Jump to content

Talk:Mirza Masroor Ahmad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MatiUlHassanChattha (talk | contribs) at 20:51, 13 December 2020 (People want to change a mistake with Current Calipha of Islam). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Untitled

Please do not delete this talk page even if the article is deleted! Since the article keeps getting recreated, the comments here are useful even if the article does not exist. Thue | talk 06:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid link to a portrait of the named Mirza Masroor Ahmad, why deletion????

Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. If you want to write an objective, factual article about Mirza Masroor Ahmad, feel free. But a link is not a suitable Wikipedia article. --Diberri | Talk 16:18, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
These days, it's a copyvio. Currently in the process of reporting it ... - Vague | Rant 08:58, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Including the last report, this has now been reported and deleted as a copyvio 6 times, plus speedy deleted once. Thue | talk 09:18, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And again... Thue | talk 08:20, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And yet again Chiacomo 03:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again--Duk 08:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again. RedWolf 04:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again! I speedied the copyvio and I am protecting this page. If somebody want to create a non-copyvio version of this page then ask for the page to be unprotected at Wikipedia:administrators noticeboard. Thue | talk 17:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume the copyright violator has wandered off, and this looks like a legit topic, so I'm removing the protection and {deletedpage}. CDC (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio again... Thue | talk 07:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again. I have the page on my watch list for the same reason... Thue | talk 06:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further Copyvios

I've deleted several revisions of this page that were created from copyright violation text. This issue has not died off. alphachimp 19:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-copyvio version

The current version seems to not be a copyvio. Thue | talk 21:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove his name as a khalifa of muslims he is not our khalifa Arsl5757 (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ahmad.png

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 19:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

add

old
He married Amatul Subuh Begum, daughter of Amatul Hakeem (daughter of the second caliph).

new
He married Amatul Subuh Begum on 21st January 1977, daughter of Syed Daud Muzaffar Shah and Amatul Hakeem (daughter of the second caliph).

