Please note that it was Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad [Mian Mahmud Ahmad], son of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who declared mainstream muslims Kafirs AFTER Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had died. Also please note that the Ahmadiyya movement split because of this (among other reasons). The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement does not subscribe to this belief. Please visit their repective website for more details. Thank you. Nazli 12:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Although I think that what the article currently says is probably true, without looking into it in more detail - but it doesn't sound very NPOV. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is an alleged heretic - alleged by who exactly? I think it's okay to mention allegations of heresy but they need to be more substantial. Squashy 13:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Mirza Qadiani is a colloquial term used in a derogatory fashion by certain Muslim groups, it is not Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's given, legal name. Nazli 01:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Siddiqui: your suggestion to seek arbitration at this stage is not valid - Requesting Arbitration is only a last resort. In this regard following is a list of issues with the Qadianism page:
1. The information is factually incorrect: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not declare non-believers in his claim to be non-muslims. It was his son who did so after Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's death. You can verify this by visiting http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/mali/splitahmadiyyamovement/splitahmadiyyamovement.shtml and also http://aaiil.info/misconceptions/other/takfir.htm
2. The information is factually incorrect: The person who founded the movement is not named "Mirza Qadiani". His correct name is "Mirza Ghulam Ahmad". This can be verified by visiting http://www.aaiil.org/index.shtml or http://www.alislam.org
3. The information is misleading: The name of the movement founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is not "Qadianism", it is the Ahmaddiya Movement. "Qadianism" is a term used by some Muslims groups with derogatory connotations. This fact needs to be stated clearly. Please verify this by visiting any of the above links.
I have highlighted these issues many times before. Please explain your point of view and please explain why you keep reverting back. Thank you. Nazli 13:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Statements like:
are not WP:NPOV or encyclopedic. The article has external links, but does not indicate if they are its references, and if they are the specific assertions still need specific citations. Not being Qadiani or Muslim I have no opinion as to the validity of the claims, except to point out that this article seems to be an WP:POVFORK. Criticism of the Ahmadi should be in that article, provided it is NPOV and sourced. It should not be shuttled off to a separate article. If the criticism there grows so extensive that it needs its own article, so be it, but even then a brief summary of the criticisms should remain as well as a link to the new article. Esquizombi 03:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The list of factual errors is too long to be presented in full. However following is a partial list of gross factual errors and POV issues with the article:
1. The term "Mirza Qadiani" is coloquial and is only use by some Muslims groups when refering to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in a derogatory gashion. It is not a term in universal use.
2. Sentences such as "It should be obvious that most of the beliefs instructed by Mirza Qadiani contradict verses of the Holy Quran" have a POV bias.
3. The paragrah starting with "It is unfortunate that many.." is completely biased towards a specific view point.
4. The article menstions that "Qadianism is based on the belief that Mirza Qadiani was an improved second reincarnation of Prophet Muhammad." Ahmadis do not claim him to be in "improved" re-incarnation of Prophet Muhammad but rather a reflection of the prophet as per sufi tradition.
5. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's revelations are revered by Ahmadis but are not on the same platform as the Quran etc. The books are being transalted freely. Please see http://www.aaiil.org/index.shtml
6. Only Ahmadis from the Ahmadiyya Muslim community declare other muslims to be non-mulsims. Lahori Ahmadis do not subscribe to this.
7. virtually every bullet point has a POV or factual issue.
