Talk:Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Plz put a photo of the Gumbad shareef

Gumbad shareef photo with a quote should be put Alahazrat Quote.jpeg MeeranQadiri (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@MeeranQadiri: An image of the what? I don't find that term mentioned at all in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

His education

Ahmed Raza Khan Qadri was student of Mirza Gulam Qadir Beg who was from Bareilly city.

During childhood days Ahmed Raza taught under him. Due to similarity of names opponents of Ahmed Raza Khan have spread lies that his teacher was brother of Qadiyani founder. The brother of Mirza Gulam Ahmed Qadiyani , Mirza Ghulam Qàdir was a in Police department , a Thanedar and died in 1883 at the age of 55. While Mirza Ghulam Qàdir Beg, teacher of Ahmed Raza Khan was an Islamic Scholar and he died at the age of more than 80. In 1897, that is, after 14 years of death of the brother of Qadyani. Mirza Ghulam Qàdir Beg of A‘lahazrat had sent a letter to A‘lahazrat, which duly finds its place in Fatwa-i-Razavia vol. III. That's why no neutral researcher or research has ever mentioned this lie. One of your source is totally sectarian fabrication and based on lie written by Ahsan Ilahi Zaheer (Wahabi/Ahle Hadeeth) and another does not support claim. More over there are several hundred such false claims charged against each other in their sectarian debates which are never supported by RS. You and several other editors have reverted non reliable book of Ahsan Ilahi Zaheer in the recent past also. It should enough for you that Ahmed Raza Khan has written several books against Qadiyani faith and considered it heretical. Your first source does not support your claim and second source is sectarian biased utter lie and fabrication of realities. This unreliable source can't be taken to establish fringe theories. More over you said that burden is on me, no dear burden is on you to provide reliable source because your are bringing new theory based on false claims written by an opponent. ScholarM (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I have given three sources. Also I have given due wight to the information. Where is the page number of Fatwa Rizwiyyah please?FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Brother of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiyani, Ghulam Qadir beg was appointed to a minor post in the civil administration of the district at Gurdaspur, at a distance of approximately eighteen miles from Qadian. While Ahmed Raza as a child got education under his teacher who was an Islamic scholar in Bareilly. There is no connection between two and Ahsan Ilahi Zaheer's book is full of lies and fabrication. Qadiyan is in Punjab province while Bareilly is in Uttar Pradesh Province. These lies were spread but could never be established. Ahmed Raza never traveled to Qadiyan and Ghulam Ahmed Qadiyani's brother who was in civil service never settled in Bareilly city. In your own second source there is nothing which support your claim . The description of Ahmed Raza's teacher is given as, he was an old man of 80 years old Mawlana from Bareilly which contradicts your claim. Your third [ http://islamqa.org/hanafi/darulifta-deoband/78568 source] is also sectarian website full of polemics and is not third party source. So there are no reliable source in support of your fringe theory. ScholarM (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The word Barech does not appear in Pashtun/Pakhtun genealogical histories in Afghan sources originating in Afghanistan or Pakhtunkhwa. It is mentioned in Hindustani sources originating in India. At most it can be said that those linked to such backgrounds are of Pathan descent but certainly not Pashtun as culturally, linguistically or ethnically they are not Afghan nor Pashtun/Pakhtun. In many written sources about Ahmed Raza he has been linked to Rajput origin and hence the adoption of the name Khan which clearly indicates a Hindu origin for people with the name Khan (originally Khanzada which was a translation for Rajput. The sad fact is Muslim Rajputs claim such pride in their ethnic origin but not in the surname Singh - as proud Hindu bearers of that name. Furthermore, Khan is an ethnic name of the only modern survivors of White Huns or Ephtalites. The authors of Hobson-Jobson, the Anglo-Indian Dictionary (1886) lament the fact that the name Khan has been debased in India by all classes who have started adopting it. They also list the name as a title, as well as a surname,properly of Pashtuns, Pakhtuns or Pathans. It is further of interest that In Pakistan many people claiming suddenly discovery that someone of their ethnicity had Khan as a surname, or was of Rajput background, have started adding Khan to their names in the mistaken belief they have a right to the name - if that was true then all Rajput Sikhs and Hindus also have that name too. An prominent example of this is the Bhuttos of Sindh. Ever since GM Syed, the great Sindhi nationalist, mentioned that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was not a proper Sindhi as his forefathers came to the province from Punjab and were of Rajput origin. Thus Fatima Bhutto reproduced her family tree, mentioning thet it was commissioned by her grandfather ZA Bhutto, and added Khan to every one of her male ancestors. As Stan Lee the founder of Marvel Comics used to write - 'nuff said'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:4689:2A00:7851:3178:8999:AEC0 (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Ahmad Raza Khan's scientics & Quranic approach and Earh stationary claim

Ahmad Raza Khan's (popularly known in the indian subcontinent by the title Aala Hazrath ) opinion about earth being stationary is not supported by the Holy Quran. It was his interpretation of the Quran whereas a closer look at the Quran reveals that the Quran never stated earth as stationary. The proof for this is in Ahmad Raza Khan's own writings where he has provided Quranic references and Ahadith.