Friday Sermon of 30th January 2009

new On the 30th of January 2009, Mirza Masroor Ahmad gave a polemic sermon addressing the Bahá'í Faith in which he repeated an earlier call to avoid members of the Baha'i community made by Mirza Tahir Ahmad whom Mirza Masroor referred to as 'Huzur' stating, 'Huzur concluded we should always avoid these people...'[1] Daniel De Mol (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand that this is unclear, out of context and inaccurate. The full picture isn't given and completely random. Peaceworld111 (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peaceworld111,
1. It is clear.
2. It is in context
3. The full picture is given
4. There is nothing random about it.
5. I call on you to fill your heart with the unfettered fear of God and then either leave it in the article or justify your statements.
In this regard my blog http://danieldemolsblog.blogspot.com/ may assist you to determine if anything I have stated is innacurate. Daniel De Mol (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again. I have no intention to argue you over your blog as this is wiki, but note the English rendering is only a summary of an hour or so long Urdu sermon. But with regards to your edit, I have already justified the reson behind the removal - I have checked the reference carefully and have come to know that by just editing a phrase as you did sends out the wrong message. If you wish to keep it please edit the summary behind it, otherwise I shall remove it in one or two days. Thank You. Peaceworld111 (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact here is the actual 18 page Urdu sermon - I just noticed. Basing your edit on the English summary will be quite inaccurate. So, infact I shall remove. If you have an over-riding argument, present your point - so we can discuss it before anything is added. I will remain neutral. Thanks, once again. Peaceworld111 (talk) 10:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peaceworld111,
1. I did not edit the quote, i copied it across directly from the English translation published on the official Ahmadi website www.alislam.org
2. Regardless of whether that was the whole sermon or only an extract which wasn't stated on the website, if only the sections polemic to the Baha'i faith were published, then it requires only a minor edit to say that the section of the sermon addressing the Baha'i faith in a polemic manner was published, deleting the section under such circumstances is clearly unwarranted.
3. If you have no intention to discuss this with me it leaves me with no choice but to go to wikipedia's dispute resolution process.
Daniel De Mol (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again. First of all notice that you are quoting with speech marks from a summary page. Those are obviously not the words of the speaker. Anyway, it seem you have misunderstod me. You said I did not edit the quote, i copied it across directly from the English translation. When did I say you edited the quote. What I have been trying to say is that you have not given the background with which that phrase was said. I don't know if you misuderstood or you are ignoring me. If you are ignoring me, I feel that your intentions are just to give a bad light to Ahmadiyya community. So please, either make the edit neutral, or remove it. It simply cannot stay in its current situation. Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I tried to bring the article to neutrality. If you still disagree please mention. From your edit to my edit, there is a world of difference in the meaning precievied by reader - it follows the reference much more accurately now. I hope your satisfied.Peaceworld111 (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peaceworld111,
1. Word 'always' added before 'avoid these people'
2. Quotation marks widened as appropriate
3. Word 'polemically' added before word 'addressing'
4. Section further edited for neutrality
Daniel De Mol (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, removed word 'alleged'. Evidently these experieces weren't fake. Bye then Peaceworld111 (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peaceworld111,
1. If the Baha'is said those things to Masroor then prove it.
Do you have a recording of the conversation?
If not then it is an alleged conversation.
Think about it. Why would Baha'is say that monogamous Abdu'l-Baha made His second wife a sister when He never had a second wife?
Please see section titled 'family life' in above link to Abdu'l-Baha article if you are in doubt concerning His monogamy.
2. There are many faith communities in which the Ahmadi faith has been denounced whilst the authors of such denunciations have avoided what Masroor would percieve as faults found within their own faiths.
Examples of this are orthodox brands of Islam, Hindus such as Arya Samaj and others, Christians and so on.
From amongst the above mentioned faiths some have even setup anti-Ahmadi pages in which they have spoken in a derogetary manner about the Ahmadi faith.
Although the Baha'i community has not authored anti-Ahmadi pages it is this community which has been singled out from amongst all others for avoidance, why not avoid Hindus, Sunnis, Shias, Christians etc etc if this is really about Mirza Basheers interfaith experiences?
3. 'allegedly' has been re-added, removing it again until you can prove the Baha'is said these words given their highly unlikely nature is wiki vandalism. Daniel De Mol (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am not here to discuss all those issues, that require pages upon pages of arguments. But with respect to the word 'alleged', I think your argument is taking it too far. Equally it can be said that the 'Alislam.org' website is an 'allegedly' Ahmadi website, as there is no tape recorded evidence. It can equally be said that thousands of references all over wikipedia is 'alleged' with respect to the 'events' - as there is no tape evidence.
What I'm trying to say is that why do you trust half the stuff in the reference and half you don't trust. You should be looking through the perspective of the reference. Within the confinement of the reference it is not 'alleged' or is it? For now ill revert your edit - I think this way it remains a more neutral article. Thanks. Peaceworld111 (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I've been thinking over this issue again over the last few days. Does it really deserve to be in this article? Re-opening the issue, I don't think that it belongs here. It does not seem deserving to be mentioned here. Initially I think that it is only one person's pure interpretation, i.e. you and second of all it seems to me that it has been given undue weight.Thanks. If you disagree please discuss.Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I also think that this mention is out of context and unnecesary here. If someone insists then i can provide a book published by the Bahai Publishing Trust Pakistan which is specifically targeted against Ahmadies (Bahai Mazhab or Ahmadiyyat-Ek Taqabuli Jaiza), and is full of slander to say the least, as it believe neither that book deserves any mention on the Bahai faith page nor this deserves mention here, because the topic of Ahmadiyyat & Bahaiyyat is a long one and to provide one statement from a lengthy topic is unfair and unnecesary. I can give references if someone asks. Thanx Sohebbasharat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any source?

Mirza Masroor Ahmad had two brothers: Mirza Idrees Ahmad and Mirza Maghfoor Ahmad and two sisters: Amatul Qudoos and Amatur Raoof.


Signature

Assalam-O-Aleikum Peaceworld111, the signatures of the Kulufa are selected from books and letters of the Khulufa. How can you say that those were fakes? --Ceddyfresse (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I have the signatures of khulafa and I know that they do not match. For evidence, please give the name of books that you have recieved the signatures from and I will check it up.Peaceworld111 (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What signatures do you have? --Ceddyfresse (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the last two khalifas and so the rest are also likely to be fake. I cannot find the signature of Mirza Tahir Ahmad (but I do have it) and I know that his signature isn't in arabic (KHUDA TALA).For Mirza Masroor Ahmad, I have the signature right in front of me. Just provide evidence and Im ready to accept it, i.e. books and page numbers. Peaceworld111 (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well I have two letters in front of me of the 5th Khalifa and they do look the same ... i was searching for a old letter of the fourth khalifa but i only find one with the signature of the private sectary... but i am searching.... well the signatures i have uploaded were from the khilafat-jubilee 2008 essay "Jamaar-e-Ahmadiyya aur Nizam-e-khilafat" which got the 7th place in Pakistan. it has been published on 27 may 2008, Lahore, Nashr: Sheikh Tariq Mahmud Pani Pty. The book begins with pictures of the khulufa and than it follows with the headline "Tabarakat" and then there are listed the signatures. --Ceddyfresse (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now i know what i have made wrong. I cut the wrong half of the picture look her:

