Talk:Ahmadiyya/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Links and articles section

Most of the links in the "Resources on other sites" section plus the all the links in the "Articles" section can easily be identified as being Anti-Ahmadiyya. I've moved these links to the "Anti-Ahmadiyya External links" section. 67.168.108.126 08:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Anonymous

Views of Mainstream Muslim section

This Artical was created to present information about Ahmadies. So it should be contain strict Ahmadi general information, the section "views of mainstream muslim" is not related to this artical. so in my view should be removed, and can be put in other, more related artical. phippi46 17:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to present information from a neutral point of view. The fact is that Ahmadi beliefs are source of great controversy among many Muslim groups. It would be a violation of the npov policy not to mention so called "mainstream" Muslims views. Nazli 03:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Nazli how can a belief creat controversy among muslim. if they want that, then its possible, however this is long discussion, my suggestion is only that we put this section more related artical like criticism on Ahmadiyyat, where only this nature of information is presented. no body is talking completely removing from wikipeida. phippi46 13:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes having a separate article for criticism of ahmadiyyat could be done. However even if this is done there will need to be a summary of "main-stream" views in the Ahmadi article with a link to detailed information in the main "criticism" article to maintain a npov. If you feel strongly about this go ahead create the article on anti-ahmadiyya views. My feeling is that given the controversy surrounding ahmadiyyat we will end up replicating detailed anti-ahmadiyya information in both the Ahmadi article as well as the new “criticism” article. Also the anti-ahmadiyyat article will end up being a soap box for radical extremist views that will be difficult to monitor for pov edits. Nazli 04:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Nazli. Stop putting in "Differs" when it comes to the belief in the return of Jesus PBUH. IF you are a member of the "mainstream" islam then you definietly believe that. THERE are NO varing opinions on the matter only with Ahmedis. Quizling22204

Some "main stream" Muslims do not believe that Jesus was lifted alive to heaven[1] or that he will return to earth[2]. Similarly some Muslim do not believe that they have the right to declare a 'kalima' professing person a 'kafir' or they hold no particular opinion about M G Ahmad. It would be factually incorrect to include every single 'main stream' Muslim on the face of earth in a blanket statements about the ahmadiyya groups. Nazli (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Nizli, All mainstream muslims hold the same ideals about Jesus (pbuh). It is a principle belief of Islam. If one doesn't believe it, then they are not a part of mainstream islam. So, change the "differs" part or provide examples of the differentiations.

Quizling22204 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.48.155 (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Mirza Mahmud used the term "outside the pale of Islam"...

Mirza Mahmud Ahmad of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has clearly stated that he considers Muslims who do not believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be “Kafirs”, he then goes on to use the term “outside the pale of Islam”. The following translation of his words is taken from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's own website:

“(1) that I propagated the belief that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was actually a Nabi; (2) the belief that he was 'the Ahmad' spoken of in the prophecy of Jesus referred to in the Holy Quran in 61 : 6; and (3) the belief that all those so-called Muslims who have not entered into his Bai'at formally, wherever they may be, are Kafirs and outside the pale of Islam, even though they may not have heard the name of the Promised Messiah. That these beliefs have my full concurrence, I readily admit.”

(from the English translation of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s book A’inah-i Sadaqat, entitled The Truth About the Split, pages 55–56, http://www.alislam.org/library/split/part1.html#refute)

Nazli 04:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Nazli I read this page on the address you mentioned, but you forgot to write the title of this paragraph and it is clearly mentioned there "Alleged Innovations", if read the other paragraphs, it will be clear what he meant with it, I think it is not fair just to take one small chunk of large discussion. phippi46 12:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly it is not one small chunck of a larger discussion - these are three solid statments defining his beliefs. The discussion later on is an elaboration of his beliefs. In the latter discussion he essentially reaffirms his statement in a round about way:

"As for the question of Kufr (unbelief) of non-Ahmadi Muslims, my belief is that Kufr really arises from a denial of God. Hence, whenever there comes any revelation from God of such a nature that its acceptence is obligatory on every man, a rejection of the same leads to Kufr. Belief in such a revelation, however, presupposes belief in the bearer of the revelation. Hence it follows that a belief in the bearer of such revelation is a necessary part of one's faith. The man who rejects a prophet thus necessarily becomes a Kafir, not because he denies the truth of any particular prophet X or Y, but such denial will necessarily lead him to reject a revelation of God."

He essentially wants you to believe in all prophets. Since he believes that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a true prophet any non believers in him are hence Kafirs according to him.

From the perspective of presenting information for a neutral point of view and to be fair to "main-stream" Muslims, the fact that the term "Kafir" and the statement "outside the pale of Islam" was used Mirza Mahmud Ahmad to refer to other Muslims is of paramount importance. The article does mention the context in which these terms were used.

