that is enough to make one a kafir

• Zikar-e-Ilahi, pg 22

And who doesn’t have a faith on maseeh for any reason he is a kafir

• Haqiqat-ul-amar, 21 sep 1918, pg 17

The way to peace is that we should accept the judgment of quran and the judgement of quran declares a disclaimer of a nabi a kafir and the same God declares hazrat mirza sahib a nabi (prophet)

• Anwar-e-khalafat, pg 92

(Sheikh Yaqub Ali was asking Mirza Bashir), “some take your words wrongly that all non ahmadies are kafirs but I think a person of your caliber cannot believe that”. I told him to tell them we do believe they are non muslims. He was shocked.

cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 12:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You are trying to flog the proverbial dead horse. You have vandalized this article once before also. Now let me tell you that unless a RS has made a connection between these so called "contradictions", your opinion is OR and not allowed.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't need to insert my opinion at all. I can just insert the primary sources, who's importance has already been established. The readers would be able to judge for themselves. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 13:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope, you cannot put in primary sources without establishing connection between them through secondary, this is what OR is lol. nice try though, everytime I edit one of your contributions you come straight to an Ahmadiyyah article and try to mess it up. Next time your block will be substantially longer. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat Incorrect. Primary sources can be inserted to clarify beliefs of a religion without secondary sources to back those up. This has been clearly established above by John Carter. Also, why are you making threats as if you are a moderator/admin? Does any admin/moderator believe my reasoning with regards to inserting this material is wrong here? If yes, please let me know, and I'll adjust so as not to break any guidelines. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 14:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources cannot be used to create a connection as you have created among them, that is Original research. If you cannot understand OR you have competency issues and should read up on OR before commenting. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Listing beliefs of a religion is allowed, using their own primary sources. This article already follows this convention. Most of the content here is self sourced to begin with. Your position currently is that only content which suits you, and portrays your sect in a good light should be present, that is censorship, and is not allowed[[5]]. If you self-source the history and beliefs of your sect, then you need to include everything relevant, not just the stuff which suits your biased narrative. Does any admin/moderator/neutral-editor disagree? cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 15:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure self source is allowed, but not creating connections between sources. I think I am done here now, trying to make you understand what OR is , has given me a headache lol. Last try, OR(Original Research) is when you create connections between stuff yourself which no RS has created. The Official Ahmadiyyah view is that they do not consider other muslims to be non muslim, any change to that goes against their official view and cannot be put into the article, simple as that. If they change their official view you can change the information here. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The official view, currently, yes. It was clearly not the official view in the past, as evidenced by your own primary sources, which you, as an ahmadi, should educate yourself with. By only promoting the idea that your sect was declared non-believer by others, while not including that your sects beliefs at the time actually declared non-ahmadis as non-believers, you're seeking to censor views which don't suit your clearly biased narrative. Your own views are also self-sourced on this as well, so I can therefore add more self-sources regarding this point. I don't see any problem with that, that's just NPOV.cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 16:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you were told earlier not to put in your own interpretation of a past "official view" . FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

My own interpretation of your caliph declaring non-ahmadis as non-believers? It's his direct quotation, no "interpretation" required. If you are putting up a victim narrative here, then you will need to show the entire story. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 16:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat, by the way, I've found secondary sources to confirm the "connection" as well, and they make the matter very clear, that it was the Ahmadis themselves who initiated the name-calling, in a sense, declaring other Muslims as non-believers. Finding these sources only took me like 5 minutes. If I spend more time, I'm fairly certain I'll find even more:

• https://books.google.ca/books?id=TH5NalWJFOoC&pg=PA111&dq=Bashir+ud+din+kafir&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCwQ6AEwA2oVChMI_7CjztOIyAIVgqceCh1L8Qqu#v=onepage&q=Bashir%20ud%20din%20kafir&f=false

• https://books.google.ca/books?id=n7u2BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA208&dq=Bashir+ud+din+kafir&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAWoVChMI_7CjztOIyAIVgqceCh1L8Qqu#v=onepage&q=Bashir%20ud%20din%20kafir&f=false