[1]

thanks for recognicing it! --Ceddyfresse (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The signature for the 5th Khalifa still doesn't match to the 'many' letters that I have - so i'm not going to accept any of them. The evidence that you have provided cannot be checked, I tried searching and could not find anything. I would like a real proof that I can check - preferably from a Ahmadiyya website - (as there is a lot of anti-Ahmadiyya wrong details on many websites). Furthermore it seems as if all the signatures are there to depict something negative about the Khulafa of the Ahmadiyya. E.g. initially 'Khuda Tala'in arabic for the 4th Caliph and a 'Moon' shape for the first Caliph. Peaceworld111 (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a scan. I also have many letters by the fourth and fifth caliphs. The signs of the fourth caliph show great variation but they do match! If you have counter evidence produce it! As long as you dont provide counter evidence please refrain from editing and ascribing bad intentions to others! Dawoodmajoka (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not difficult to produce fake scans. Please provide evidence that is available in websites - preferable Ahmadiyya websites. If I scan a modified page with a signature of any world leader, say Barack Obama, will you accept it, no. What evidence will there be that those scans are true. How can I produce a counter evidence if you have not even provided any evidence. Simple, just give a website link - not hard? Peaceworld111 (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong attitude. Ceddyfresse has provided exact reference. With name of publisher and date of publication. That is enough evidence. You also do not have scans or links to all the other books quoted here. If you have counter evidence, well and good. Else, you can not insist. Same rule shall apply to all quotes and references. Dawoodmajoka (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this is a controversial issue that has been raised - all the signatures seem to depict some sort of negativity towards the Ahmadiyya Khulafa as I have explained earlier. Please don't ignore what I'm trying to say - provide evidence that can be checked to such a controversial issue , i.e. a website link to an apprpriate page. Which books have not been given reference to - please provide evidence and i'll try and clear that up too. As I have explained earlier that it is not difficult to provide a fake scan even a date and name associated with it (i.e. publisher date and name - made up). I am not asking for a difficult task - only a simple link. Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I thought, why would you say, that you have not the same signature of the 5th khalifa while I have the same and than I recogniced, that you meight have a letter of the private secretary?
Is this the reason for the misunderstandings? Refrence of singnature of Hazur from website of the Jamaat:
khuddam.de
I hope you believe me now, that the signature of the 5th Khalifa ist right -.- Ceddyfresse (talk) 11:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont read anything negative in the signatures of 1. or 4th Caliph as well. Dawoodmajoka (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The signatures are not exactly the same. e.g. look at the the right side, i don't see a triangle shape on the website and on the left side, I don't see lines separate and although the signatures do look slightly similar, I have to say they do not look the same. If you wish to put a signature on, I would ask you to replace with the one on the website. Thank You.

However, I must say the signature still doesn't match the signatures that I have on letters and other things.Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also you stated the source of your signature from an essay and in the actual source stated to the signature is Makhzane Tasweer - two completely different things. But remember to replace it. Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am done with you. If you still cannot accept, that it is likely that signatures vary, than I feel sorry for you. If you have something to show that show it. I have given enough evidences. --Ceddyfresse (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And now pleace regard carefully:

--Ceddyfresse (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am still at total loss, as to how he/she can read what he/she read in the signature of 4. caliph??? Enough evidence has been provided by now. As he/she does not bring counter evidence, no need for further debate. He/she has been already warned by the german wikipedia admins due to edit war. Dawoodmajoka (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The signature that I have matches the letter that is on the left in the second link rather than other letters? Maybe because it is a letter in English rather than Urdu. I'm sorry for the long debate, but at least it got me somewhere. Now that solves the problem. The signature that I had was the other one. Sorry once again, for using too much of your time. Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Ground Zero Mosque Contraversy