Nazli 13:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes he cleared his position in later part of this discussion. However, one thing is intesting, there are not many versions of this story, there are only two of them, and I think you will agree with them. i) Because so called Main-stream Muslims belief there will be no Prophet after Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) so its give them right to declare Ahmadies Non-Muslim ii) Mirza Mahmud Ahmad is telling that "if Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani is a true Nabi in sence, what he cleared.. then it is necessary to take him as one, and not doing will put label of Kafir .." I hope you understand my meaning.. regards phippi46 16:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is not clear. The crux of the matter is as following:

(1) It is confirmed that Mirza Mahmud used the term "Kafir" for non-believers in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's qualified/modified prophethood.

(2) It is confirmed that Mirza Mahmud used the term "outside the pale of Islam" for non-believers in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's qualified/modified prophethood.

(3) It is confirmed that Mirza Mahmud considered belief in all prophets essential to be called a Muslim.

(4) It is confirmed that Mirza Mahmud considered Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be a true prophet in every sense of the word except that he did not bring a new law.

(5) Hence according to Mirza Mahmud anyone who does not believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet is a "kafir" and "outside the pale of Islam"

(6) It is also confirmed that Mirza Mahmud declared all such people to be "kafirs" and "outside the pale of Islam" even though they were not even aware of the existance of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

(7) The fact is that many Muslims today do not consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be a prophet. Also many Muslims believe that he was a apostate. Also many Muslims may never have heard of him.

(8) Hence According to Mirza Mahmud all these people are "kafirs" and "outside the pale of Islam"

The issue here is not whether Mirza Mahmud's point of view is right or wrong, or wherether Mirza Ghulam Ahamd can be considered a true prophet or apostate or metphorical prophet.

The issue is that an edit was made to the Ahmadi article which added the following sentence:

"However main-stream Muslims saying the Kalima are referred to as "Kafirs" (but not Non-Muslims) in the context of their non belief in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet, the Mahdi and Promised Messiah."

This sentence is factually incorrect as is evident from the statement "outside the pale of Islam" made and verified by Mirza Mahmud. Hence my edit to revert this addition to wikipedia.

Nazli 03:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have removed POV statements from this artical. Wikipedia is not a platform to called some one heritical, it is against the wikipedia policy. phippi46 13:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the "Who is Muslim" Block from reference pages 59-61 "http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Truth-about-the-Split.pdf"

• As for the question of Kufr (unbelief) of non-Ahmadi Muslims, my belief is that Kufr really arises from a denial of God. Hence, whenever there comes any revelation from God of such a nature that its acceptance is obligatory on every man, a rejection of the same leads to Kufr. Belief in such a revelation, however, presupposes belief in the bearer of the revelation. Hence it follows that a belief in the bearer of such revelation is a necessary part of one’s faith.
• The man who rejects a Prophet thus necessarily becomes a kafir, not because he denies the truth of any particular Prophet X or Y, but such denial will necessarily lead him to reject a revelation of God.
• To me, the Kufr which arises from the denial of any Nabi has its basis in this principle and not in any personal quality of the Nabi. And inasmuch as the revelation of which the acceptance is obligatory on mankind comes only through Prophets, it is the rejection of such recipients of Divine revelation, and not of others that leads to unbelief.
• Now, as we hold that the revelation which came to the Promised Messiahas are such that their acceptance is obligatory on mankind in general, to us, the man who rejects the Promised Messiahas is a kafir agreeably to the teachings of the Holy Quran, although he may well be a believer in all the other truths of religion because the presence even of one of the necessary conditions of Kufr is sufficient to make a man kafir.
• I may however add that in my opinion Kufr arises from a denial of one or more of the fundamental articles of religion, not because such a denial makes a man the object of unending punishment, but because the denial makes him guilty of rebellion against God and leads to the extinction of his spiritual life.
• Now, as Islam bases its judgments upon what is patent and not upon what is possible, it cannot but class as kafir such as fail to accept any of the Prophets, even though such failure may be due to their want of information concerning him. In the latter case, they will not, of course, be the objects of Divine punishment. The denial would be due to causes altogether beyond their control. It is in accordance with the same principle that Muslims have so long with one accord designated as kuffar all those who have not accepted the faith of Islam, without taking into consideration the question whether or not such failure is occasioned by want of adequate information concerning the Holy Prophetsa. And the doctor is yet to be born who will class in the category of Muslims the Esquimaux of the North Pole, the Red Indians of America, the Hottentots of Africa or the Maoris of Australia, or those millions of Christians, who living in central Europe or in other out of the way places have not yet heard anything regarding the teachings of the Holy Prophetsa.

—Preceding unsigned comment added byThetruebelieve (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The quote I am referring to is:

“(1) that I propagated the belief that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was actually a Nabi; (2) the belief that he was 'the Ahmad' spoken of in the prophecy of Jesus referred to in the Holy Quran in 61 : 6; and (3) the belief that all those so-called Muslims who have not entered into his Bai'at formally, wherever they may be, are Kafirs and outside the pale of Islam, even though they may not have heard the name of the Promised Messiah. That these beliefs have my full concurrence, I readily admit."