• https://books.google.ca/books?id=7RwFAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA94&dq=Bashir+ud+din+kafir&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAGoVChMI_7CjztOIyAIVgqceCh1L8Qqu#v=onepage&q=Bashir%20ud%20din%20kafir&f=false

cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 17:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The first source quotes Abul Kalam Azad. That's not reliable. If that's his opinion, that's fine. The other two sources do not indicate that Ahmadis call other Muslims as Kafir or nonMuslims. Also note that WP:SELFSOURCE is not the same thing as scriptural sources. You appear to confuse the two.--Peaceworld 20:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, the third source clearly says that Ahmadis do not have the same understanding of the word kafir as most Muslims do, which if you researched what that was, this source speaks against your contention.--Peaceworld 20:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:Code16 Your sources are against your claims. They say that the Ahmadiyyah do not have the same definition of Kafir as others. Anyway, its quite clear that everytime I edit your contributions you get a serious case of article ownership, get pissed at me and try to attack/vandalize Ahmadiyyah related articles. Now that it has been explained to you that you are wrong, perhaps you will be kind enough to stop wasting time on the TP here. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you both need to read again. The source (Syed Taffazull Hussain) clearly quotes Bashir-ud-Din (ahmadi calph) stating that all those who do not believe in the "messiah" are "kafir", a word which is used by the mainstream to mean "disbeliever/denier". So irregardless of what your definition of this standard term may be, whatever your definition is, you can clarify using another source if you want. It also states that this fact was used by the Attorney General in his case against the Ahmadis. Both the quote, as well as the AG's position, are clearly listed in that source. Like I've said, I haven't even spent too much time on this yet, but you should realize that denying this historical fact isn't going to get you anywhere. Enough primary and secondary sources exist to corroborate this fact. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 20:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Again none of the sources imply that "Ahmadis consider other Muslims kafir or Non-Muslim". You provided a quote. The following is the context which says: "Moreover, there is a great deal of difference betweeen our definition of Kufr and theirs. They understand by Kufr to mean the denial of Islam, which is the meaning we do not ascribe to this term when using it about the non-Ahmadis. Our view is that if a person conforms to the tenets and teaching of Islam to a given extent, he is entitled to be called a Muslim. But when he falls below even that point then although he may be called a Muslim, he cannot be regarded a perfect Muslim. We never allege on the basis of this definition that every Kafir is doomed to hell-fire for ever. We do not call even the Jews and the Christians to be Kafirs of that description. On the other hand. we believe, that every Hindu, Sikh or Christian or even an atheist will ultimately find the grace of God and finally God will say to him, " go and enter heaven". Goodbye.--Peaceworld 21:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The meaning is also elucidated by this 3rd party source which quotes your caliph Bashir as stating his definition of kufr means a rejection of a "fundamental doctrine of Islam."https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=iCwHaOabz7YC&oi=fnd&pg=PA6&dq=bashir+ud+din+ahmadi+kafir&ots=VtOX04B_Ca&sig=HIwokzqXmfD9i1PMhK5nWL0EOdI#v=onepage&q=bashir%20ud%20din%20ahmadi%20kafir&f=false... So I can clarify this in the copy, thats not a problem. I think showing how ahmadis think non-ahmadis are "kafirs", i.e. reject a 'fundamental doctrine' of Islam, by not accepting their beliefs even deserves a mention right in the intro section, and especially deserves a sub-category within the Beliefs heading. The attorney generals argument is also highly enlightening, providing context to the narrative on this and other pages. Combined with all those primary sources, I think we have a lot of material here gentleman. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 21:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The official statement is that they do not think of anyone as a non muslim or Kafir, simple as that. Anything against that is Original Research. It will be tantamount to putting a new subsection in Christianity named "Divorce" and then inserting material that says divorce is not allowed according to Bible. What you can put in the article is the official line and that is "they do not consider anyone to be a non muslim. Period". I'm done with your competency issues here. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll only be putting in your official line, don't worry. I can include that your caliph clearly stated that it was a 'fundamental doctrine' of Islam, that you have to believe in your messiah (which you obviously believe.) After-all, this is why you all are "ahmadis", right? Why are you trying so hard to hide this fact? And also, rejection of this 'fundamental doctrine' of your creed is otherwise considered "kufr", and the definition of "kufr", is defined by your leadership as the inability to conform to being a "perfect Muslim". This is all the official line and part of your 'fundamental' creed. Then I can back up the secondary with a bunch of those primary sources. And this will all go in the Articles of Faith section. Also, as for all bits where it's stated that Ahmadis were declared non-Muslim in Pakistan, I should also include the Attorney General's argument (cited from the secondary source) to provide the reader with the Government's position on the matter. Obviously, you can't possibly expect not to allow the other side of the argument, regarding this historical event. This is an encyclopedia after all. The reader needs to be be aware of all the relevant facets of the issue. If you disagree, feel free to open up an RfC or call in neutral editors. