Talk:Ahmadism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents

Honorifics

First off, I'm deeply sorry if I offended anyone by removing the honorifics (the Peace be upon him references) associated with the prophet Muhammad (I too wish peace upon him). I just don't think it is appropriate to use these in encyclopedia entries. If I am wrong about this, please forgive me and revert the article back to its previous form. Maybe there is a way to do this in a more respectful manner while being neutral. Look at the main entry for Islam.

Who is actually Muslim ?

I think there is a dispute first of all to clear who is actually Muslim, there is alot talking over Main stream Muslim but if some one ask them just define first who is Muslim ? they even can not settle on the defination of their own belief !! it is well known that people of Shia faith do not consider other sects of Islam Muslim and Sunnies and other do not belief the Shiaa's are Muslim, Wahabi consider them Muslim and rest non Muslim, in order to declare Ahmadies non Muslim, first they should consider their own status in the eyes of their own "Brother Muslims" and then declare them Non Muslim. It was a mistake for a National Assembly of a country to decide the faith of a peace full movement, but they all forget the nature of charector these people who were sitting in the Assembely then. All kind of people, with all kind of sins in thier pockets and you expect them to decide about some ones faith, I think people should also read the white paper published by General Zia's Government about the charactors of Assembly members, I think they will be satisfied, if not, then it is just their hate with close eyes you can not do any thing as their is no cure for blind hate. Phippi46 00:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)




  • 5 Articles of Faith:
  • Unity of God
  • His Angels
  • His Books
  • His Prophets
  • The Last Day
  • Divine Decree
  • Five Pillars of Islam:
  • Kalima
  • Prayer
  • Fasting
  • Zakaat
  • Hajj

Thats all their is. If you believe in these, you're a muslim, no matter what other muslims say.In the end , just say "what does it matter what they think of you?" its there opinion. --AeomMai 18:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, but Shia Muslim do not belief same way as you do, are you consider them Muslim as well, what about Ahmadies, if some one say that I belief all of these principals, then.. are you willing to take Ahmadies in these context, as Muslim. phippi46 18:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have no right to say who is not a muslim. No more than you or anyone else does.It is for that reason im involved in making these articles more POV --AeomMai 21:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think 'Invitation to Ahmadiyyat' by Hadhrat Mirza Bahirudin Mahmood Ahmad should clear up the differences between the sects and their differences.

I guess the biggest objection on Ahmadies is their faith on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet. Thus they differ in one of the articles of faith namely "Prophets of God" (in which there is no difference between Sunnis and Shias). Yasir 12:04, 14 Aug 2006 (UTC)

It is the same belief as you may have that Prophet Isa (Jesus) will returned and remain "Prophet", tell us, what you will consider in the days of Isa when for example lets say you are in a time when Isa has return back from Heaven, would you consider him a Prophet, as your belief says that no "Prophet" what so ever can come after Muhammad (PBUH), or you will take him not a Prophet, but some thing else. In this case, this will be the first case, where God gave Honour some one to be a Prophet, but because your belief demands that who ever will say that there is no Prophet after Muhammad (PBUH) he should leave is status of Prophet. What you belief is more dengrous, because you can not belief on Arival of Isa that he is the true Isa, untill he claimed that is not Prophet any more. phippi46 21:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Member Count

"Today the community has around 200 million members in over 181 countries"

Is this number true, is there any evidence? This number implies that there are similar numbers of Ahmaddiya to the Shia, maybe even more. Imc 17:49, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Inserted figure of 10 million, quoted from http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_16.html . 62.49.4.39 19:09, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The number of members are taken from the number of bait forms. That's the evidence. If you want to count all those bait forms for yourself contect the London Mosque

intellectual property

Ladies and Gentlemen: who "stole" from whom? I found the exact taxt 0nthe following sites:

http://www.essentialresults.com/article/Ahmaddiya

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Ahmaddiya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmaddiya

Sincerely yours, Karl Schmitt

The others care copies of Wikipedia. Valentinian (talk) 11:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Kalima Sahadat

"Main-Stream Muslims":

According to a consensus of Clerics / Scholars belonging to The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, to be considered a Muslim you need to declare Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as an Apostate.Nazli 15:23, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • It did not until 1974!!! Purely motivated by political ambitions of the so called Religious parties. An indication of the prevailing extremism at the time than anything else. An analogy is with the concept of militant Jihad. Up until 9/11 militant Jihad was everywhere inline with the "consensus" of Mullahs. Now many of the same Mullahs can not stop ranting how peaceful and tolerant Islam is - ironically at the same time also accusing Ahmadis of being reluctant towards militancy etc. etc. Bottom line: do not confuse politically motivated edicts issued in a particular time with established believes. This is no justice to Islam and in-fact is giving it a bad name in terms of the tolerant religion that it really is.

Here is what one has to sign to be considers a Mulsim in Paksitan:

"I am a Muslim and believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) the last of the prophets. I do not recognize any person who claims to be a prophet in any sense of the word or of any description what so ever after Muhammad (peace be upon him) or recognise such claimant as prophet or religious reformer as a Muslim. I consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani to be an imposter nabi and also consider his followers, whether belonging to the Lahori or Qadiani group, to be non-Muslims".

Pakistani Muslims are considered "Main Stream" by the rest of the Islamic world.Nazli 08:05, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Not meaning that the rest of the 1 billion or so Muslims agree with everything they do in Pakistan. Because if that were so Ahmadis would be banned everywhere by law etc. etc. Are Shias considered "main stream" by Sunnis? If yes why don't Sunnis agree with all Shia beliefs? If not then why don't Sunnis force Shias to Sunni believes? Do not confuse "mainstream" with agreement or the fact that not being “mainstream” takes away anyone’s rights to consider themselves what they want. You are taking a very selective view regarding Ahmadis.
  • Fact is Pakistan isn't a good example of anything these days and many Pakistanis themselves are ashamed of being Pakistanis. I think we should avoid considering Pakistan a standard of anything let alone a serious item like religion and Islam for that matter. Every 4-5 weeks a church, temple or a Shia mosque or person is attacked in Pakistan. If we take the “mainstream” example then all Muslims everywhere should be doing that. Please do not confuse these extremist acts against anyone as “mainstream” Islamic views - even though there is considerable support for these in current Pakistani society. None of these are according to the spirit of Islam.
Ahmadiyya Muslim Community:
It is a historical fact that Mian Mahmud Ahmed, the son of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed, soon after the father's death declared non-believers in Mirza Ghulam Ahmed's prophethood to be out side the fold of Islam. This was one of the reasons resulting in the split in the movement.Nazli 09:01, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad [Mian Mahmud Ahmad], son of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and the editor of a magazine Tash-heezul Azhan wrote and published an article in April 1911, under the title, "Muslim is he who accepts all the Mamurs (those appointed by Allah)." In this article he categorically stated that all Muslims who do not believe in Mirza Ghlam Ahmad's cliam were our side the fold of Islam. Following is a translation from the article:
" ... so not only that person who does not call the Promised Messiah a 'kafir' but does not accept his claim to be "Promised Messiah", has been declared a 'kafir', but even that person also, who secretly considers the Promised Messiah as true in his claims, and even does not openly deny it but is reluctant to give a pledge (Baiat) has been shown as a kafir." (Tash-heezul Azhan - April 1911, p. 141). Nazli 04:36, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)