Siddiqui: please address these POV and factual errors. Thank you. Nazli 07:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if both (only two?), or multiple sides, can chime in with how they think they can work together to make the article better, while accomodating the past problems that have been raised. Ronabop 12:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Siddiqui 12:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Since Siddiqui is not interested in responding to the naming issues, repeatedly highlighted by me on this talk page, I am reverting back to what I believe to be an more NPOV version of that article. Nazli 18:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I would appreicate it if some one could explain why despite the AFD consensus, the article is being reverted to the same old version repeatedly. No reason has been given or discussion has taken place on the talk page. Nazli 19:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Point to note: ALL the links at the bottom of the page are Negative POVs. Im sure you could have at LEASt included the alislam.org page...AT LEAST-- AeomMai 03:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems that this group of articles will never be completely neutral since there's no way to keep neutrality on such a topic as ahmadiyyat(BTW-whats with that, any non ahmadi wikipedians?)-- AnnonD 04:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Just delete this article and move on to fixing the AHMADI page. we don't need to start another article summarizing the negative parts of another wikilpedia article. its completely irrelevant.-- AeomMai 22:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It is seems that the main point of this artical is to present that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed has claim to be a prophet and it is not allowed as mainstream Muslims belief the Prophet Muhammad (PBUHM) was the last prophet. Well in his several writings Mirza Ghulam Ahmed acknowledge this fact and he never said that he is a new prophet, his point that prophets will come but only those which were describe by Prophet Muhammad (PBUHM). Any way if some one reads this artical will get the impression as there is no possiblity what so ever in any case that any prophet will come, but as the same time mainstream Muslim do belief that Jesus as prophet will return from Heaven. So will be Jesus when he decend to earth consider as a prophet among the mainstream Muslim or he has to lose this part. phippi46 01:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Sir if you kindly provide some more information on this matter, will be highly appreciated, as you said According to Islam ( Jesus Christ) will return, but there is no mention in which form he will come back, second the problem is the Jesus was sent as a Prophet to the Childern of Israel, now when he will come back, is he still considered to be the prophet of Israel or Prophet of Islam, if he is still alive, as you belief, is he knows that Islam has came and is the last religion. in which form of his previous teaching, which he received from God will affected and which new teaching will be added to his new message and how the Muslim will unit on his claim on his arrival and accept him as the right Isa ( Jesus Christ) and not a false one. As you mentioned above, he will not be a new Prophet, but he will remain a Prophet and according to Muslim Belief there is no chance what so ever in any case that a "Prophet" will come after Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), regadless in any form and if some one belief that, he is consider to be a non Muslim according to the Law of Pakistan, as you self mentioned in the Artical, if you kindly clear some of these question in artical so there will be a clear picture so any one can see the difference and understand better. You have alot of knowledge on this matter, so I think if you take little time on this subjec will reduce alots of Question. regards phippi46 11:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
you just repeat as you wrote above, but if you read the questions I asked I think you will know that there are something else I am asking, I understand what you just said but can you comments what I wrote above
phippi46
15:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
You seems to be very much sure of somethings like Mirza Ghulam Ahmed declared himself as a prophet and thus breaking away from Islam, how you know that, is there any prove for that ? second you said again and again without any prove the Isa (Jesus Christ) will return but you shy to tell how and when and also with your Artical Qadianism is also very un-clear in nature, there are lots of POV statements from you, there are very few solid information from you, I think you can write in detail about for example, the purpose of Qadianism, what are there motives, as you claim that it is a new relegion but you only use words "new religion" and they can worship in there tempel now are you sure that their place of worship called temple, is there any prove for that, now what I want to tell you is simple, Wikipedia is a Encyclopedia and any information from you will be taken by readers to be athentic and proven and you have lots of information so please write this Artical in sence so people can see as a neutral and informative Artical and not simply your own openion. regards phippi46 00:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
So in your openion decision taken from Pakistan's constitutional amendment allow you to claim write or wrong. It is also intrested to know that still in Pakistan this amendment has been added to the Constitution, but no other country in the world has adopted any kind of changes in their Laws, (you can provide me any reference against this statement if I am wrong). I some time think when ever you write something against Qadianies or Ahmadies or Lahories what ever, you personal motives and openion affect your writings. In my openion this is personal point of view.
phippi46
23:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Where can I get the hearing between Qadianies and Muslim leaders in Assembly is there any written form available on internet ? phippi46 23:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I found this page redirecting to Ahmadi, a redirect page that points to Ahmadiyya. I changed this page to also redirect to Ahmadiyya. If I have done something insensitive or terrible in editing to dodge this double redirect, chalk it up to the fact that I didn't know what I was doing and have no clue as to any distinctions between Ahmadi and Ahmadiyya. I don't see that the dispute here has to do with these, which seem to me to be variant transliterations into the Latin alphabet. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 20:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Since there exists a page by the name
Qadiani, this page deserves to be redirected to Qadiani.