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 10:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Official line is "we do not consider others as non muslims, period". Feel free to put that in. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This discussion concerning what Ahmadis think of others, whether good/bad; muslim/non-muslim; kafir/non-kafir doesn't belong to this article. Whatever the outcome, if it belongs anywhere, it belongs to Ahmadiyya and other faiths. We do not find in articles such as Shia discussing what Shias think of Sunnis; or in Sunni discussing what Sunni's think of Shia. Even the article Shia–Sunni relations is empty of such discussions, eventhough the practice of declaring each other kafir is almost an everyday phenomenon between some Shia and Sunni clerics.--Peaceworld 15:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:Peaceworld111, No worries, but the 'Belief in the Messiah' is still a "fundamental belief" which can be inserted into the articles of faith category with those secondary and primary sources. Surely you won't have a problem with that? You do, after all, consider this belief "fundamental", as your caliph commands, right? Although, once that category is established within the articles of faith, I think it would only be natural to include those direct quotations from Mirza Ghullam Ahmed, which quote him saying that belief in his messiahship isn't even necessary or required for anyone.... Hmmmm, but that would completely contradict the quotes of your later caliphs, won't it? How are we going to deal with that? And also, the Attorney General's argument is of course relevant as well, and there's obviously no real reason to hide it or keep it out where it's relevant. I think these edits can be implemented, pretty much whenever, what do you think? cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 18:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The significance of the belief in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the Messiah has already been mentioned in the "Summary of beliefs" section. Do you have any RS that discuss these so called contradictions, and identify them as contradictions. The path you are coming from is primarily from Anti-Ahmadiyya sites. Perhaps you want to look up some Anti-Islam sites and fill up articles such as Shia Islam and Sunni Islam with contradictions. Once you have done that, come back here, and then we'll move the discussion forward.--Peaceworld 20:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Secondly, anything that is specific to Ahmadiyya in Pakistan should generally be discussed at Ahmadiyya in Pakistan just like for example, anything that is specific to Ahmadiyya in Indonesia or the U.S. should be discussed at talk pages of Ahmadiyya in Indonesia or Ahmadiyya in the United States.--Peaceworld 20:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we have told you about fifteen times that what you are trying to add is OR and most probably stems from anti-Ahmadiyyah literature, which seems to be your source. Anyway, seeing that your competency issues continue with blocks, I'd like to advise that you refrain from adding any controversial text until you get a grasp of Wikipedia policies. Getting blocked again and again may result in a permanent topic ban you know. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You seem to think this is a forum and want to engage in banter. But I'm not interested. And for the record, before you start playing the victim card, I don't need any "anti-ahmadi websites." Part of my family is Ahmadi, and witnessing debates/discussions on this issue has given me a pretty good depth of understanding (probably more than either of you, since I know both sides of the argument very well.) The non-Ahmadi family members have a pretty extensive selection of sources they use to argue against the Ahmadi section (and guess what, the non-Ahmadis always prevail, because the facts support them.) Personally though, to me, sunnis, ahmadies, shias etc. are all the same. And this ahmadi issue is actually pretty boring, since it has no real significance in the grand scheme of things. So far, I'm just exploring these ahmadi pages. I only landed here because of FreeatlastChitchat. And I still haven't decided if I'll make this page a personal project of mine. But I'll list the sources I have so far, in a new section below, just to explore the possibilities of what can be easily changed, in case my interest is sparked. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 13:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the one bringing one's entire life story into discussions for talk pages that are solely reserved for the purpose of improving Wikipedia. Nevertheless, is it just me or do the quotations you provide just happen to be the one's mentioned in Anti-Ahmadiyya websites? You may not provide links but it is not difficult to see where you are getting them from. It's not without any reason I'm assuming bad faith.--Peaceworld 18:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you also think the attorney general got his sources (which he presented in the official proceedings) from some anti-ahmadi website? Before the internet, as we know it, even existed? (lol). You keep trying to make this about me, because you want to play the victim card now. I doubt that will help you. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 21:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Useful sources to fix this page

I'll include both primary and secondary sources here. NOTE: With regards to the primary sources, notice their use in the Catholcism page's Distinct Beliefs category (look at the bullet points.) There are direct sources to the Bible there (without any secondary sources), so we know primary sources can be used to reference beliefs of religions, which is consistent with expert user opinions stated on this talk page (and the convention already present in the article.)