The Ahmadiyaa movement does not claim Non-Ahmadis are Non-Muslim please see:
http://www2.alislam.org/askislam/mp3/19840816_05.mp3


The explaination given in the above audio clip by Mirza Tahir Ahmad for members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community calling other Muslims "Kafirs" hinges on attributing a *unique* meaning to this term. According to him this term when used for other muslims refers to their being Kafirs only in the context of their non-belief in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. However Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad did not make any such distiction in his original statement when he declared main stream Muslims Kafirs. Nazli 17:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


Please allow the Ahmadi community to speak for themselves. The above link shows that the Ahmadiyya Community does believe Muslims to be Kafir in the sense of unbelievers and more importantly they are not non-Muslim. If you read any Ahmadi literature (www.alislam.org) you will see that Non-Ahmadis are referred to as Non-Ahmadi Muslims. Ahmadis believe in the fataw given by Allah in which it is not in any man's authority to declare someone non-Muslim, many Sunnis choose to follow the Fatwa of the 1974 Muslim league instead.

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is welcome to speak for themselves, not at the expense of sacrificing a neutral point of view. The use of the term "Kafir" when referring to a certain sect is of great concern and interest to both main-stream muslims as well as Ahmadis. Hence it would be unfair not refer to its usage by Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad. Nazli 09:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Look here. I am an Ahmadi, born and raised and we were taught to believe that NO ONE can call another person a kafir. We do call people NON-AHMADI because, if someone is Sunni or Shia then their beliefs are different to ours, but we would NEVER, EVER say that they are non-Muslims. Many decent Sunni and Shia people would obviously say that we are not Sunni or Shia, but would still consider us Muslim. Sadly, many others believe that they nauzobilla have the right to say that we are NON-MUSLIM. Anyway, I'm sick of this inaccurate propoganda about us. Why don't you ask Ahmadis what we believe. Oh no, I forget, many of your leaders tell you not to speak to us in case we infect you with our hertecism. As an Ahmadi I am open to listening to other points of view, I have Sunni friends, Shia Friends, Ismaili friends as well as friends who are of other religions. I do not feel threatened that by talking to them my religion will become somehow tainted - so why are so many other Muslims convinced that by talking to us they will lose their religion - is their religion really so weak?

Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad [Mian Mahmud Ahmad], son of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and the editor of a magazine Tash-heezul Azhan wrote and published an article in April 1911, under the title, "Muslim is he who accepts all the Mamurs (those appointed by Allah)." In this article he categorically stated that all Muslims who do not believe in Mirza Ghlam Ahmad's cliam were our side the fold of Islam. Following is a translation from the article:
" ... so not only that person who does not call the Promised Messiah a 'kafir' but does not accept his claim to be "Promised Messiah", has been declared a 'kafir', but even that person also, who secretly considers the Promised Messiah as true in his claims, and even does not openly deny it but is reluctant to give a pledge (Baiat) has been shown as a kafir." (Tash-heezul Azhan - April 1911, p. 141).Nazli 13:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
This quote alone does not show that MMA considered non-Ahmadis to be non Muslims. There is a difference between being a non-Muslim and Kafir. Yahya 09:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Depending on your personal preferred interpretation of the two terms that may be the case. However the Mirza Mahmood Ahmed did use the term "kafir" for non-Ahamdis and that is what the main article alludes to - the issue is not whether the two terms, "Kafir" and "Non-Muslim" are equivalent, but rather: if and how the term "kafir" was used by MMA to describe non-Ahmadis. Nazli 12:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Lets hear what is your own personal interpretation of how MMA has used the terms. The paragraph you quoted does not look objectionable but if you can say how you interpret it then it can certainly make it easier to understand what your problem with the above quote is. Yahya 17:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no "problem" with the above stated quotation and my personal interpertation is irrelavant in this context. The article only states the facts in what appears to me to be a rasonably fair manner. Nazli 07:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an 49:15

Translation of Qur'an 49:15:

By YUSUFALI: "Only those are Believers who have believed in Allah and His Messenger, and have never since doubted, but have striven with their belongings and their persons in the Cause of Allah: Such are the sincere ones."

By PICKTHAL: "The (true) believers are those only who believe in Allah and His messenger and afterward doubt not, but strive with their wealth and their lives for the cause of Allah. Such are the sincere"

This verse may serve as a basis for defining a Muslim. However different sects may want to interpret the term "messenger" differently. Also some may want to add the other conditions mentioned in the verse to the definition in addition to the traditional Kalima Shadat.

The issue here however is not the interpretation of 49:15, but rather, What is the official stand of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Does it consider people who call themselves Muslims and profess the traditional Kalima Shahdat BUT do not believe in the prophet hood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed and consider him to be an apostate, to be within the fold of Islam? Nazli 04:41, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Reason for split was not what Nazli cites,no Ahmadi Authority has officialy declared any body 'non muslim'. In fact never before 1974 any group or sect has been declared out of pail of Islam. But one should be aware of difference between 'Kafir' and 'Non-Muslim'. it had been common practice between different sects to call each other 'Kaffirs' meaning non believer. In fact it will not be far from fact to say that every sect of the '72' has been called kafir by another sect. It is unique in the 1400 year history of Islam that a government used its highest 'democratic' institution i.e National assembly (House of Commons) to deny the basic right of religious freedom to a section of its population and then denied access to the proceedings by putting a ban on the publication by any party. As for who is considerd muslim by Ahmadis they follow Prophet Muhammads injunction i.e who ever calls himself a muslim is a muslim. What is most important for an Ahmadi is to be muslim in the sight of Allah.

As for the split(1914Ad) it was because a group of people in the community maintained that a committee of people will act as the supreme authority of the community.This committee would be called 'Anjuman Ahmadiyya'.One can look back at the history of both communities and where they stand today to see who was right in 1914.

Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad [Mian Mahmud Ahmad], son of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and the editor of a magazine Tash-heezul Azhan wrote and published an article in April 1911, under the title, "Muslim is he who accepts all the Mamurs (those appointed by Allah)." In this article he categorically stated that all Muslims who do not believe in Mirza Ghlam Ahmad's cliam were our side the fold of Islam. Following is a translation from the article:
" ... so not only that person who does not call the Promised Messiah a 'kafir' but does not accept his claim to be "Promised Messiah", has been declared a 'kafir', but even that person also, who secretly considers the Promised Messiah as true in his claims, and even does not openly deny it but is reluctant to give a pledge (Baiat) has been shown as a kafir." (Tash-heezul Azhan - April 1911, p. 141).
Nazli 04:36, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)


The Ahmadiyaa movement does not claim Non-Ahmadis are Non-Muslim please see:

http://www2.alislam.org/askislam/mp3/19840816_05.mp3

commnet in article

Someone posted this comment in the article, which I'm moving here in case anyone can find a way to put it into the article properly. -Willmcw 20:46, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

REF. to table,under second coming of Jesus one should note that it was fore told by Mohammad himself and that he will be a prophet. The Qadiani group believes that Jesus son of Mary died a natural death in Sirinagar where he migrated after God saved him from death on the cross. Under Kalima Shahadat for main stream islamic belief, denouncing Mirza's claim, only required in Pakistan and nowhere else. Qadianis believe any one who calls himself a Mulim is a Muslim.

Maulvi Mohammad Ali believed Ahmad as prophet of God

There are several evidences that Maulvi Mohammad Ali believed him as prophet of God for example “Maulvi Muhammad Ali’s Testimony in the Law Court” Witness of Maulvi Mohammad Ali in a law-court:

1. "In regard to a man who claims to be a Nabi (Prophet), where a man denies this claim, he becomes, thereby a `Kazzab '. The Mirza Sahib claims he is a Prophet." 2. "The Mirza Sahib, in many of his works, puts forth this claim which is to the effect that he is a Prophet from God, though he is not the bearer of a new Sharia. Where a man denies a claim of this kind, he becomes, thereby, a `Kazzab '." (File of the law-suit, page 362)

This witness of Maulvi Mohammad Ali in a law-court, under solemn oath.

The Review of Religions, Maulvi Mohammad Ali had a controversy, in writing, with Khawaja Ghulamussaqalain:

1. "Four principles have been laid down by Khawaja Ghulamussaqalain, from his own mind, and he desires to assess the position of Hazarat Mirza Sahib on the basis of principles hammered out by himself. In forging these principles as a valid criterion, he has made a great and a very serious error." (Review of Religions, Vol. 1V, page 395)

2. "I am surprised to find that when they are raising objections, the Christians, and other opponents of the Ahmadiyya Movement, display a remarkable talent for making subtle distinctions; but on the other hand, they fail to perceive an all too potent a point as to what is the distinctive feature which must be found in a man who claims to be a Prophet from God." (Review of Religions, Vol. IV, page 464)

3. "Khawaja Ghulamussaqalain has sought to make four points in rejecting the meaning of my interpretation of the Quranic verse: a. Shaitan swore by the grandeur and glory of the Lord God that he would mislead all. In this Shaitan shows himself as having been successful. b. The people of the Pharaoh used to kill their (of Bani Israel) male children. c. Masih was nailed to the cross. d. The four Khalifas, and the grandchildren of the Holy Prophet Mohammad, five out of six, were slain by the enemy. The point at issue was: what basis has the Quran laid down for knowing a true claimant of Prophethood from another who is false in this claim. Now Khawaja Ghulamussaqalain himself would be highly welcome to explain how he applies his principles validly except in the third point where Jesus Christ comes into the picture, and let us know who and where are the claimants of Prophethood, relevant to the matter under discussion and dispute. Is Shaitan one of the claimants? Were the children of Israel claimants of Nabuwwat? Were the four Khalifas and the sibtain such claimants? If not then where lies the relevancy of his principles to the matter under dispute?" (Review of Religions, Vol. V. page 432)

Now in this discussion Maulvi Mohammad Ali did not bring in the Ahmad as Mohaddath ; nor in the capacity of a Mojaddid . He brought the Ahmad as a Nabi, a Prophet. He bracketed the Ahmad with Jesus, who was a Prophet; beyond that, the three Khalifas, and the Sibtain were not claimants to Nabuwwat (Prophethood) therefore, reference to them was irrelevant. The point here is that Maulvi Mohammad Ali is presenting the Ahmad in his capacity of a Nabi (a prophet). At the time under reference here, Maulvi Mohammad Ali interpreted theSura Fatiha in the light of another Quranic verse "Who so ever rendered obedience to Allah, and His Messenger, indeed these are the people on whom Allah has showered His blessings. in their capacity as Prophets, Siddiqeen, Shohada and Salihin saying: We have here been ordered to offer this prayer, in its broadest base. The acceptance of this prayer is a foregone conclusion, no matter how an opponent understood, and applied it, and its implications. In any case we stand on the point that Allah can raise a Prophet whenever and where ever in His wisdom He might choose to do so. Also He can confer the rank of Siddiq, Shaheed and Salih on whomsoever He likes. The only thing needed was a sincere supplicant." (Address by Maulvi Mohammad Ali, as reproduced in the AI-Hakam, July 18, 1908, page 6)


Maulana Mohammad Ali's personal beliefs regarding the the status of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad are clearly explained in his book "The Split in the Ahmadiyya Movement", available online at:
http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/mali/splitahmadiyyamovement/splitahmadiyyamovement.shtml
On reading this book it is clear that at no point in his life did Maulana Mohammad Ali ascribe the terms "nabi" and "rasool" to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in the manner used for the previous prophets. Maulana Mohammad Ali concurs with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's personal belief that these terms when applied to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad have to be considered allegorically. Nazli 03:30, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

“he is a Prophet from God” (Maulvi Mohammad Ali)

Nazli: (please give references to support your assertion) Mubasher: Here are the references: (Maulvi Mohammad Ali “he is a Prophet from God” (File of the law-suit, page 362), and in Review of Religions, Vol. IV, page 464), Review of Religions, Vol. V. page 432), AI-Hakam, July 18, 1908, page 6)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's personal views regarding his alleged claim to "Prophet Hood"

A few examples of what Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself had to say regarding his alleged claim to prophet hood:

    • "Let it be clear to them that I also curse the person who claims prophethood. I hold that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger, and I believe in the finality of prophethood of the Holy Prophet. So, as there is no claim of prophethood on my part either, only that of being a wali (saint) and mujaddid ..."