Peaceworld111 (
talk)
16:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Please note that it was Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad [Mian Mahmud Ahmad], son of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who declared mainstream muslims Kafirs AFTER Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had died. Also please note that the Ahmadiyya movement split because of this (among other reasons). The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement does not subscribe to this belief. Please visit their repective website for more details. Thank you. Nazli 12:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Although I think that what the article currently says is probably true, without looking into it in more detail - but it doesn't sound very NPOV. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is an alleged heretic - alleged by who exactly? I think it's okay to mention allegations of heresy but they need to be more substantial. Squashy 13:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Mirza Qadiani is a colloquial term used in a derogatory fashion by certain Muslim groups, it is not Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's given, legal name. Nazli 01:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Siddiqui: your suggestion to seek arbitration at this stage is not valid - Requesting Arbitration is only a last resort. In this regard following is a list of issues with the Qadianism page:
1. The information is factually incorrect: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not declare non-believers in his claim to be non-muslims. It was his son who did so after Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's death. You can verify this by visiting http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/mali/splitahmadiyyamovement/splitahmadiyyamovement.shtml and also http://aaiil.info/misconceptions/other/takfir.htm
2. The information is factually incorrect: The person who founded the movement is not named "Mirza Qadiani". His correct name is "Mirza Ghulam Ahmad". This can be verified by visiting http://www.aaiil.org/index.shtml or http://www.alislam.org
3. The information is misleading: The name of the movement founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is not "Qadianism", it is the Ahmaddiya Movement. "Qadianism" is a term used by some Muslims groups with derogatory connotations. This fact needs to be stated clearly. Please verify this by visiting any of the above links.
I have highlighted these issues many times before. Please explain your point of view and please explain why you keep reverting back. Thank you. Nazli 13:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Statements like:
are not WP:NPOV or encyclopedic. The article has external links, but does not indicate if they are its references, and if they are the specific assertions still need specific citations. Not being Qadiani or Muslim I have no opinion as to the validity of the claims, except to point out that this article seems to be an WP:POVFORK. Criticism of the Ahmadi should be in that article, provided it is NPOV and sourced. It should not be shuttled off to a separate article. If the criticism there grows so extensive that it needs its own article, so be it, but even then a brief summary of the criticisms should remain as well as a link to the new article. Esquizombi 03:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The list of factual errors is too long to be presented in full. However following is a partial list of gross factual errors and POV issues with the article:
1. The term "Mirza Qadiani" is coloquial and is only use by some Muslims groups when refering to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in a derogatory gashion. It is not a term in universal use.
2. Sentences such as "It should be obvious that most of the beliefs instructed by Mirza Qadiani contradict verses of the Holy Quran" have a POV bias.
3. The paragrah starting with "It is unfortunate that many.." is completely biased towards a specific view point.
4. The article menstions that "Qadianism is based on the belief that Mirza Qadiani was an improved second reincarnation of Prophet Muhammad." Ahmadis do not claim him to be in "improved" re-incarnation of Prophet Muhammad but rather a reflection of the prophet as per sufi tradition.
5. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's revelations are revered by Ahmadis but are not on the same platform as the Quran etc. The books are being transalted freely. Please see http://www.aaiil.org/index.shtml
6. Only Ahmadis from the Ahmadiyya Muslim community declare other muslims to be non-mulsims. Lahori Ahmadis do not subscribe to this.
7. virtually every bullet point has a POV or factual issue.