• Primary Sources to provide context for certain historical events (mentioned in this and other Ahmadi articles.)

1. "Whatever order is in holy Quran for denying of Mohammad pbuh is applied on those who deny mirza sahib" (Mirza Bashir Ahmed, Al-Qoul-ul-fazal, pg 33)
2. It is imposed on us that we take non ahmadies as non mulims" (anwar-e-khalafat, oct 1914, pg 90)
3. "All those Muslims who do not perform a bait of hazrat maseh maood, even if they haven't heard his name, they are kafir and out of the fold of islam" (aina-e-sadaqat, 24 dec 1941, pg 35)
4. "By the definition of sharia e islam, hazrat sahib is not a majazi nabi but he is the real prophet" (haqiqat-un-nabuat, pg: 191)

• Secondary Source verifying these historical events:

"The AG (attorney general) cited the following excerpt from Bashir ud Din Mehmud: "Everyone who believes in Moses but does not believe in Jesus, believes in Jesus but not Muhammad, believes in Muhammad but not the promised messiah, is a kafir and pacca (solid) kafir and outside the circle of Islam." (I added the underlining, for clarity.) The AG used this statement for two purposes. Firstly for him it clearly showed that the Ahmadis themselves had initiated the proceedings whereby non-Ahmadies were labelled as kafirs.... Secondly it helped the AG to link it with the all-important issue of the Ahmadies constituting a separate religious community to Islam, rather than a sect of Islam." (The Ahmadis and the Politics of Religious Exclusion in Pakistan, p208, Ali Usman Qasm. https://books.google.ca/books?id=n7u2BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA208&dq=Bashir+ud+din+kafir&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAWoVChMI_7CjztOIyAIVgqceCh1L8Qqu#v=onepage&q=Bashir%20ud%20din%20kafir&f=false)

• New category within Articles of Faith: "Belief in Messiah"

'"Even one who accepts him as truthful and doesn't deny his claim, but is reluctant to give bait(a ceremony to become an ahmadi) is a kafir." (Tashanjez-ul-azhan, apr 1911).

Based on this, the Current Article of Faith: Accepting the Messiah is required for Ahmadis, and rejection of this "fundamental belief" brings a dangerous defect in faith, according to Ahmadi doctrine, which prevents one from becoming a "perfect Muslim."Secondary source which clarifies their redefinition of "kufr" used here (Conscience and Coercion: Ahmadi Muslims and Orthodoxy in Pakistan, p16, By Antonio R. Gualtieri. https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=iCwHaOabz7YC&oi=fnd&pg=PA6&dq=bashir+ud+din+ahmadi+kafir&ots=VtOX04B_Ca&sig=HIwokzqXmfD9i1PMhK5nWL0EOdI#v=onepage&q=bashir%20ud%20din%20ahmadi%20kafir&f=false)

cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 16:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

(a) You are confusing WP:SELF SOURCE with scriptural sources. I said it before, and I say it again, they are not the same thing. Scriptures (or writings of central religious figures) are generally highly subject to interpretation. The following is Wikipedia policy, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Please take that on board.

(b) For Pakistani Attorney general that you keep bringing up, perhaps it would be befitting to remind you that he/she belonged to the very same political makeup that curtailed religious freedom for Ahmadi Muslims and sanctioned state-sponsored persecution against the very community that he/she appears to be discussing in the reference that you have provided. In other words, the attorney general is anything but an objective source of information. The author is merely quoting a discussion that led to these bigoted laws.

(c)"Accepting the Promised Messiah" is not an article of faith. No source says that.--Peaceworld 18:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

(a) According to the guideline you posted on primary sources, regarding straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, I think statements like the ones I posted e.g. "It is imposed on us that we take non ahmadies as non muslims" (anwar-e-khalafat, oct 1914, pg 90) fit this bill perfectly well. So including such statements of fact seems perfectly fine according to the guideline, wherever relevant.