(from the English translation of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s book A’inah-i Sadaqat, entitled The Truth About the Split, pages 55–56, [3])

Nazli (talk) 06:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with the fact what is written, there he is saying that the people that do not believe in the Promised messiah are outside the pale of islam. I think we should have a separated column for "who is muslim" and one on Kalima Shahada. As it is a prerequisite to say the Kalima to be a Ahmadi, and then following this, whoever is regarding within or outside the pale of islam. E.g. the reason why Mirza Bashir udding Mahmud Ahmad believes that the people are outside the pale of islam. It needs to be explained that according to quranic rules, Kufr arises by rejection of Allah's command, Allah's command is brought to people through Messengers (rasul/nabi), as Mainstream Muslim see Mohammad as the Last nabi, believing in him makes a person Muslim. For The Anjuman-ishaate it is just necessary to say the Kalima and then see the promised Messiah as a Mujaddid and Messiah but not Nabi. However for the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a Nabi, hence rejection of his would let one be outside the pale of Islam. So in this case either we have two columns, one on "shahada", and one on "who is muslim", or there should be an explanation in why Mirza Bashir ud din Mahmood Ahmad believes people to be outside the fold of Islam. (e.g. the quranic rule of denial of god's command leading to kufr). Thetruebelieve (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Your current version seems fair enough. Nazli (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary of multiple edits

I have reverted some recent edits for the following reasons:

1. The two Ahmadiyya movements claim to be within the fold of Islam. The fact that many Muslims consider them to be non-muslims is clearly stated in the article. It would a NPOV violation for Wikipedia to make a judgement on this by removing the term Muslim / Islam realted to the movents.

2. The official / legal name of one of the Ahmadiyya movements is "The Ahmadiyy Muslim Community". Deleting the term "Muslim" from the name of the organization is absurd.

3. The Ahmadiyys movement's claimed objective is the revival of Islam. You may or may not agree with it - however the fact remains that the movement claims this as it objecive and since this article is about the movement it makes not sense to delete this sentence.

4. The fact that Ahmadis have been persecuted in many countries is a well established documented fact. Why would one want to remove references to this from the article?

5. Ahmadi beliefs with reference to alleged abrogation of the Quran, precedence of Hadith over Quran etc are well documented. It is absurd to remove references to this from the article.

6. Replacement of the term "Main Stream Muslims" or "Orthodox Muslims" with only "Muslims" is a NPOV violation. This implies passing a judgement on the status of Ahmadis. Also many Muslims have no particular beliefs regarding Ahamdi's or are not aware of the issues involved or harbour beliefs similar to Ahmadis in some respects. Using the blanket term "Muslims" would be unfair to them.

Nazli 18:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

With reference to the reply by Yusaf465 to the above issues [4]

1. At no point does the article say that Ahmadis consider other Muslims to be "Main Stream Muslims". Rather the term "Main Stream Muslims" is a term in general usage to refer to the a Majority of Muslims with closely linked beliefs. There are many splinter groups that do not subscribe to some of the "Main Stream" beliefs but are still legally Muslims (even in Pakistan). Thus you cannot include them with other Muslims (for the purpose of this article at least). Hence the usage of the "Main Stream" to refer to those Muslims that harbour the exact beliefs stated in the article. (more on this issue in point number 6 below)

2. No issue here.

3. Please do let me know if I can clear up misunderstandings on this issue once you have given it some thought.

4. The fact is that even though there was physical persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan / India / Bangaladesh before the law was passed, the volume and intensity of persecution increased after that. Persecution in the Ahmadi's work environment (i.e. promotions being denied etc) really came into effect after the law as in place. Despite these well established facts, at no point does the article blame the Pakistan government or the law.

5. In the late 1800's and early 1900's there was widespread belief among most Muslims groups that certain verses of the Quran were abrogated by other Quranic verses or by Hadith literature. (a belief still prevalent among some groups today). Mirza Ghulam Ahmad at that time put forward his belief that no verses of the Quran could be abrogated and that in all matter of fiqah the interpretation of the Quran had precedence over hadith. This was one of the main agendas of his movement. Hence it is vital to mention this in the article. The article clearly states that these are Ahmadi belief with out making a judgment on the beliefs of other Muslims. It does not make sense to remove this vital issue from the article.

6. As an example, take the "Main Stream" Muslim belief that Jesus was taken to heaven by God where he waits to descend down to earth (in the flesh) at the end of time. Ahmadis do not believe this. They believe that Jesus dies a natural death and will not return in the flesh. This was originally an Ahmadi belief but is now shared by a large number of people who are legally Muslims in Pakistan who subscribe to the belief propagated by the Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic Sciences [5]. This group is guided by Javed Ahmad Ghamidi who was until recently a member of Council of Islamic Ideology, Pakistan Government.

I hope the above clears up the confusion. I did not quite understand your example using Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah in the context of the Ahmadiyya Movement. I would appreciate it if you could please elaborate on that. Thank you.

Nazli 04:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

With referernce to Yusaf465's comments on my talk page [6].