Ahmad Raza quoted a number of verses from the Holy Quran and Hadith, the translation of some of which is given below:

   1. The movement of the sun and moon is according to a course (Surah Rahman, verse 5).
   2. The sun and the moon are sailing within a circle (Surah Yasin, verse 40).
   3. The moon and the sun were besieged for you, which are constantly moving (Surah Ibrahim, verse 33).

(For detailed please refer to "Nuzool-e-Ayat-e-Furqaan Besukoon-e-Zameen-o-Asman" of Alahazrat written in 1339 A.H., published from Raza Academy, Bombay). http://sunnirazvi.net/library/booklets/scientist.htm http://hayateraza.com/scientific-work-of-AalaHazrat.html

Now in the above 3 references only the movement of the sun and moon is mentioned. Nowhere does it state that the earth is stationary nor does it state that they move or revolve around the earth. It was Ahmad Raza Khan's personal interpretation not supported by Ahadith or Quran which led him to conclude that movement of sun and moon means around earth. Neither the Islamic literature nor majority of the scholars of Islam interpret the movement of sun and moon as movement around the earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mubeenkhateeb (talk • contribs) 12:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

In the subheading which tells about the knowledge of ahmad raza khan about physics, it is written that Islam says that the Earth is stationary while the Sun orbits it. It is utterly incorrect. Learned modern scholars like Dr. Zakir Naik and others do not interpret these verses and ahadith regarding orbital motion as they are stated in this article. So, I request you remove that part in which it is said that Earth is stationary and Sun revolves around it. Islam can never say such unscientific things. Uzisar (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with you. The findings of Ahmed Rida Khan was controversial and unscientific and reference to his findings should be removed from this article. Majority of Muslim intellectuals do not agree with this claim.Marrigreat (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

  Majority of Muslims scholars do not interprete these verses and Hadith regarding orbital motion as stated by Ahmed Rida Khan. Science also proved that the findings of Mr. Rida are just ignorance of the truth. These claimes should be removed from the Wikipedia. 203.130.7.109 (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Disagreement is not enough, you have to prove if you thing its wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.203.250.83 (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Well I don't think so, If you go through and study the beliefs and concepts of Muslim Scholars from 1400 years back to now, you will come to know that Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Brailvi is absolutely Correct. If you want to debate on this on Islamic/Religious grounds I am here for.

  He wrote books on this controversial topic, but these books are in Urdu Language, If you can have argue with me, I will provide you the reference material.

• The Scientific work of Imam Ahmad Raza Hanfi Qadri Brailvi is on following topics according to (Proved with Islam and Science)::

Physical Sciences Mathematics, Physics, Space Physics Metaphysics, Astronomy, Geology, Petrology, Oceanography, Geography, Topology, Phonography, Hydrodynamic, Fluid Mechanics Medical Sciences Biology, Parapsychology, Physiology, Genetics, Embryology, Leprosy, Plague, Ultrasound Mechanism, Blood Circulatory system, Evolution theory of Human being (Work of Imam Ahmad Raza in various Disciplines of Science Idara Tahqeeqat-e- Imam Ahmad Raza International Pakistan)

I believe brothers, you must know we are not here to prove Islam by science or logic Islam is a religion of facts you believe or you don't doesn't matters its your lack of faith, there are many Quranic verses which are not proved by science so what now you don't believe in those verses? See first off all we have to remember Quran is a word of Allah and Science is a word of human so there may be false in science but nt and never be in Quran, as I said Quran is a word of Allah so some of Islamic scholars reach the depth of the Quranic verse and get the correct notion some satisfy themselves on the usual meaning, so any time if we hear some thing then we have to see from where he is giving the reference and to what depth he is in his knowledge. As talking about Ahmed Rada Khan Barelvi his knowledge is beyond our boundaries of knowledge and he is no equal to today's scholerly people he is a unique personality and a reviver of Deen.

In Surah Al kahaff there is a verse which explains the movement of Sun but not of earth that means sun is in motion around earth. Which is referred by Ahmed Rada Khan.

And similarly he proved it by hadiths, so if you are addicted to science then its your illness..

Many things from the Quran are still to reveal and they definitely be revealed one day by Allah's wish.