(Majmu`a Ishtiharat, old edition, vol. iii, p. 224. 1986 edition, vol. 2, pp. 297-298)

    • "I have heard that some leading Ulama of this city Delhi are giving publicity to the allegation against me that I lay claim to prophethood. ... I respectfully state to all these gentlemen that these allegations are an entire fabrication. I do not make a claim to prophethood. ... After the Holy Prophet Muhammad, I consider anyone who claims prophethood and messengership to be a liar and unbeliever."

(Statement issued in Delhi, 2 October 1891. Majmu`a Ishtiharat, 1986 edition, vol. 1, pp. 230-231)

    • "Other allegations made against me are that 'this man denies the Lailat al-Qadr and miracles and the Mi`raj, and further that he makes a claim to prophethood and denies the finality of prophethood.'

"All these allegations are entirely untrue and false. ... Now I make a clear and plain affirmation of the following matters before Muslims in this house of God: I believe in the finality of prophethood of the Khatam al-anbiya, may peace and the blessings of Allah be upon him, and I consider the person who denies the finality of prophethood as being without faith and outside the pale of Islam. (Speech in Delhi Central mosque, 23 October 1891. Majmu`a Ishtiharat, 1986 edition, vol. 1, p. 255)

    • "Question: In the booklet Fath-i Islam you have made a claim to prophethood.

"Answer: There is no claim of prophethood. On the contrary, the claim is of sainthood (muhaddasiyyat) which has been advanced by the command of God. (Izala Auham, pp. 421-422, Ruhani Khaza'in, vol. 3, p. 320)

    • "I believe also that the Holy Prophet Muhammad is the best of messengers and the Khatam an-nabiyyin, and those people have fabricated a lie against me who say that this man claims to be a prophet."

(Hamamat al-Bushra, p. 8. Ruhani Khaza'in, vol. 7, p. 184)

    • "One of the objections of those who call me kafir is that they say: This man claims prophethood and says I am one of the prophets. The answer is that you should know, O brother, that I have not claimed prophethood, nor have I said to them that I am a prophet. But they were hasty and made a mistake in understanding my words ... It does not befit me that I should claim prophethood and leave Islam and become an unbeliever ... How could I claim prophethood when I am a Muslim?"

(Hamamat al-Bushra, p. 79. Ruhani Khaza'in, vol. 7, pp. 296-297)

Nazli 18:55, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's personal views regarding the finality of Prophet Hood

    • "The Holy Prophet had repeatedly said that no prophet would come after him, and the hadith `There is no prophet after me' was so well-known that no one had any doubt about its authenticity. And the Holy Quran, every word of which is binding, in its verse `he is the Messenger of Allah and the Khatam an-nabiyyin', confirmed that prophethood has in fact ended with our Holy Prophet. Then how could it be possible that any prophet should come after the Holy Prophet Muhammad, according to the real meaning of prophethood? This would have destroyed the entire fabric of Islam."

(Kitab al-Barriyya, p. 184, footnote. Ruhani Khaza'in, vol. 13, pp. 217-218)

    • "The Holy Quran does not permit the coming of any messenger (rasul) after the Khatam an-nabiyyin, whether a new one or an old one."

(Izala Auham, p. 761. Ruhani Khaza'in, vol. 3, p. 511)

    • " `Muhammad ... is the Messenger of Allah and the Khatam an-nabiyyin.' Do you not know that the Merciful Lord has declared our Holy Prophet to be the Khatam al-anbiya unconditionally, and our Holy Prophet has explained this in his words: `There is no prophet after me', which is a clear explanation for the seekers of truth."

(Hamamat al-Bushra, p. 81-82. Ruhani Khaza'in, vol. 7, p. 200)

    • "In brief, God by naming the Holy Prophet as Khatam an-nabiyyin in the Quran, and the Holy Prophet himself by saying `There is no prophet after me' in Hadith, had settled the matter that no prophet can come after the Holy Prophet, in terms of the real meaning of prophethood."

(Kitab al-Barriyya, p. 185, footnote. Ruhani Khaza'in, vol. 13, p. 218)

Nazli 18:57, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I have brought or introduced no new Law, and have never denied to be called a prophet (Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani)

Whenever and wherever I have refused to be called a Prophet or Messenger it is only in the sense that having been spiritually benefited by my Great and Noble Master and having been able to acquire his name, I have been endowed with the knowledge of the Unseen. but I repeat it again, that I have brought or introduced no new Law, and have never denied to be called a prophet of this kind. Rather in this very sense God has called me by the names of Prophet and Messenger. So even now I do not deny to be called a Prophet and Messenger in this sense of the word. My saying: MAN NAISTAM RASOOL-O-NIYAA WARDA AMM KITAAB i.e., I am not a Prophet and have brought no book has no connotation other than that I am not a law-bearing prophet. Of course this should also be remembered and never be forgotten that in spite of my being called a Prophet and Messenger, God has informed me that I have not been the recipient of all these spiritual blessings and favours independently and without the mediation of anybody. No; there dwells in heaven a holy being (the Holy Prophet Muhammad) through whose spiritual patronage all this Grace of God has descended on me. It is through his mediation and after having completely merged my whole being into that of the Great Prophet and after having been known as Muhammad and Ahmad that I am a RASUL (Messenger) and NABI (Prophet), that is to say, I have been sent with a mission and have been endowed with the knowledge of the Unseen. In this way my claim to prophethood does in no way interfere with the Holy Prophet's status of KHATAM-AN-NABIYYIN (Seal of the prophets), because I have been able to acquire this name only by reflecting in my person all the excellences of the Great Prophet and by annihilating myself in his consuming love………………………… (Ek Ghalati Ka Izala (The Removal of a Misunderstanding)

Mubasher July 31, 2005

If anybody takes an exception to my being called a Prophet and a Messenger in my revelations, he is but a fool (Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani)

If anybody takes an exception to my being called a NABI (Prophet) and a RASUL (Messenger) in my revelations, he is but a fool because my prophethood and messengership do not infringe the divine seal in any way. It is quite clear that when I say that God has called me NABI (prophet) and RASUL (Messenger) and my opponents entertain the belief that Jesus Christ would come after the Holy Prophet and would be a prophet, the objection that with the advent of a Prophet after the Holy Prophet his status as Seal of the prophets is infringed, equally applies to the second coming of Jesus Christ as to mine. But my contention is that there is nothing objectionable in my being called NABI (Prophet) and RASUL (Messenger) after the Holy Prophet who was KHATAM-AN-NABIYYIN (Seal of the prophets) in the true and full sense of the word nor does this fact in any conceivable manner interfere with his status of KHATAM-AN-NABIYYIN. (Ek Ghalati Ka Izala (The Removal of a Misunderstanding)

Mubasher July 31, 2005

Door of revelation....will never be cut off, but law-bearing prophethood (Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani)

"It is our faith that the last book and last law is the Holy Quran and that thereafter till the day of judgement, there is no law-bearing prophet nor any recipient of revelation who is not a follower of the Holy Prophet, peace be on him. This door is closed till the Day of Judgment, but the door of revelation, through following the Holy Prophet, is ever open. Such revelation will never be cut off, but law-bearing prophethood, or independent prophethood, have been put an end to and will not be open till the day of judgment. He who says he is not a follower of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace be on him, and claims that he is like one who has been carried away by a fierce flood and is thrown aside and cannot recover himself till he dies." (Review of the Debate between Batalvi and Chakralvi, p.12) (Qadian, 1902); Ruhani Khazain, Vol.19].