(b) Whatever your own side's view of the attorney general may be, if you're posting stuff on a historical event, then both sides' views need to be included in a NPOV encyclopedic article. Besides, your argument here is highly partisan and against NPOV, please stick to neutrality. Also, the secondary source is not quoting the AG, he's describing the event in his own words. The only quote provided is that of your caliph, which was used by the AG in the proceedings.

(c) You just gave me an even better idea, I think a "Distinct Beliefs" section is needed here, like the Catholicism page. There all this belief in messiah requirement business can fit without issues, and it works better than putting it in under the "summary" section (why does that even exist?) After all, you can't be an ahmadi unless you believe in the messiah, right? That's a pretty distinct belief. You can also add other distinct beliefs there.

cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 19:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

(a)Well clearly Ahmadis do not take non-Ahmadis as non-Muslims, for example this article from Ahmadi official site discussing Ahmadi beliefs starts with "The greatest hurdle for the non-Ahmadi Muslims..." So no, you are clearly in the wrong.

(b)Yes, the author is describing the event in his own words, which includes the Pakistani Attorney General quoting an Ahmadi religious figure. It is NPOV that the Pakistani political system (to which the General belonged to and was an important player of that era) curtailed religious freedom and sanctioned state-persecution against Ahmadis. For example, see this. So whatever he/she says concerning Ahmadis fails NPOV.

(c) No, any discussion concerning what Ahmadis believe of others belongs to Ahmadiyya and other faiths, not here, just like Shia Islam doesn't mention what is thinks of Sunni's or Ahmadis, or Sunni Islam doesn't mention what is thinks of Shia's or Ahmadis.--Peaceworld 20:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

(a) When dealing with relevant historical topics, the history of the time period is considered, not what you are told to believe currently.

(b) I don't think you understand how NPOV works, but that's okay. An RfC and other dispute resolution methods exist to elicit neutral opinions on this issue, which can decide if the attorney general's arguments representing the Pakistani state can be censored out or not.

(c) This is concerning "distinct beliefs" regarding belief in their messiah, not necessarily what they think of others. Just like the category on the Catholicism page.

cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 22:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:Code16 First of all please stop formatting the discussion as you are currently doing, it gives me eye cancer, just use indents as normal people do. Secondly your three points are full of bigotry, let me explain

1. you say "When dealing with relevant historical topics, the history of the time period is considered, not what you are told to believe currently.". This is classic example of bigotry, POV pushing and overall lack of common sense. Here we only consider the official belief of a religion when we talk about them, simple as that. no matter how many time you say that you are going to show that Ahmadis consider others to be non mulism you are gouing to end up with egg on your face because you see the official line is that they do not consider that to be true. Simple as that. Let me make that bold for you because you seem to be unabel to understand something which even a person ten years of age can understand. 'Wikipedia gives the official beliefs of a religion, The Ahmadi official belief is that no one is a non muslim unless he himself states so. Hence you cannot include anything contrary in the article'. See , even a kindergarten kid can understand this.
2. Then you say that the attorney generals opinion should be included, but you have not given any 'Rationale' for doing so. According to wikipedia policy the burden is upon you to show that there is a need for including the opinion of a 'bigoted', 'extremist', 'Human rights abuser', into an article which is about the victims of the said abuse. Only a complete idiot will include the opinion of a rapist in the article about the rape victim. Basic common sense and human decency is against this , and Thank God wikipedia has made a plethora of policies which prevent this kind of POV pushing.
3. Then you claim that "This is concerning "distinct beliefs" regarding belief in their messiah", which of course is again classic bigotry. 'NO other article' has any such so-called beliefs in their distinct beliefs heading, not even the one you mentioned. I am not sure why you are lying, the Catholicism article is a click away you know and it lists no such thing.