I believe that there is a misunderstanding on your part. I did not say that I believe the Quran to be abrogated. Rather this was a belief which was widely held by Muslims until relatively recently. Even today some groups hold on to this belief. You asked for references in this regard. Wikipedia has a very extensive article on this which will help answer your questions: Naskh.

Regarding your comparison of AlQaeda and Hezbollah's denial of the term "terrorist" as applied to them, to the Ahmadiyya movement's use of the term "Muslim" as applied to themselves. I believe that the comparision is unfair for the following reasons: AlQaeda and Hezbollah are organizations which kill innocent people etc - an act which is unacceptable in all civilized cultures of the world. Hence using the term "terrorist" to describe these movements is entirely valid even though they themselves do not subscribe to it.

In comparision the Ahmadiyya movements do not pursue a policy of violence in any form and in contrast believe in a very peaceful definition of the term 'jihad'. Their personal religious beliefs are not universally condemned like those of AlQaeda. The commparision is hence unfair.

Regarding your statement about Ahmadis not being legally allowed to use the term "Muslims" for themselves. This law has only been passed in Pakistan. In most other parts of the world there is no such restriction. Also as you well know the decisions of the national assembly of Paksitan are subject to massive bias as is evidenced by it manipulation by every government to ammend the constitution of Pakistan in its favour. Hence they lack international credibility.

I am not denying that Ahmadi's are declared by Pakistani law to be non-muslims. What I do argue against is a blanket application of this decision as a basis of passing judgement on the Ahmadiyya Movements in Wikipedia.

Saudi Arabia does not allow people with Non-Muslim stamped on their passports to perform the pilgrimage. Since Paksitan issues such passports, Paksitani Ahmadis cannot perform the Hajj / Umra. However Ahmadis from other countires of the world do not face this restriction.

Regarding your definition of a Muslim being one who believes in the unqualified finality of prophet hood. If this is the case then members of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement have to be considered Muslims since they harbour this belief.

Regarding your belief that any group having beliefs similar to the Ahmadiyya movements needs to be evaluated to determine their status as Muslims. I respect your personal belief, however I don't see what that has to do with use of the terms "Muslim" and "Main Stream Muslims" in wikipedia.

Nazli 09:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

With reference to comments by Yousaf465 on my talk page [7]

Thank you for clearing up that your example regarding Al Qaida and Hezbollah had to do with how the media has portrayed their organizations. However I am still confused as to how this applies to the Ahmadiyya organizations?

There are multiple interpretations of Islamic law - also your reference to geo's islamic programs is a little confusing in this context?

The definition of terrorist may or may not include the US military, that is a POV - however what does this have to do with the Ahmadiyya organizations?

You have misunderstood my point regarding the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement. I was was not saying that they should be considered Mulims. What I was saying was that according to the definition given by you they fall within the fold of Islam.

Please elaborate on your statement: "About your point that LAH should be considred as Muslim then i would like to says if anybody today claim to deny holocaust then he is sent to jail so pl widen your knowlege and think of this example". How does some who denies the holocast relate to the Ahmadiyya movement?

Not all Muslims are followers of Abu Handfia.

Also with reference to your statement: "So how do you consider follwers of a condemmend person to be Muslims", Please try to understand that, as I have already explained above, I am not saying that any of the Ahmadi's are Muslims. I am merely saying that if one is use the straight forward definiton of muslims given by you: "muslim in this context is one who do testify in Finality of Prophethood", the issue of declaring someone a non-Muslims is not that straight forward, since if you use this criteria the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement would need to be considered as Muslims.

Nazli 17:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sunni?

Are the Ahmadi Sunnis? --Striver 11:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you could classify their belief as having Sunni characteristics. That is, they have no issue with the sequence of succession after the prophet's death. Nazli 13:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No they're not Sunnis. Both the Sunnis and the Shittes agree unanimously that Ahmadis are non Muslims.

• I have removed some non-related info for this paragraph (In the start of the Artical), as the same information is clearly mentioned in another paragraph phippi46 21:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Pakistani Law Ahmadi are not even Muslim.what to talk of them as Sunni or Shai Khalidkhoso 21:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Issue with one line

In the section "Doctrines compared between major sub-groups and to mainstream Muslims" "That Jihad can only be used to protect against extreme religious persecution, not as a political weapon or an excuse for rulers to invade neighboring territories." In my opinion this is slightly biased, it implies that mainstream Muslims believe that Jihad can be used as a political weapon or an excuse to invade. Just because it is used, doesn't make it acceptable to mainstream Muslims. I am rewording this section. Zaxim 05:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments by 70.54.44.246

Would it be possible for someone to make titles more consistent, ie, 'Hazrat Mohamad vs 'Prophet' Mohamad as it appears in the comparison chart. This may lead those unfamiliar with the impression they are not referring to the same entity. I don't yet have confidence to edit myself, so thanks in advance to whomever may act on this humble suggestion....thanks from ~Nabeel on Dec.18/06