Siddiqui: please address these POV and factual errors. Thank you. Nazli 07:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if both (only two?), or multiple sides, can chime in with how they think they can work together to make the article better, while accomodating the past problems that have been raised. Ronabop 12:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Siddiqui 12:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Since Siddiqui is not interested in responding to the naming issues, repeatedly highlighted by me on this talk page, I am reverting back to what I believe to be an more NPOV version of that article. Nazli 18:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I would appreicate it if some one could explain why despite the AFD consensus, the article is being reverted to the same old version repeatedly. No reason has been given or discussion has taken place on the talk page. Nazli 19:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Point to note: ALL the links at the bottom of the page are Negative POVs. Im sure you could have at LEASt included the alislam.org page...AT LEAST-- AeomMai 03:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems that this group of articles will never be completely neutral since there's no way to keep neutrality on such a topic as ahmadiyyat(BTW-whats with that, any non ahmadi wikipedians?)-- AnnonD 04:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Just delete this article and move on to fixing the AHMADI page. we don't need to start another article summarizing the negative parts of another wikilpedia article. its completely irrelevant.-- AeomMai 22:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It is seems that the main point of this artical is to present that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed has claim to be a prophet and it is not allowed as mainstream Muslims belief the Prophet Muhammad (PBUHM) was the last prophet. Well in his several writings Mirza Ghulam Ahmed acknowledge this fact and he never said that he is a new prophet, his point that prophets will come but only those which were describe by Prophet Muhammad (PBUHM). Any way if some one reads this artical will get the impression as there is no possiblity what so ever in any case that any prophet will come, but as the same time mainstream Muslim do belief that Jesus as prophet will return from Heaven. So will be Jesus when he decend to earth consider as a prophet among the mainstream Muslim or he has to lose this part. phippi46 01:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Sir if you kindly provide some more information on this matter, will be highly appreciated, as you said According to Islam ( Jesus Christ) will return, but there is no mention in which form he will come back, second the problem is the Jesus was sent as a Prophet to the Childern of Israel, now when he will come back, is he still considered to be the prophet of Israel or Prophet of Islam, if he is still alive, as you belief, is he knows that Islam has came and is the last religion. in which form of his previous teaching, which he received from God will affected and which new teaching will be added to his new message and how the Muslim will unit on his claim on his arrival and accept him as the right Isa ( Jesus Christ) and not a false one. As you mentioned above, he will not be a new Prophet, but he will remain a Prophet and according to Muslim Belief there is no chance what so ever in any case that a "Prophet" will come after Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), regadless in any form and if some one belief that, he is consider to be a non Muslim according to the Law of Pakistan, as you self mentioned in the Artical, if you kindly clear some of these question in artical so there will be a clear picture so any one can see the difference and understand better. You have alot of knowledge on this matter, so I think if you take little time on this subjec will reduce alots of Question. regards phippi46 11:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
you just repeat as you wrote above, but if you read the questions I asked I think you will know that there are something else I am asking, I understand what you just said but can you comments what I wrote above
phippi46
15:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
You seems to be very much sure of somethings like Mirza Ghulam Ahmed declared himself as a prophet and thus breaking away from Islam, how you know that, is there any prove for that ? second you said again and again without any prove the Isa (Jesus Christ) will return but you shy to tell how and when and also with your Artical Qadianism is also very un-clear in nature, there are lots of POV statements from you, there are very few solid information from you, I think you can write in detail about for example, the purpose of Qadianism, what are there motives, as you claim that it is a new relegion but you only use words "new religion" and they can worship in there tempel now are you sure that their place of worship called temple, is there any prove for that, now what I want to tell you is simple, Wikipedia is a Encyclopedia and any information from you will be taken by readers to be athentic and proven and you have lots of information so please write this Artical in sence so people can see as a neutral and informative Artical and not simply your own openion. regards phippi46 00:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
So in your openion decision taken from Pakistan's constitutional amendment allow you to claim write or wrong. It is also intrested to know that still in Pakistan this amendment has been added to the Constitution, but no other country in the world has adopted any kind of changes in their Laws, (you can provide me any reference against this statement if I am wrong). I some time think when ever you write something against Qadianies or Ahmadies or Lahories what ever, you personal motives and openion affect your writings. In my openion this is personal point of view.
phippi46
23:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Where can I get the hearing between Qadianies and Muslim leaders in Assembly is there any written form available on internet ? phippi46 23:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I found this page redirecting to Ahmadi, a redirect page that points to Ahmadiyya. I changed this page to also redirect to Ahmadiyya. If I have done something insensitive or terrible in editing to dodge this double redirect, chalk it up to the fact that I didn't know what I was doing and have no clue as to any distinctions between Ahmadi and Ahmadiyya. I don't see that the dispute here has to do with these, which seem to me to be variant transliterations into the Latin alphabet. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 20:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Since there exists a page by the name
Qadiani, this page deserves to be redirected to Qadiani.
Peaceworld111 (
talk)
16:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)