So basically you are a)Just pissed because I edited some of the articles which you thought you owned, b)trying to push anti-Ahmadiyyah POV because you are personally involved in some Ahmadiyyah/Anti-Ahmadiyyah debate in your family and c)ignoring your blocks and their reasons. So my advice will be to find some other article to edit. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You can keep playing the victim, and continue your ad-hominem attacks, but that won't change the facts:

1. You're not only putting the official beliefs here, that's the problem. You're putting your official version of history, which is censoring historical events, relevant to the other side. Either remove all of that historical information and only stick to your creed, or report history as it happened.
2. Dude, calm down. No need to get all emotional. 3rd opinion channels exist on wikipedia which can decide this issue for us. When/if the time is right, I'll use them, I'm not gonna wait on your approval, obviously. All you're doing right now is preaching to me, which is pointless.
3. You're not getting it, belief in Jesus is not "distinct" to Catholicism. That's why it's not mentioned in their distinct beliefs (duh!) However, belief in Mirza Ghulam Ahmed is distinct to Ahmadis. It's the singular reason why "Ahmadis" are "Ahmadis."

And as for the rest, go ahead and keep trying to make this about me personally and continue your ad-hominem attacks. See if that helps. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 12:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Whatever dude, you can see that you do not have consensus so you cannot add this controversial text. Good bye and good riddance from this time sink. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't even started to build consensus yet. I only put together a proposal with sources, that can be used to build consensus at any time in the future, by eliciting opinions from neutral editors via dispute resolution mechanisms provided by Wikipedia. Other then that I just wanted to test your counter-arguments. I'm fairly confident now, thanks for playing along. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 16:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Good. Don't edit the article until you get consensus then, you have wasted enough of my time with this discussion. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Ahmadiya v.s. other muslims

Hey Sirius86 could you please say why you reverted this edit? Tnx. Mhhossein (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Mhhossein, there was no reason to change the previous version and neither did you give one. The phrase many orthodox Muslims encompasses both shi'a and sunni so the two needn't be specified. Moreover a link you added in farsi had no bearing whatsoever to Ahmadis being considered kafir/heretic. You also changed a link further down in the article from that of an ahmadi website (alislam.org) to a shi'a one (al-islam.org) which I reverted to its correct link. I can understand how the two could be easily mistaken.

Peace. Sirius86 (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Sirius86: I mistakenly edited that link (alislam.org) and I thought the address was corrupted while it was a correct address and thanks for fixing that. As for the farsi link, it does points to the fact that Ahmadis are considered heretics by shia and sunni muslims by writing "...فرقه‌ای اسلامی که به دلیل ادعای مهدویت میرزا غلام احمد، بنیانگذار آن، در میان شیعیان و سنی‌ها به‌عنوان فرقه‌ای ارتدادی شناخته می‌شود." (could you please restore it?). I think the sentence would better be placed in the first paragraph as it is an important aspect of the article. --Mhhossein (talk) 05:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Mhhossein, the claim of apostasy based on Mahdavia is wrong.--80.191.2.53 (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Their leader claimed to be a prophet later. Is it enough? --Mhhossein (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Mhhossein, With 4 sources already provided that specifically address Ahmadis being considered heretical, I see no further need to add another, and that too, one which has nothing to do with it. This is really uncalled for, the farsi link is not even remotely about Ahmadis, it is about Man Haron Monis and only mentions ahmadiyya in passing. As I said the term orthodox muslims covers both shi'a and sunnis. I agree this part is an important aspect that needs to be mentioned, that is why it is included in the lead of the article. It is sufficient. However it isn't such a definitional feature of the Ahmadiyya to be placed in the very first paragraph which essentially is about what Ahmadiyya is and not about how it is seen by others. -- Sirius86 (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Sirius86: Your argument about "not needing another source" seems fair enough and I don't contest its removal, while I think the mentioned aspect has to ascend because I see it as a part of "what they are." Mhhossein (talk) 05:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Mhhossein: What other Muslims consider the Ahmadiyya is not a definitional feature of the Ahmadiyya. It would still be what it is (a movement founded by a messianic figure that calls itself Ahmadi Muslim), regardless of what others think of it. I do agree that it is a crucial element in understanding the position of the movement within the wider Islamic context and therefore it does merit a mention in the lead of the article which is already the case, but I think to have it in the opening paragraph will be quite contextually out of place. Sirius86 (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

@Peaceworld111: reversed the following change I made to the article:
Before: "He claimed that he was the Mujaddid (divine reformer) of the 14th Islamic century, the promised Messiah and Mahdi awaited by Muslims"
After: "He claimed that he was the Mujaddid (divine reformer) of the 14th Islamic century, an avatar of Krishna, Jesus, Mahdi and the buruz ("re-appearance") of the Prophet Muhammad."