Mubasher July 31, 2005

"I am with My messenger" (Revelation of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahamd Qadiani)

As He says [in revelation to me]: "I am with My messenger, standing by him. I put the blame on those who blame him. I shall give you that which lasts forever. For you is a rank in heaven and among those who see. For you We shall show signs and demolish what they build. And they said: Will you make in the earth one who will cause mischief in it? He said: I know what you know not. I will disgrace him who intends to disgrace you. Fear not, surely the messengers fear not when I am with them. The command of Allah has come, so hasten it not, a glad tiding which came to the prophets. O My Ahmad, you are My aim and are with Me. You are from Me like My Oneness and Singleness, and you are from Me at a point which none of the people know. You are honoured in My presence, I have chosen you for Myself. When you are angry I am angry, and whatever you love I love. Allah has preferred you over all things. All praise be to Allah Who made you the Messiah, son of Mary. He (Allah) is not questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned, and it is a promise ever fulfilled. Allah shall protect you from the enemies, He will attack all those who attack. This is because they disobeyed and transgressed. Is not Allah sufficient for His servant? O mountains, repeat praises (of Allah) with him, and so also birds. Allah has written down: 'I shall certainly triumph, I and My messengers'. And they, after being overcome, shall be triumphant. Allah is with those who are righteous and who do good to others. Those whobelieve, for them is advancement in truth with their Lord. A word from the Merciful Lord. And this day, you become distinct, O guilty ones!" I pray a third time: O my Gracious, Powerful Lord! O my Forgiving, Merciful God! Let only those people have graves in this place who have true faith in this Your messenger, who entertain no hypocrisy, personal ends or suspicion* within their hearts, who show faith and obedience as these ought to be shown, who have, in their hearts, sacrificed their life for You and Your path, with whom You are pleased, and whom You know to be utterly lost in Your love and to have with Your messenger a relationship of fidelity, complete respect, love along with open-hearted faith and devotion. Amen, O Lord of the worlds!

(Al-Wasiyyat (The Will)

Mubasher July 31, 2005

My Lord, had I instructed so it would have been known to You.....I am His messenger/prophet. (Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani)

My Lord, had I instructed so it would have been known to You because You are Knower of all unseen. I nevertheless told them all that You had instructed me to let them know that they should believe in God alone and that I am His messenger/prophet. I know only that much when I was with them but then when You caused me to die You were the lone Watcher over them. How could I know what they did after I left them? (Lecture Lahore)

Mubasher July 31, 2005

Article Overview

The differences between the two branches of the Ahmadi sect are often unclear. Hence this article. It also acts as a jumping point to more detailed information about the individual branches of the sect. Nazli 05:34, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Could someone who knows about this subject briefly explain the differences between the two sects in this article? --Yodakii 07:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

"Ahmadiyya Muslim Community"

--AeomMai 00:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC) The Ahmadiyya community (not the "Ahmidiyya Muslim Community") comprises of two sub-sects: the "Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement" and the "Ahmadiyya Muslim Community". The *Ahmadiyya Muslim Commuity* is the one that claims over 200 million followers, while the number of members of the *Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement* is uncertain. Nazli 03:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh I see. That was not moved intentionally though. I reverted because you deleted the source link before. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 10:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Please see the history. I did not delete the source link.Nazli 10:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes you are right. It was user 128.228.93.106 who deleted it [1]. I must have ignored your edit because it came right before his/hers. Okay well I am glad you brought this to my attention. Thanks. a.n.o.n.y.m t 10:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is it a Stub?

Why this article is a stub and how is it an Islam related Stub and why it starts with Ahmadi muslims? PassionInfinity 07:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You are right, it should not be a stub. The Ahmadi sect may or may not be considered "muslims" depending on you POV, however they cosider themselves to be well within the fold of Islam - the article clearly addresses the controversy. Nazli 03:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ahmadi - Minor Correction

Mainstream Muslims contend that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's claim of prophethood and messiahhood violates the basic tenets of Islam (namely that Muhammad is the last prophet, and that it is Jesus Christ who returns at the end times in person, and no other).

Agreed ... except that "Mainstream Muslims" would not use the term 'Christ' - given that it is an implicit acceptance of divinity. I would suggest that Christ be deleted and that the prophet is simply referred to as Jesus. Any objections?

No objections as far as I am concerned. Nazli 03:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


Ahmadi and Lahori sects should be seperate pages

The Lahori and Ahmadi sects are comletely seperate. They should not be on the same page, so I suggest someone do so(I'd do it but I'm fairly new at this)

Aeom Mai

The Lahore and Qadian sects already have seperate pages. Check the links at the end of the page. Nazli 07:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Then what's this page for?

Please see under the heading "16 Article Overview" above. Nazli 02:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

AMSA

Does anyone plan to add an article on the Ahmadi Muslim Student Association?

Anti Ahmadi links

I deleted the anti ahmadi links a while back and it may mess up the articles NPOV. Should i restore them?

Add persecution area

I was recently at some of the links mentioned, and ther are many additions on the problems muslims claim to have against ahmadi muslims. also ther is alot on attacks against ahmadis in various places(though mainly in pakistan). this should be recorded in the article for further knowledge.

Nazli

where do you get your information? I plan to look into these articles as a bystander and make small edits here and there.

p.s u sohuld relly get a user page so we can send our complaints straight to you.

Try the links given in the article as a starting point. You can leave messages on my "discussion" page. Nazli 08:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Qadianism

The Ahmadi are knows as Qadiani and their religion as Qadianism. The material does refer to both sect of Qadianism. Please do not delete these links and info.

