From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Islam  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Ahmadiyya task force (marked as Low-importance).

qadianiFr is not derogatory word[edit]

From when this is considered to be a derogatory word? I know ahmadi as "qadiani". I just discovered from wikipedia that there is a word called ahmadi. I have several qadiani friends. They never told that they are ahmadi, they always told that they are qadiani. In asia "ahmadi" is unknown word. I can bring my qadiani friends to talk about this in this encyclopedia. Ahmadikafirkabaccha (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the source? --NeilN talk to me 14:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
--NeilN talk to me Ahmadikafirkabaccha should be banned. Is there no WP policy which says that usernames cannot be profane words? His name means "ahmadis are sons of infidels"FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks FreeatlastChitchat. I've reported the username and the account should be blocked soon. --NeilN talk to me 04:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
He is right that qadiani is the most common term, "ahmadi" is relatively unknown to most people. Saying it is derogatory is a bit ridiculous, it is just the name of the city the religion was invented in, Qadian. Sakimonk talk 21:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@Sakimonk: As NeilN stated did you bother reading the source? Yor edits such as this re-labelling Ahmadiyya as a separate religion are non-constructive and may constitute Vandalism.--Peaceworld 10:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
It is a seperate religion because they following a totally different belief system to Islam and they follow another prophet and they say God is like a human who fasts (authubillah...) etc. etc. they have been declared as kafir a long time ago by total consensus Sakimonk talk 23:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Really? At what noticeboard did we arrive at that consensus? I note that HRW also describe the term as derogatory.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
@Sakimonk: Seriously? Where on Earth do you get that information from? Please state your sources as this is Wikipedia and not some online forum. Facts matter over here and nothing else.--Muffingg (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

As per the source, the official government term is qadiani, it refers to them originating from Qadian, this isn't a slur...[edit]

If it was a slur why would the government label them this officially? Official government documents >>>>>> a solitary book which may or may not be reliable. Sakimonk talk 23:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

If "official government documents" do not recognize Ahmadiyya as a sect of Islam, they probably recognize it as herasy (sp?), so they might very well refer to it by a slur. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin The source Sakimonk refers to is part of Pakistan's Blasphemy laws which calls for up to three years of imprisonment for Ahmadis calling themselves Muslims, or preaching or propagating their faith, or "in any manner whatsoever" outraging the religious feelings of Muslims, or for posing themselves as Muslims. This bigoted law has been subject to serious criticism by international human rights organizations. If it uses a religious slur to refer to Ahmadis, it is by no means an accident. Rather it should be expected.--Peaceworld 09:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2016[edit]

Removal/Citation is needed for "As such, the majority of the Qadianis are Hindus, whilst a small number are Ahmadi Muslims and Christians."

The sentence begins with "As such" but it is a non sequitur really. Although the name might have etymologically originated from a town in India, the religious composition of current people of this persuasion need not be the same as that of the town, especially because it is a predominantly Pakistani community now, as the article claims.

If Qadianis consider themselves to be Ahmadiyya Muslims, they should be represented as Muslims on this page, or a citation provided to prove the contradictory claim. (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Yellow check.svg Partly done: Added Citation Needed template. Terra 21:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


@Sirius86: I don't think that Qadiani nor Mirzai should be merged with Ahmadiyya. They are not alternative names for Ahmadiyya, and neither do they fulfil any of the reasons, as suggested in WP:Redirect, for merging. There are many religious and ethnic slurs. We don't just merge them into their respective pages.--Peaceworld 14:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Peaceworld111: I know these are not alternative terms, but it would perhaps be more appropriate to briefly mention that these terms are used for Ahmadis as pejoratives in the main Ahmadiyya article itself. They hardly merit separate articles. Encyclopedias that include articles on Ahmadiyya don't usually have separate articles on "Qadiani" and "Mirzai". Moreover, if you check the legitimate reasons for merging pages here, I think some of these reasons do apply. For example:
  • If there's a significant overlap: there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept. For example, "flammable" and "non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on flammability.
  • If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.
  • Context: If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.
Also check this "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" Sirius86 20:54, 02 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support merge per above. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 20:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge: Template:Religious slurs is full of other terms that are socially significant slurs for groups. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support In the context of a pejorative, it may be be useful to include a section on the topic within the main article; particularly since it seems to be a legal definition as used by the Pakistan Penal Code, and if there is controversy surrounding such. DA1 (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2016[edit]

The Article says that Most Qadianis or Ahmadies consist of Sikhs and Hindus, which is really agains the facts that, they consider themselves as Muslims, and they never claimed to be Sikhs or Hindus. You may say that most of them are from Punjab - other given statement is either untrue or it is put in a way giving understanding as if they are Sikhs or Hindus. Correction needed pls.

Nadeem2say (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done - as it seems unlikely and has been tagged [citation needed] since March - Arjayay (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Source[edit]

This Article needs improvement per WP:SYN. SpyButeo (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not at all helpful. You need to be much more specific. Doug Weller talk 16:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
@SpyButeo: Please explain why you have removed the fact that the term is "derogatory" despite valid reference provided. If not done so, your edit will be reverted. Thanks.--Peaceworld 17:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)