There is a saying that 'Science is a blind man walking in the dark holding a stick in his hand' it says what ever theory says theory fails science fails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.107.123.34 (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

A'ala Hazrat Imam Ahmad Raza khan Al-Qadiri Al-Barkati Al-Hanfi Al-Barelvi (rahimahullahu) neither mistook nor misinterpreted Quran & Hadith. He refuted all modern sophastic views of Greeks in the light of Quran & Hadith as well as in the light of salaf's teaching. If anyone who accuses him of misinterpreting this issue, can debate me regarding this topic. Your disagreement doesn't suffice, until u nullify his arguments with evidences. Show me any Quranic statement or Hadith saying earth's rotation or revolution, but on the contrary I will debunk all the myths of earth's motion in the light of Islamic sources along with scientifically.... In sha Allah azz wa jall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qasim-ul-Qadiri (talk • contribs) 18:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

I am a moderator of the source page/Forum quoted in the Copyright violation notice, it was one of our Forum Founders who has authored this piece and another Founder member who had started this page on WikiPedia.

The material was not copyrighted by us. Please restore this page ! See http://www.sunniport.com/portal/viewtopic.php?p=300 for explicit notice on this material NOT being under any copyright.

Admin Team www.sunniport.com

Ok. That note at the top of the page: "Note : This content is free for distribution or republishing and is not under any copyright" is quite sufficient. I've removed the copyvio notice, and noted the point at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Thanks so much for helping clear this up! And thanks esspecialy for contributing to Wikipedia, we really need better material on Islamic topics. 04:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Imam Raza Khan and Ahmad Raza

A-salaam-o-alaikum-Rahmen-ALLAH,

Tonight, I found the Imam Raza Khan on the clean-up page and thought i would edit it. I have two new sources that you don't have (well you don't have any) I think it would be good to join the best that i have written and the whole of your site. It makes no sense to keep people going to a wrong site and being confused. join them together please brother. It serves no point to let them be seperate. Mike33 22:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please Change Ahmed_Raza_Khan to Imam_Ahmed_Raza_Khan

I do very much agree with this, the title should be with respect to his stature and atleast Imam should be added.75.53.213.46 (talk) 05:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Nayeem

I am Agree Ahmed_Raza_Khan title must be changed to Imam_Ahmed_Raza_Khan like some other Muslim scholars have got Moulana or Imam with their Name in WikiPage. Please Do it WikiPedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.52.131 (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Titles do not normally get included in articles names. Especially disputed ones - SimonLyall (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• complete name is Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Hanfi Qadri Brailvi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.21.162 (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The sources, which says ahmed raza khan was in support of Pakistan. So its very wrong. He was not in favor of separation of pakistan. As if the people attached here are against ahmed raza khan. Hence forth, trying to manipulate the facts.

Ahmed raza supported independence movement with his father naqi ali khan.

For reference all books are available. Khalid razvi (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Edited School of Thought section

I have added two references, fixed spelling, and removed some dishonest writing (i.e. writing wahhabi and linking deobandi page). Thanks Wa Salam Alaikum 58.111.113.52 08:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC) (AN-MEL)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"RESEARCH ON A'LA HAZRAT'S FAUZ-E-MOBEEN: Scientists from the Allama Iqbal Open University in Islamabad have taken a keen interest in researching A'la Hazrat's (alaihir rahmah) "Fauz-e-Mobeen" which deals with the movement of the sun and planets around the earth. At present, research is about to commence on the subject.

CHRISTIAN CONVERTS TO ISLAM AFTER READING "KANZUL IMAAN": In 1974, Dr. Hannif Faatimi of London University brought the Professor of Kuwait an English translation of "Kanzul Imaan" (A'la Hazrat's translation of the Holy Quran) for printing. Prof. Faatimi at that time had met a Christian scholar who had revealed that he was interested in reading more about Islam. Prof. Faatimi was two-minded about giving him an English copy of Kanzul Imaan. Eventually, he gave him a copy to read. The Christian scholar, after reading this translation, accepted Islam." This stuff is blatant POV violation

NPOV

This article clearly lacks sources and assumingly does not satisfy the required NPOV standards of Wikipedia. Scythian1 (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Section Criticism is once again inserted

There are many users who don't have enough temper to bear a section of criticism in this article.Why???Marrigreat (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous article

This article is an awful mess. It is full of POV and bias, and what is even more shocking is that it is biased towards two points of view at the same time! People are just tacking on whatever they like to the article as if it is some kind of talk page. The block about science says both that Ala Hazrat was a brilliant scientist who disproved geocentrism, AND that he was a poor scientist that simply embarrassed Islam! At least make your POV bias and vandalism consistant!