Siddiqui 04:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Ahmedis are reffered to as Qadiani's is not an issue. As you can see the usage of this term is clearly mentioned later on in the article. However the beliefs of both sects are different , specially related to the use of the term "prophet" and to declaring "main-stream" muslims as non-muslims. I do however apologise for deleting the links. Nazli 05:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
This is not correct. Both sects have same basic believes. They only differe on "prophethood" of Mirza Qadiani. Both sect have been technically declared as non-Muslims because they both did not believe finality of prophet Mohammad.
Siddiqui 05:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement uses a different interpretation of prophethood as compared to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Comunity. The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movementbelieve Prophet Muhammad to be the last prophet. The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement also does not declare other muslims to be "kafirs". Please visit their official websites (http://www.aaiil.org/index.shtml and http://www.muslim.org/) for confirmation and further details. It is ufair to group them together with the Lahore Ahmdaiyya Movement and violates the NPOV policy. The fact that BOTH parties have been declated as kafirs (despite their differences in beliefs) by the the majority of muslims is already clearly stated the article.Nazli 05:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please don't try to muddle the facts by sectarian differences. Both basically have the same views. Both are sects of Qadianism. They are not considered to be Muslims by other Muslims and by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Siddiqui 07:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the facts are crystal clear as you can see in the tabular part of the article. The sects have widely different views. It would would be unfair to group both sects together. The views of main stream muslims have been stated very clearly. Both sects deserve to have their views also stated in clear terms to maintain a NPOV.Nazli 07:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Qadianism is also the accepted name of this new religion. The insistenece by Qadianis to call themselves as Muslims must be balanced by the Muslim counter argument that Qadianis are non-Muslims. This view is repeateddly being censored and removed by Qadianis. It must be emphasized that this is not a Qadiani website and both Qadiani and Muslim arguments must be presented. Muslims are not claiming to be Qadianis but it is Qadianis that claim to be Muslims while following their non-Muslim beliefs.
Siddiqui 04:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
As I have stated before I agree that the "main-stream" Muslim pov must be represented. However in that case we are obligated to present the opposing pov in clear terms as well:
If you feel that 1. you must group both Ahmedi sects, and 2. you must reffer to both of them as Qadianis and 3. that you must reffer to them as "Kafirs" then you are obligated to present the opposing pov as well which is that both sects are different, they are named differently and they both like to refer to themselves as Muslims. Nazli 07:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


I have re-written part of the article to try to present a npov on the issue of name, beliefs and finality of prophethood from all three perspectives. Please make positve contributions if feel something need to be changed rather then reverting back for the nth time, thank you. Nazli 12:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

siddiqui: Please check your facts before reverting. The following issues are easily verifiable:
1. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not himself declare other muslims as kafirs. His son did so AFTER his death.
2. The two Ahmedi sects are seperate entities with widely differing points of views
3. The term Qadiani has acquired derogatory connotations over the years.
5. Some mainstream Muslims like to call the religion paracticed by Ahmedis - Qadianism - HOWEVER Ahmdis themselves do not subscribe to this.
To maintain a npov all these facts need to stated clearly in all the articles. You have been insisting on perpetuating you own dogmatic view with complete disregard for the npov policy. Please discuss and make constructive changes so ALL points of views are presented in a neutral fashion. Thank you. Nazli 04:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I am stepping in to resolve this matter. Wikipsycho recently e-mailed an admin who does not know a lot about Islam to interject here. So I will do it for him. I have started to rewrite the section by correcting spellings and cleaning it up. Reverting anymore could get both sides blocked. So what the main problem is here? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping in. Firstly, the article in its current form is perfectly acceptable. I believe there are five issues here:
1. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not declare "main stream" muslims to be non-muslims - his son did so after Ghulam Ahmad's death. An easily verifiable fact by visiting the website of any of the two Ahmedi sects (one link in this regard: http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/mali/splitahmadiyyamovement/splitahmadiyyamovement.shtml). Siddiqui has been insisting in his reversions that it was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who did so.
2. The two Ahmedi sects have widely differing beliefs, specially in regard to the core issues of the finality of prophet hood and declaring other Muslims as "kafirs". Again easily verifiable facts. Siddiqui has been insisting on grouping both sects together in this regards.
3. The two Ahmedi sects like to refer to themselves as "Ahmedi Muslims" not as followers of "Qadianism". Certain Muslim groups like to use this term (Qadianism) when referring to Ahmedis. Both these facts have been clearly mentioned in the article. However Siddiqui has been insisting on removing all references to this naming issue and using the term Qadiani and Qadianism only.
4. Ghulam Ahmad's proper name is not Mirza Qadiani, it is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Mirza Qadiani is a colloquial term used by some Muslim groups with derogatory connotations. Siddiqui has been insisting on using the term Mirza Qadiani for all references to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
5. All of the above would be non-issues if the a sensible discussion could take place with some effort to verify the facts. Nazli 20:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I am going to wait to hear what the Siddiqui has to say too. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Merge of Qadianism into this page

I agree - the information on Qadianism will make more sense as part of this article. Nazli 06:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad

Information stating that he was the son of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was removed on the last edit. Was this information inaccurate? It now reads simply that he was the "second Khalif" of the AMC. Considering that he doesn't have his own page, shouldn't we make note of the fact that he was Mirza's son, if he indeed was? It'd be highly relevant. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 18:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Mirza Bashir was indeed Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's son as well as being the "second Khalifa"! Yes I believe that it is important to mention the father-son relationship. Nazli 18:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Main Stream VS Fundamentalist Muslims

Most muslims tend to follow the dictates of their clerics who have declared Ahmadis to be non-muslims. Also the discussion regarding finality of prophet hood or the meaning of "khatim" has been addressed and linked later on in the article. Nazli 07:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There are only Muslims not mainstream Muslims. What a NPOV
I want to make these points:
(i) Qadianis claim that they are Muslim it is their POV and it is not NPOV.
(ii) Mirza Qadiani declared that he is a prophet and those don't believe him are Kaffirs.
(iii) Pakistan constitution clealy states that all the followers of Mirza Qadiani (Ahmadi and Lahoris) are non-Muslims
So please do not declare to be Muslims when your religious founder and Pakistan's constitution states otherwise. Also stop redirecting Qadianism page.
Siddiqui 19:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
1. Ahmadis claim that they are muslims. This is their POV. The Majority of Muslim countires have declared them non Muslims. This is their POV. A NPOV is to present both views. All articles dealing with Ahmadis clearly state that they are considered non muslims by the majority of muslims while they themselves consider them selves muslims. This is a NPOV. Stating that they are Kafirs is not NPOV.
2. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad declared him self a prophet. This is already clearly stated. His followers are considered karifs by most muslims is also clearly stated. However this in the majority muslim POV. Not NPOV. Hence it is also essential to state the Ahmadi POV, i.e their interpretation of phophethood and that fact that they call themselves muslims.
3. Pakistan consitution clearly states them to be non Muslims - a fact clearly stated and referenced in the Ahmadi article. I don't see you point of view here? Can you elaborate.
The fact that the constitution of some country declares a sect to be non muslims does not take away their right to call themselves muslims in a neutral enviornment. However please note that they in all Ahmadiyya related articles it is stated that it is the ahmadiyya that like to call themselves muslims not that they are universally accepted to be muslims.
Nazli 20:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The contitution of Pakistan, claims of followers Mirza and rulings of Muslim theologians clearly converge on the conclusion that Muslims and followers of Mirza follow different religion. Lahoris, Qadianis, Ahmadi considering themselves as Muslim is their POV.
Siddiqui
I agree - if you note I have already said this myself 3 paragraphs up. What does this have to do with redirecting the Ahmadi page? or for that matter with declaring them as non-muslims on wikipedia without refering to both points of views? Nazli 20:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we should redirect the page, because Ahmadis consider it offensive. Perhaps a section can be added about the constitution of Pakistan to solve the problem? This is very controversial because I don't understand what we can call one side if they can be considered mainstream or the only Muslims? Suggestions on how we can make both sides have their opinions? And please don't revert anymore on this. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