Ahmadi's are considered muslims

The Ahmadi movement in Islam is considered to be a sect of muslims. Eventhough Pakistan says they are not muslims in the UN the freedom of rights clearlyy say any sect should be able to practice their religon freely.--69.157.116.219 17:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the UN doesnt define religion does it. When Shiite and Sunni scholars unanimously agree that Ahmadis are nonmuslims, that makes them non muslims according to the overwhelming majority of muslims. Its not about Pakistan or India or UN, its about a Shiite Sunni consensus. So they may call themselves muslims but they will never be accepted as such. Tqaisrani 15:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that technically speaking, Sunni and Shia consider each other kafirs and/or non-Muslims too but each believes itself to be the truth. Jedi Master MIK 00:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

But there is no unanimous fatwa to state that all Shia's or all Sunnis in the general sense are considered by either group as non-muslims - unlike the ruling on the Ahmadi movement. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 14:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In their separate groups and circles they do consider each other unanimously one way or another. Adding more to my previous response, if you're talking majority, generally speaking the Sunnis are well over Shias in quantity. What offically in the end defines religion will be (to non-Ahmadi Muslims/Ahmadi Muslims) Allah and no one else so a majority can be unanimous on whatever they want but thats still their belief and POV. I don't know why there's a problem anyways b/c it is clearly stated what majority/all/whatever non-Ahmadi Muslims believe about Ahmadis and thats all thats necessary. Jedi Master MIK 00:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot agree with that. No scholars of either group consider all members of the other to be non-muslims. If you have any sources that say otherwise, I would be interested in reading it. The distinction with the Ahmadi is that both Sunni and Shias delivered their unanimous fatwa in 1974 to state that Ahmadis are not muslims because a key facet of being a muslim is believing in the finality of prophethood which the Ahmadis don't believe in. There are many more current rulings strengthening this argument. However, if you have any sources which show a Sunni/Shia scholar giving a ruling that Ahmadis can be considered muslims, then by all means add that in to the article because unless this can be shown, then regardless of whether Ahmadis are allowed to practice their religion in any country freely (even a muslim majority country), it does not give them the status of being a muslim. → AA ^(talk) — 08:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(To start I just want to suggest if you want to continue this, we should in the bottom one, now then...) It does not give them the status of being Muslim in the eyes of non-Ahmadi Muslims which is what the article says. Wikipedia is not a non-Ahmadi Muslim view promoting site however so they can give all the fatwas in the world but no side should be chosen here. BTW, I haven't gotten a chance to look through where you put the site regarding this international conference so could you post it here on this discussion? Jedi Master MIK 18:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I have added refs to the article to the 1974 Declaration by the World Muslim League where it was unanimously decided that Ahmadis were not muslims. I have not seen any evidence to show this fatwa was repealed or overturned and per WP:UNDUE we must not give the impression they are muslims - in the general view. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 14:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Calling them "Ahmadi Muslims" gives no such impression as again the controversy and mainstream Muslims belief is clearly given. Saying "mainstream Muslims" also as far as I see gives no harm as the bigger majority which is non-Muslims of the world will discern on their own objectivity who they think is right but otherwise think nothing different. If it really is that big of a problem, then I suggest simply "non-Ahmadi Muslims". Jedi Master MIK 00:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

We can refer to proper nouns that incorporate the word "Muslim" but not in the general sense or where we are distinguishing between muslims and Ahmadis. Just like muslims can't call themselves Christians even though they believe in all the "Christian" prophets but due to (primarily) themo not believing in Jesus being the son of God, they are not Christians. → AA ^(talk) — 09:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, I see no problem with saying non-Ahmadi Muslims and Ahmadi Muslims; the 2 groups can judge all they want about who isn't what but in a NPOV wiki article which isn't supposed to take sides, it will show each side's belief. Responding to your example, you're right that Muslims wouldn't/couldn't call themselves christians b/c they don't follow the basic tenants of modern christianity but we're talking about Islam here and Ahmadi Muslims follow the basic tenants of Islam (Five pillars of Islam, Six articles of Faith, etc.) needed for recognition as a Muslim and they believe in Muhammad (saw) as the Master Prophet of all Prophets. The concept of believing in the finality of prophethood is part of the views/beliefs of the mainstream Muslims to be considered Muslim by them. Jedi Master MIK 18:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup and organization of Ahmadi, AMC, and LAM pages.

Hi. In going over the Ahmadi, Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement pages, there is a lot of duplicate referencing, a lot of repeated information that is not in summary form, and a lot of links that are irrelevant to the specific purpose of the page.

I want to clarify the purposes of the three pages, to see if we can't reach consensus on what to put on each page. My own vision of the three is that the Ahmadi page can be used to provide the bulk of the information on what distinguishes Ahmadi muslims from the bulk of Islam, can articulate their common beliefs, articulate the history of the thing wiht some summary of the split, and summarize the current demographics, and other community stats. The main page should not, in my understanding, address in detail the specific differences between the AMC and LAM.