Does anyone which Sermond Hazoor said the following: If a mosque is built at the proposed site, then the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community would like to see churches, synagogues, Hindu places of worship and places of worship of all other religions also built near Ground Zero. That would be a good example of how from an act of evil and terror has emerged unity and peace. I've taken a quick look through the Friday Sermon summarys but can see it. Khurramchaudhary (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


References

Daniel De Mol (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Is not Allah sufficient for His servant?, Friday Sermon, 30. Jan. 2009

File:Khalifatul Masih V.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Khalifatul Masih V.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Khalifatul Masih V.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

I think there has been a mistake under the section "Family,marriage and children".Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad's brother Mirza Maghfoor Ahmad is not deceased. He is a practising surgeon in US. Can some one kindly rectify this mistake, I will be really greatful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.45.48.99 (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qadanis are not Muslim because they do not follow the teachings of prophet Muhammad (S.A.W) So why Wikipedia has written them muslim Anonymous 13310 (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous 13310, because they say they are. There's no reason for us to take sides in this debate so we don't. If you are here to deny the way they self-identify you'll be blocked for violations WP:NPOV.. Doug Weller talk 19:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They we declared non-muslims in 1973. First go and do some research. I am Pakistani and I know them better than you. What if a Christian say that he is a Muslim will you believe? Anonymous 13310 (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous13310, the Pakistani government's opinion on the matter isn't particularly important with regards to someone's self-identification. Stop the NPOV violations. PohranicniStraze (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If he is Muslim then he is not a caliph. In Islam a caliph means a person who rules the province of Hejaz which is in Saudi Arabia. So he can't be a caliph. Please make changes or stop writing him a caliph. He is not a ruler of Hejaz now so how he is a 5th caliph Anonymous 13310 (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The information is wrong Ammad578 (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong information. Salmankhanpp1 (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This information is totally worng Adeel creative (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove his name as muslims khalifa it would be great Arsl5757 (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No need to write the whole excerpt from Review of Religions

Mentioning a whole excerpt from Review of Religions about the thanksgiving money is too excessive. I feel it is not necessary. I am removing the passage. If you think otherwise, please discuss here first. Thanx

Letters to World Leaders

I think that the letter to world leaders section contains intricate and redundant details. I propose that all the subheadings be removed and converted into a paragraph. like in the heading of "letters to world leaders", it can be mentioned briefly what was the purpose and what was mentioned in the letters and then mentioning the people who were sent the letters instead of mentioning each person as a heading and writing similar things beneath them. Please discuss this idea here. I dont want to change it before discussing

Yep, I agree. Go ahead.--Peaceworld 19:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mirza Masroor Ahmad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mirza Masroor Ahmad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Key Speeches

This needs some major trimming. As it stands, there's almost nothing about the content of the speeches and a lot of WP:PEACOCK about what terribly important guests attended. PepperBeast (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to the letters he wrote. If nobody answers, they are not of great relevance.Derim Hunt Derim Hunt 09:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I agree with you. PepperBeast (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page is not a forum and not a soapbox.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2020

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=993UU9qmiww

Calipha of Islam

Mirza Masroor Ahmed is not the present calipha of Islam Saad Rehman 23151 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2020 (2)

2001:8F8:1829:382B:DD28:FDA9:D798:B1BE (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza masroor Ahmed is not a caliph of Muslim ummah on 13 December 2020 (3)

Mirza masroor Ahmed is not a caliph of Muslim ummah 39.34.139.10 (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Not clear what you want done. PepperBeast (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where are all the people who don't like Ahmad coming from?

It's obviously organised or socking. --Doug Weller talk 19:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Yes, I think so too. Is an SPI in order since some accounts have been involved or should we wait? Pahunkat (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SPI coming up, too many accounts. Watch for link. Pahunkat (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Find the SPI here Pahunkat (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed comments per WP:DENY Pahunkat (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bother. This is an off-wiki campaign. Praxidicae (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but the talk page may need to be protected for a longer period than 3 days if the activity resumes. Pahunkat (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence needs to be changed "The 5th and current caliph is Mirza Masroor Ahmad". Correct one is "The 5th and current caliph of Messiah is Mirza Masroor Ahmad." Currently Google is showing result as if Mirza Masroor Ahmad is the current Calipha of Islam. It is current [of Messiah]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mirza_Masroor_Ahmad&oldid=994044579"