1. The article already referernces the Pakistan constitution. It also clearly states that Ahmadi's are considered Non-Muslims. It clearly gives the reason that they are considered Non-Msulims. It also clearly references and links to sites that provide further detail regarding the Ahmadi's Non-Muslim status.

2. Nowhere does it state that Ahmadi's ARE Muslims. It only states that the Ahmadi's like to refer to themselves as Muslims.

3. Not only this, but these issues are given prime importance by being dealt with at the head of the article.

4. The article clearly states the differences in faith between Ahamdi's and Muslims.

5. In imparting information about the Ahamdi's (since this is wikipedia and not an Ahmadi or Islamist site) a neutral point of view is maintained throughout.

If there are POV issues in the article please highlight these rather than deleting the text and redirecting the page. Nazli 12:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV links? PS 2 links completely anti

whats with so many NPOV sites? i understand neutraliy but come on. also about ahmadiyya.com is NPOV and should be placed under anti ahmadi sites, as is central mosque, and i quote this to prove my point:


Qadianism was originally fostered by the British imperialism. Hence it has been flourishing under her flag. This movement has completely been disloyal to and dishonest in affairs of the Muslim Ummah. Rather, it has been loyal to Imperialism and Zionism. It has deep associations and cooperation with the anti Islamic forces and teachings especially through the following nefarious methods

That is CLEARLY negative.

to muslims at least... AnnonD

Thats who its geared towards... AeomMai

Seems easier to just quote the sites and have all teh other stuff removed, positive and negative. Tram Ngo

Use of the term "Qadiani" in Paksitan and other countries

The term "Qadiani" may have originated in Paksitan, but is used in other countries as well. Albeit mostly by individuals of Pakistani origin or background. Nazli 04:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Its still derogatory, whereever it is used. The correct term is ahmadi. Qadiani is Negative. --AeomMai 22:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It is also a fact that the word "Qadiani" first mention in Pakistan and still people with Pakistani background use them, but they can not claim that everybody use it. for there own openion, its ok but why they claim when they do not know about others. Phippi46 00:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Without doubt the term "Qadiani" has come to be used in a derogatory fashion. There is no contention in this regard. The article already states that this term is considered derogatory. The issue is that this term is widely used. The constitution of Pakistan uses this term to refer to Ahmadi's belonging to the Qadian branch to distinguish them from Lahori Ahmadis: “Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves `Ahmadis` )”[2]. Any encyclopedia article dealing with Ahmadis would be incomplete without mentioing this term and its derogatory connotations. Nazli 01:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not say Ahmadi and lahori groups(who are called qadiani)?--AeomMai 21:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not the Lahori group that is reffered to as "Qadiani".... see [3]. Nazli 05:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of multiple Small changes

1. The sentence "Mainstream Muslims consider both Ahmadi sects to be heretics for a number of reasons, chief among them being the question of finality of prophethood, since they believe members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community do not regard the Islamic prophet Muhammad to be the last prophet", refers to the orthodox Muslim point of view, not the Ahmadi point of view. Hence giving details of Ahmadiyya Muslims Community interpretation of finality of prophethood is in appropriate at this point.

2. Deleting the sentence "He claimed to have fulfilled the prophecy of the return of Jesus" would also be inappropriate since the controversy surrounding Mirza Ghulam Ahmad stems from this claim.

3. The Ahmadiyya Muslims Community does believe Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be a non-law bearing prophet. Deleting references to this does not make sense.

4. The sentence "They do not believe that he is a prophet and this is what mainstream Muslims do not understand. The Ahmadiyya Community believes that the Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) was the final prophet." is inaccurate unless the issue of the of a "non-law bearing prophet" is also presented in the same context.

Nazli 05:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


All We ever know

People argue about the nature of claim made Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahab, was right of wrong you can discuss forever, but do not forget that we are just only humans, with limited capacities, I do not belief if some one claim such a big thing on the name of God and if he is wrong, God will wait so long to finished his teaching. No one who ever claimed that he was from God and was lair, never existed too long, hence here is Community still spreading in large numbers every years.. Do you think you know more than God ? and do you belief that God will let Ahmadiyya Community spreading like this like last 100 years so on the name of God if they were wrong. ? NO, so in which world you people are living ! You can do what ever you want but if you are wrong.. you will remain like that. phippi46 11:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again phippi, you are making a mistake. No one believes that they are smarter than god. They have their interpretation of things, as do you, as do i.--AeomMai 21:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Question

I made a description that i really like, but i need to know if its NPOV:

"final Islamic prophet Muhammad"

Is that NPOV? --Striver 11:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the LAST PROPHET, not only Islamic Prophet. As he was sent to all mankind. Now you can decide yourself that its NPOV or POV phippi46 13:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It could be considered POv for muslims,as muslims consider Muhammad (PBUH) though other religions dont.--AeomMai 15:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not think its correct, in all major religions, Islam is the last one. Muslim can claim to have POV about the finality of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), but it is also correct that the status reached by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) now can not be reached again by some one. In that sence he is THE LAST PROPHET and will remain forever phippi46 23:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

to muslims. What of the religions that came after islam, major or not? islamic prohpet is good, but we cant say last prophet altogether --AeomMai 00:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

which religion that came after Islam ? phippi46 23:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Well, Atheist Communism for one.--AeomMai 18:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course they don't. But, they are religions nonetheless. Your question was not "Which major religion came after islam?", it was "which religion came after islam." No matter how small, a religion is a religion.