The change was based on the entry of the Ahmediyya in the Encyclopedia of Islam by H.A.R. Gibb, J.H. Kramers, E. Levi-Provencal, J. Schacht Volume I (A-B) which states that:
He claimed to be an avatar of Krishna (1904) as well as Jesus returned to earth and the Mahdi; also the buruz ("re-appearance") of Muhammad}}.

The publisher of the Encyclopedia of Islam is Brill and was printed in 1986 in Leiden, Netherlands. This fits all the criterion of WP:RS.

Could you please therefore explain why you have reversed this change?

Similarly, I made the following change:
Before: Many orthodox Muslims consider the Ahmadiyya either kafirs or heretics.
After: Many orthodox Muslims consider the Ahmadiyya either kafirs or heretics. Similarly, the Ahmediyya believe that their community embodies the only true form of Islam and that all non-Ahmedis are kafirs (disbelievers).

Once again, this was sourced from the Encyclopedia of Islam (p. 302) by Brill which states that:
The core of Ahmadi belief is that their community embodies the only true form of Islam (the one true religion, sent by God)... Other Muslims, by rejecting this re-formation, are pronounced kafir'

Could you explain why this was removed? RookTaker (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Did you bother reading Talk:Ahmadiyya#This article requires a cleanup and Talk:Ahmadiyya#Useful sources to fix this page before making the changes for for second part. It is false and does not belong to the lede as has been discussed above. Once you have read that, bring what concerns you. Secondly, please follow WP:BRD, i.e. preferably you should not revert until you have thoroughly discussed what other users have reverted.--Peaceworld 16:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Peaceworld111: Ok I'll read the links you provided for the second part. How about the first part? Why was that removed? RookTaker (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

"Reappearance of Muhammad" can seem confusing, until and unless a further explanation is given. So it doesn't suit the lead. For Krishna, it doesn't align with the first paragraph, but rather the second where it says, "appeared in the likeness of Jesus", which seems to give context, i.e. " to end religious wars, condemn bloodshed and reinstitute morality, justice, and peace". I don't see a context with Krishna.--Peaceworld 17:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I certainly do not mind adding Krishna in the main body of text, but to put in perspective, Ahmadiyya has had a lot more history with Christianity than Hinduism, despite being founded in Hindu-dominated India.--Peaceworld 17:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree and feel that both Mirza's claim to be Krishna and the buruz (reappearance) of the Prophet Muhammad (s) should be in the same sentence as Mirza's claim to be the Mahdi, Jesus and Mujaddid. This is because academic sources list all these claims in a similar fashion without giving due weight to one over the other. Below are some examples:

Mirza Ghulam who claimed to be the mahdi, the Christian Messiah, an incarnation of the Hindu god Krishna and a reappearance (buruz) of Muhammad (s).

Wendy Doniger, Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions, p 25. Merriam-Webster Inc.

Two of these claims in particular have given rise to strong opposition from Sunnis the first of which was a threefold claim to be at one and the same time the Promised Messiah of the Christians who looked forward to the second coming of Jesus, the Mahdi or God guided one of Islam, a reincarnation of the Prophet Muhammad (s) and an Avatar of the Hindu deity Krishna.

Peter Clarke, Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements, Routledge, p 19.

A messianic arm of Islam, the Ahmadiyya sect was founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (c. 1839–1908) in India. He claimed to be everything from the biblical Messiah to Muhammad, Jesus, and the Hindu god Krishna.

William P. Lazarus, ‎Mark Sullivan, Comparative Religion For Dummies, p 134. Wiley Publishers

By claiming to be the Christian Messiah, the Muslim Mahdi, and the final incarnation of Krishna for Hindus, Mirza Ghulam sought to claim the evolutionary end of.....

Kambiz GhaneaBassiri, A History of Islam in America: From the New World to the New World Order, Cambridge University Press, p 208.

He claimed to be an avatar of Krishna (1904) as well as Jesus returned to earth and the Mahdi; also the buruz ("re-appearance") of Muhammad (s)"

H.A.R. Gibb, J.H. Kramers, E. Levi-Provencal, J. Schacht, Encyclopaedia of Islam (New Edition), Volume I (A-B), Brill, p 302

If numerous academic sources (including encyclopedias) have seen it fit to list all Mirza's claims, then I do not see why it is wrong to do the same on Wikipedia. RookTaker (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)