The LAM and AMC pages, then, would provide specifics on these communities, including more detailed demographics, specific departures of belief from each other, etc. Anti-Ahmadi links, unless they were specifically relevant to AMC or LAM, would not be on these pages, as they would be easily found on the Ahmadi page. Similarly, general information on Ahmadi beliefs and references that are not specific to AMC and LAM should go ont eh main page, whereas the LAM and AMC pages themselves would be much smaller and more focused, both in content and references.

Obviously, the three pages would need some major NPOV overhaul, as their current state is a mish-mash of styles, with POV pushing. It wouldn't take much to make them NPOV, just some careful editing. I've started by creating Ahmadiyya Muslim Community/Draft (to avoid contaminating the page with major changes until I get a little farther. I think we can do this with all three pages, but I started with a draft for politeness, and to avoid revert wars. HOpefully we can come up with something that Ahmadis, opponents of these groups, and neutral disinterested parties can all agree is fair, accurate, and Neutral. --Christian Edward Gruber 21:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've abandoned the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community/Draft as most of what needs fixing is obvious in light of Wikipedia policies such as WP:V, WP:N and WP:NPOV. I've started making changes directly. --Christian Edward Gruber 22:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Belief comparison table

I think the table is some what confusing in certain palces. For example the table seems to suggest that the theory of Jesus dying in Kashmir is a distinct AMC belief, while in fact the beleif is common among the two Ahmadi groups. Similarly the position regarding the Kalima that is shown as common to the two groups is referenced to only one group's literature. I plan to start editing and referencing this table to make it clearer and less ambigious. Would welcome any pointers, views, suggestions before I start. Sufaid 06:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the new format of the table is somewhat confusing. The subtle differences between the sects may be better represented by using separate columns. The format of the old table with the new information on Jehad added in, may be the best option. However if you feel there is a better way to present the information - go for it. Nazli 07:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for help, because my english is not good enough. I used these table for the german article, enhancing and improving it. Your suggestion I can onces more apply for the german article. --Ahmadi2 15:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Grave factual error. Please correct it

Please see the section in which comparison between Islam and two Ahamadiya sects have been furnished. While discussing the status of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed in Islam, the following observation was made: "A prophet in the allegorical sense. [13] Mujaddid of the 14th Islamic century. The promised Mahdi and the second coming of Jesus." This is COMPLETELY UNTRUE AND ISLAM DOESN'T acknowledge this view. So please change it. Kazimostak 17:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The text you quoted refers to the Lahore Ahmadiyya view and NOT the main stram Islam view. Sufaid 06:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed a bit the wording at the mainstream Islam view about "the second coming of Jesus" to reflect Kazimostak's opinion. XoXo 07:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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 19:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

'Muslim Television Ahmadiyya'

I think there are some very ignorant comments on here by some people. I think you should watch Muslim Television Ahmadiyya to learn about true Islam, rather then the polluted filth 'mainstream' maulvis have been feeding you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.168.213 (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Flag

In the article Ahmadiyya on the Dutch language wikipedia someone placed an image of a "flag of Ahmadiyya" (see also here). The text, I was told, is part of a verse of the Qur'an (Al-Hadid, verse 25). Anyone here know whether or not this flag is "the flag of Ahmadiyya"? I have my doubts about this but my knowledge on the topic is limited... Thanks in advance, Martijn ^→!?← 21:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen that flag used by the Movement before and if its not sourced from an actual Ahmadiyya Muslim Community site, I wouldn't trust it. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The falg can be seen here : de:Ahmadiyya Muslim Dschamaat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.224.98.182 (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Population: Can we be more specific?

"Exceeding tens of millions" is a very vague figure for the question of how many people profess Ahmadi faith. Can we please put some numbers down, even if they're approximate? For example: 20-30 million. I realize that there might not be any consensus about this fact, but I think the current statement verges on being unsubstantiated opinion. BryanC (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

One VS Two Ahmadiyya Groups/Communities

With reference to the opening sentence of the article:

(1) There are currently two separate Ahmadiyya parties - ideologically, administratively as well as legally.

(2) Both interpret a crucial segment of Mirza Ghulam Ahamd's claims very differently as already stated and cited in the article.

(3) The "non-Muslim" status of Ahmadiyya parties in the eyes of many Muslims is directly related to this interpretation.

(4) Both groups believing in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad like to refer to themselves as "Ahmadi".

It is hence imperative that fact that the term "Ahmadi" can refer to either of the two parties, is stated at the start of the article - this is the current and historical status of the movement, going as far back as a few years after the inception of the party by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. The fact that in the early part of the last century the movement was united is already mentioned in the article.

Nazli (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this discussion. The split which took place quarter of a century after the founding of the movement and one which became an ideological difference much later, has already been mentioned in the third paragraph of the article which I think is sufficient. There are fundamental differences of interpretation in all religious traditions. However, they do not form an introductory description of it and all branches are counted as within that one religious tradition/group.

The opening: is a name used for two religious communities that arose out of Islam towards the end of the 19th century, has the misleading implication that there had been two separate movements that simultaneously arose out of Islam and were both called Ahmadiyya, whereas this is contrary to historical fact.