I doubt that these are religion, rather movements that took intrest but you can not claim now that they even stand in front of religions like Christianity or Islam. phippi46 22:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Iknow no religion is bigger than christianity, islam and judaism, it would be ignorant to claim otherwise. However, i should also acknowledge that both christianity and judaism clainm that he was not the last prophet.--AeomMai 22:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the NPOV would be to state, "final, law-bearing Prophet of Islam", at least from the Islamic perspective. All Muslims can agree that he was the last law-bearing Prophet, no? It's a touchy subject due to the disagreement between Ahmadis and orthodox Muslims on the definition of finality as stated in the Qu'ran -- Sohail Mirza 22:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

multiple small edits

I have edited a number of recent changes (introuced without prior discussion), some of which address the fundamental issues between Ahmadi's and other Muslims:

1.reverted absurd removal “Muslim” from title of publication by ThePersecution.org.

2.reverted removal of the term Muslim as applied to Ahmadi's. Both sects refer to themselves as “Muslims”. The fact that they are considered non-muslims by some other sects is already clearly stated.

3.Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the proper name of the personality. Qadiyani is not part of his legal name.

4.There are no mainstream Ahmadis – only two sects with widely differing beliefs.

5.Various opinions stated throughout the article with no references reverted.

Nazli 06:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadis considered heretics...

with reference to recent edits [4] by Test01.

The fact that Ahmadi's have been legally declared as heretics by some of the largest Muslim states is highly significant and deserves an early mention in the article.

The number of states declaring this or the fairness of unfairness of this action is not the issue here.

Please do discuss if feel this is not the case. Repeatedly reverting the article will achieve nothing.

Nazli 05:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

With reference to Test01's edit summary. I agree that most Muslims may not be aware of the issues involved in declaring Ahmadi's non-muslims. I also agree that even though Paksitan, Bangaladesh et al are muslims nations they are not representative of ALL muslims. I also agree that the fact that some national assembly declared someone non muslims does not necessarily make them so. However that facts need to be stated to clearly to maintain a neutral point of view. Also Ahmadis are widely known as Qadianis. This fact need to be stated in the article. The fact that this term is considred by some as derogatory also need to be clearly stated to maintain a neutral point of view. Both these issues are referenced.
Nazli 03:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes

Changes in the following areas were reverted:

1. Ahmadi's refer to themselves as muslims. The fact that they are considered non-muslims by many other muslims is clearly stated. Removing the term 'muslim' is absurd and against the npov policy.

2. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's legal name does not include the term 'Qadiyani'. The usage of this term is already clearly mentioned. However insisting on adding this term to this name does not make sense.

3. Than fact is that there are a number of Muslims sects with sometimes widely differing and conflicting beliefs. Hence the term 'Muslim' needs to be qualified with 'mainstream'. Also if a qualification is not used it implies that wikipedia considers Ahmadi's to be non-muslims - a violation of npov.

Nazli 03:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

  • No one on Wikipedia is allowed to decide the faith and motives of any one. I think putting personal beliefs on Ahmadi pages will not solve the problem. Please leave the page as non-biased page and POVs or Anti Ahmadi information can be put on other artical where is seems necessary. phippi46 15:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification on Appointment of Caliph of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community

I feel there is a misrepresentation of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's leadership and the means of their appointment.

The article states:

The question of "Khilafat" was also an issue in the split of the Ahmadiyya movement. The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement believes that an "Anjuman" (body of selected people) should be in charge of the Jamaat. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, however, believes that Caliphs are appointed by God and they are in charge.

More accurately, the Ahmadi Muslim Community's Caliph is appointed by an electoral college.

The following is stated in "Welcome to Ahmadiyyat, The True Islam" by Dr. Karimullah Zirvi.

Islamic teaching regarding appointment and status of a Khalifa is that the office of Khilafat can under no circumstances be inherited. Rather, Khilafat is a holy trust which is entrusted to a pious member of the Jama'at through election. Islam further teaches that although the Khalifah is appointed through elections, in fact, God Almighty is guiding the members towards election of a righteous and able person as Khalifa. THis is such a subtle and spiritual system of appointment of a Khalifa that it might be difficult for the worldly people to understand. Once a person is elected as Khalifah, then according to Islamic teachings all of the members of the community are required to fully obey him. At the same time, it is required that the khalifah carry out his duties as Khalifah through consultation and taking into consideration the views of the members. However, it is not incumbent upon him to always accept the views and recommendations of the members.



The Khalifatul Masih (successor to the Promised Messiah and Mahdi) is elected to the office by voting by the members of the Electoral College, which was established for this purpose by Hadrat Musleh Ma'ud, Khalifatul Masih II. During the life of a Caliph, the Electoral College works under the supervision of the Caliph. However, after the demise of the Caliph, the Electoral College becomes completely indepndent and elects the next Caliph. During the election of the Caliph, names are proposed and seconded by the members of the Electoral College, and then they vote for the proposed names by raising their hands.

(Q/A Session with Hadrat Khalifatul Masih IVaba, August 24-26, 2001, Mannheim, Germany)

I believe the article should allude to or clearly state a more complete and comprehensive understanding of the AMC's Caliph and his election, rather than just stating that the Caliph is "appointed by God and they are in charge".

To this end, I wish to make a small edit to the article indicating that the Caliph is elected by an Electoral College and that the Caliph governs all operations of the community (as their spiritual leader).

Sohail Mirza 22:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please go ahead and make the changes that reflect the electoral process more accurately. It may however be more apt to introduce these changes in the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community article with only a short summary here.
Nazli 04:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Thanks! -- Sohail Mirza 06:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I thin it should be mentioned that a vast majority, and not just some Muslims, consider the Ahmadis as non-Muslims. Those who may regard them as Muslims normally change their mind when they become aware of the 'Ahmadi' beliefs and the Muslims objections. It would be more just to state that there is a consensus among both the theologians, scholars and the laity of both the Shia and Sunni sects, that Ahmadis, or as they call them - Mirzais/Qadianis - are non-Muslims. Having said that I do abhor and utterly condemn their oppression as a non-Muslim minority in any Muslim state. They are peaceful citizens of Pakistan and should be allowed to practise their religion without any threat to their lives. I also condemn the oppression of other minorities faith communities too i.e. the Christians. Moarrikh (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I just re=read this page and noticed that contributor Nazli very cleveley termed the two main sides in the debate as Ahmadi and Islamist rather than Ahmadi and Muslim, or Ahmadi and Islamic - see Nazli 16th April 2006 above.. This betrays her hidden agenda whilst claiming/appearing to be NPOV. It certainly appears she belongs to the one of the two Qadiani sects of 'Ahmadi' religion. Moarrikh (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)