Talk:Ahmadiyya Militia

Proposed merge with Jihad (Ahmadiyya)

Oppose, this article is part of a category tree on militant organisations, and covers a specific group at a specific point in history. The Jihad (Ahmadiyya) article covers a religious concept. I think we would lose granularity if we merge. That said, I do think there should be some mention on the Jihad (Ahmadiyya) article that, though generally pacifist, there is precedent for the Ahmadiyya forming a combatant group. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Preferably Accept, for several main reasons. Firstly, the page heading draws a negative attention as if it is a negative, aggressive, left-wing, politically motivated organisation. In this case i'd prefer the heading to be changed. Also according to the reference given, the talk is more directed towards Jihad and the Ahmadiyya view on this, which also inevitibly lead the writer to briefly express the practice of Ahmadis, i.e. so called militia. Thus just making a reference to the so called militia and without looking at the boudries, the reasons etc, will do grave injustice to this article. Thus it is neccessery to mention the Ahmadi view of limits of war, reasons, under which situations, what situations etc, which also inevitably leads on to the mentioning of Jihad, otherwise the details are incomplete. Thanks Peaceworld111 (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I'm concerned that the article Jihad (Ahmadiyya) presented a slanted view of the Ahmadiyya, in that it (prior to my edits) did not reference established incidences (Ahmadiyya Militia, Furqan Force) in which the Ahmadiyya fielded fighting forces. I'm not denying that the Ahmadiyya religious beliefs are geared towards pacifism, but that should not preclude us from mentioning Ahmadiyya militancy in history. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I am in no doubt that you wish to present the details correctly and accurately. But as you said that the Jihad (Ahmadiyya) article presented is a bit slanted, it is that article that requires attention. To create new articles on related topics particularly if they are briefly referenced or written and not wholly discussed from every angle is unjustified. So i think that merging would do justice to the two newly created articles and would un-slant the Jihad article. Thanks Peaceworld111 (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(deindent) I don't see any harm in having the articles exist, particularly as they fulfill a particular role in category trees and are distinct entities. I think a good way to cover the bases would be to ensure Jihad (Ahmadiyya) is a "See also" of any Ahmadiyya fighting force article to provide context as to the limited circumstances in which Ahmadi belief allows physical violence. Likewise, there could be a small section of the Jihad article mentioning "here are some concrete examples of the application of this ideology." I'm fine with melding (cited, verifiable) ideas from the various articles, but still think the two combat groups deserve to stand as their own articles. MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the articles can still fulfill their roles in category trees, even if they are merged, by creating links to the subheadings of Valentine's personal expression of militia and the Furqan Force. So i don't see much of an advantage of having two new articles consisting of more or less a single brief sentence. On simply that basis the creation of the two new articles is unnecessary. You kindly mentioned of creating a small section of Jihad article mentioning concrete examples, but what will be the difference in between the new articles and the small section in terms of detail? None at all... but what about the harms? It is not a harm as such to have two new articles but as i've explained earlier, it is in my view unjustified to create two new articles that are highly related to the Jihad article as verified by Valentine's reference itself (see earlier explanation). Thank You. Peaceworld111 (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I see the {{merge}} has been added again. Again, I dispute the proposed merge; "Ahmadiyya participation in Pakistani wars" is not identical to Jihad (Ahmadiyya). MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't add it again, it was already there.Peaceworld111 (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)