The "non-Muslim" status of both Ahmadiyya branches in the eyes of many Muslims is not concerned with the difference of interpretation among the two branches but primarily because of the term Nabi (prophet) used by both parties/groups with regards to their founder. The LAM does differ from the AMC in important aspects of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s claims but this is not the concern of many muslims who state that no allegorical or literal prophet can come after Muhammad[8]. They collectively label both Ahmadiyya branches as non-muslims and outside of the pale of islam notwithstanding the difference of interpretations between the two groups.

I think I have proved my point to some extent, and believe that it is not meet to mention the two groups in the opening/introduction of this religious group as if they were its main feature. This can be misleading. Please think it over.

Sirius86 (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your point of view, however consider the following:

(1) The fact is that currently there are two branches of the movement both claiming to follow the true interpretations of the claims of M G Ahmad and both claiming the other movement of 'innovation'. The fact that historically the movement was united early on is clearly mentioned in the article. Alluding to these sects in the opening paragraph in no way violates any of the pov policies of wikipedia where as referring to a single movement may imply a pov violation.

(2) The two Ahmadi sects differ on fundamental issues regarding the status of the founder - as opposed to, for example, the shia/sunni split where there is not contention regarding the status of the prophet Muhammad. It is hence perfectly valid to group them seperately.

(3) It could be argued that the non-Muslim status of Ahmadis in the eyes of many Muslims is dependent on many issues other than the use of the term "nabi" (statements of Mirza Bashir, interpretation of quranic verses etc etc). However this argument is meaningless in context of Wikipedia.

(4) The fact that both movements may be considered out side Islam does in no way reduce the ideological differences between them.

Summary: Referring to the two Ahmadi sects in the opening is (1) factual (2) does not violate npov (3) does not detract from readability of the sentence. Referring to only a single community (1) is factually incorrect (2) implies a npov viloation.

From the perspective of a Wikipedia article, there is everything to gain and nothing to lose by referring to the Ahmadis as two sects.

Nazli (talk) 06:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The ideological differences of the two groups are an internal matter within Ahmadiyya and I stress again that they can not form an introductory description of it. There are more important aspects of Ahmadiyya. It is on the whole an eschatological faith which is primarily centered around Mirza Ghulam Ahmad being the prophesied Messiah and Mahdi and the death of Jesus, both branches agree with this and the Divine status of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. From the point of view of the layman, Ahmadiyya in its opening description should be presented as one entity. It is the common heritage of both branches. I understand that the split is an important aspect of Ahmadiyya and has therefore been mentioned in the third paragraph.

There are fundamental differences in every religion even regarding the status of its founder, such as in Christianity. The differences within Ahmadiyya are based around ideology (claims of the founder) but Ahmadiyya ideology/beliefs upon which the two branches differ have not been mentioned in the opening, hence neither should the two branches be. Moreover the split has also been mentioned in the opening paragraphs of each of the articles on both branches respectively, the AMC and the LAM, all the more reason why there is no need to mention it in the opening of this article.

I tend to look at the hand first and then concentrate on its fingers, whereas it seems that Nazli concentrates at the fingers first and then realises it is a hand.

I agree that referring to the two Ahmadiyya sects is factual but disagree with the fact that this should be mentioned in the opening. I also agree that referring to one single community is factually incorrect and that is why I propose to use the term faith and not community in the opening, thus, both branches fall under this purview. There is nothing to lose by referring to Ahmadis as two sects but it can be misleading to mention them as such in the opening description of it.

Sirius86 (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) The ideological differences between the two sects is what defines them. Why should this not form an introduction?

(2) The fundamental differences between the two sects rest on their individual interpretation of the claims regarding the "spiritual" status of the founder.

(3) Both sects believe that they are the "hand" with no question of there being any "fingers" - hence the necessity to present both parties in the introduction. The issue here is not to make a judgment call as to whether there is a "hand and fingers" or "two hand" or whatever, but rather to present the facts as are.

(4) If referring to two Ahmadiyya sects is factual then how can referring to a single community also be factual?

I don't see how it can be "misleading" to mention the presence of two sects in the opening.

Nazli (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello everybody, I was invited to put forth my views here. Well after reading this little discussion and looking at the introduction, I've noted 2 things and would like to suggest one.

1. The intro says "Ahmadi" is a name given to 2 groups; isn't Ahmadi what you call the followers of the groups, not the groups themselves? We already have pages on the groups.
2. The fact that there are 2 communities is already mentioned in the the 3rd paragraph of the introduction.
3. How about something like this? Ahmadi (Urdu: احمدیہ Ahmadiyya), is a name used for the followers and communities of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (d. 1908) from Qadian, in Punjab, India who was an important religious figure at the end of the 19th century. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to have fulfilled the prophecies about the world reformer of the end times who was to herald the Eschaton as predicted in the traditions of various World religions, the Mujaddid (divine reformer) of the 14th Islamic century, the promised Messiah (“Second Coming of Christ”) and Mahdi.

I hope that was at least a little constructive. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think what is critical here is that at present there are two seperate groups and the followers of both are known as Ahmadis. Secondly, and as importantly, the two groups while having a common inspiration differ radically on a central tenet of thier belief. Also as the two groups are absolutely independent of each other, the differances between the two cannot be an internal matter and as such there is no harm in mentioning the two groups in the intro; in fact this important information should be in the intro, regardless of how many time it is repeated elsewhere in the article. In short as the term Ahmadi refers to members of two mutually independant and idealogically very differant movements, omiting this fact in the intro would be highly mis-leading. --Sufaid (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Ideological difference is what defines them but their common, inspiration (which outweighs their differences), their acceptance of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as opposed to mainstream islam), their fundamental belifs such as those regarding the death of Jesus, Jihad, abrogation of Quran, coming of the Messiah & Mahdi, etc. is what unites them. There are seperate articles on the two branches, and each mentions the split in its opening, that should be enough. The term 'Ahmadi' itself cannot refer to its two sepreate branches, rather it refers to both of them collectively notwithstanding their differences.

I never said that referring to one single 'community' is factual. That is why I proposed the term faith instead of community in the opening of the article, under the purview of which both branches fall. The opening: is a name used for two religious communities that arose out of Islam towards the end of the 19th century, has the misleading implication that there had been two separate movements that simultaneously arose out of Islam and were both called Ahmadiyya, whereas this is contrary to historical fact. I suggest the following or something along these lines.:

Ahmadi (Urdu: احمدیہ Ahmadiyya), is a faith that arose out of Islam towards the end of the 19th century, originating with the life and teachings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (d. 1908) from Qadian, in Punjab, India. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to have fulfilled the prophecies about the world reformer of the end times who was to herald the Eschaton as predicted in the traditions of various World religions, the Mujaddid (divine reformer) of the 14th Islamic century, the promised Messiah (“Second Coming of Christ”) and Mahdi. There are currently two Ahmadiyya groups.

The original Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at (community) split into two separate groups after the death of Hakeem Noor-ud-Din the first successor of Ghulam Ahmad. They are known respectively as the The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and the smaller Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement for the Propagation of Islam (Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat-i-Islam). These groups vary in their specific interpretations of Ahmad's teachings and claims. They also differ in their views on who should have succeeded Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and how such a successor should be chosen.... ...

Sirius86 (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have to disagree here. The differances between the 2 gropus out wiegh any common inspiration as the differances pertain to a fundamental belief regarding the status of the most important common inspiration (i.e Mirza Ghluam Ahmed) itself. Secondly, practically speaking, the term Ahmadi does refer to the two branches, that are seperate and distinct, and that is a fact which must be mentioned upfront, or the reader could be potentialy misled. However I do see your point that on the other hand it would not be right to imply that the 2 groups were seperate since inception; hence I suggest some thing along the lines of

Ahmadi (Urdu: احمدیہ Ahmadiyya), was a movement that arose out of Islam towards the end of the 19th century, originating with the life and teachings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (d. 1908) from Qadian, in Punjab, India, and later split into two groups in 1914 that continue as seperate movements to date. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to have fulfilled the prophecies about the world reformer of the end times

This way we retain the fact that to start off the movement was one community, and also remove the mis-understanding that at present it is one community.

--Sufaid (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this page should be under "Ahmadiyya" rather than "Ahmadi", as "Ahmadiyya Islam" is the name of the belief, rather than "Ahmadi Islam", which actually should be "Ahmadi Muslim" as the former is the belief and the latter the member. I changed the location from "Ahmadi" to "Ahmadiyya", under "Ahmadi", the recent changes can be seen, thus from Nazli's to my revision not much has changed, however the bit with Sufaid, is doubtful. Thetruebelieve (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact added by Sufaid are not "doubtful". Please check the cited reference. This fact is highly relevant to the topic - I don't see why it should not be included. Nazli (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the suggestion given by Sufaid is more appropriate, however I feel that the term 'faith' instead of 'movement' is more befitting because although Ahmdiyya began as a movement, today it is much more than that. Also this term covers both Ahmadiyya groups and all its other aspects.

Sirius86 (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence

There is an incomplete sentence in the article's fourth paragraph, "The Ahmadiyya concept of Jihad and their view on the finality of Muhammad with particular reference to interpretation of verse [Qur'an 33:40] of the Qur'an." The only thing that I can figure is that it is supposed to be part of the previous sentence. Perhaps it was meant to be written like this, "The majority of Muslims have not accepted Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's claims and do not consider Ahmadis to be Muslims, citing in particular the Ahmadiyya view on the death and return of Jesus,[13] the Ahmadiyya concept of Jihad and their view on the finality of Muhammad with particular reference to interpretation of verse [Qur'an 33:40] of the Qur'an." -- Kjkolb (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

removed "'AHMADIYYA MOVEMENT IN (AGAINST) ISLAM'" section

I have removed the aforementioned section as it appeared to be a polemic against the Ahmadiyya religion, and was in no way appropriate to an encyclopedia. I do not make many major edits, so please inform me if I should have gone through other channels.

Many thanks, Haydn (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)