91.105.161.37 (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

this is pure vandalism .. it should be edited by a neutral source .. its is highly biased against the deobandi sect of muslims and goes on even to call them kafirs (non muslims).. These are point of view of the author(s) trying to market/propogate their sect and not facts .. which is against the very spirit of our wikipedia community. [Talha Aziz] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aziz talha (talk • contribs) 07:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Proof Reading

I've done an awful lot of proof reading, and I hope you lot are happy with it. If you object with my corrections: please brothers, take it from a born and bred Englishman. I've noticed that there is a glitch of some sort after the part in the article where it says "therefore disobeying the following hadith"- I hope to fix this after getting some help, and I would not like anyone to revert the changes I have made since it was strenuous work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huss4in (talk • contribs) 09:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Changes Reverted

It appears as if the strenuous grammatical proof reading i've done has been reverted. Thats quite disappointing but if people prefer bad, influent grammar as a way to present to the world the founder of their religious school, thats fine by me. It seems a fellow brothers work isn't appreciated by some, which doesn't bother me since that is the reason why there is so much ignorance in that part of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huss4in (talk • contribs) 19:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

More edits

I have edited to:

• remove repeated links and links to plain English words per WP:OVERLINK
• remove date links per MOS:SYL
• fix the capitalization of headings per WP:MOSHEAD

and other copyedits per WP:MOS. Ground Zero | t 03:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Need for further editing

This article is very messy, and in parts the English needs correcting (as someone seems to have tried, but his corrections were apparently deleted).

Perhaps it might be an idea to transfer the earth-centric information to a separate article, perhaps an article on one of his books on the subject (Such as Nuzool-e Ayat-e Furqan ...).

There is also too much fancy wording in places. Energyworm (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with your assesment of the quality of the English used I've made some minor emendations myself I'm just waiting to see how long they last before I do anything more extensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rj ws (talk • contribs) 13:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Repeated reversions to a POV variant by Thelonerex

Each time this article has been cleaned up by other editors, others have swooped in (particularly Thelonerex at this point) to swap in an extremely POV version of this article. Just as a brief example, here are a few of the more egregious POV quotes from that version:

• Ala Hazrat has been recognized as the great Mujaddid of the 19th century
• A collection of fatwas by the title of Fatawa Ridawiyya, is his magna carta.
• his saintly guide His holiness Shah Aale- Rasool Marehravi
• & his noble son Maulana Hamid Raza Khan
• Main specialty of Kanzul Iman is Imam Ahmad Raza preserved the high status of Allah & his Messenger in the translation.
• The students of Arabic have considered the intellect of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan in this field. Applauding the ability of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan in the science of Hadith
• An uncommon feature of Fatawa Ridawiyya is that it is hailed by among friends and foes alike.
• Antagonism towards modern day deviant sects
• For a full exposé of deviant heretical sects and the verdicts against them according to traditional Sunni Islam, one can obtain English copies of Husam al Harmain from Raza Academy Ltd. based in Stockport in the United Kingdom, as well as many other works of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan.

This version of the article is completely unacceptable, and I don't understand why Barelvi editors would even want such a fawning article, given that any neutral person reading it would discount it as propaganda and self-flattery rather than genuine scholarly information about a Barelvi intellectual. Any Barelvi who is reverting this article to the POV variant is doing his group no favors, as he is simply making his own side look intellectually dishonest. I suggest that all neutral editors interested in maintaining an objective article be vigilant: the POV version is about 23kB, the correct one is 10kB, so if you note a sudden byte jump in the history that's a good sign that someone is tampering with the article again. Stability Information East 2 (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Further explanation: Responding to Thelonerex Edit summary this article is constantly being altered on unreasonable grounds and being unjustifiably shortened than its original length, first read the above examples of improper POV material. Aside from those, and many other POV portions, there are a couple other issues:

• The 23kB version lists many names without giving wikilinks or any other indication of notability to the casual reader, making it an "example farm"
• That version has a lot of long anecdotes which could be easily summarized in a sentence or two, and whose long versions are unencyclopedic and full of POV implications
• Thelonerex keeps removing the Criticism section, showing a total disregard for neutrality
• That version has way too many ELs
• That version overexplains many terms, such as "wuzu" (which is not its Wikipedia-convention spelling, should be wudu) which are given good explanation in the wikilink
• Overall that version has a strong pro-Barelvi bias, has derogatory tone about the Ahmadiyya, has long anecdotes without justification, too many ELs, and is overall just not a good Wikipedia article, and far inferior to the 10kB version which, though not perfect, is relatively good. Please do not revert to the 23kB Thelonerex version without making a very, very clear case here which responds to these points. Honestly, I don't think there is any reasonable rebuttal, but I'd rather hear a rebuttal than have editor's work reverted out-of-hand for POV reasons. Stability Information East 2 (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Move article to Ahmed Raza Khan

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page already moved by someone. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Aala Hazrat → Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi —

• Setting aside the major POV problems of the article itself, this article should be moved to "Ahmed Raza Khan", as "Aala Hazrat" is an extremely POV honorific. The proposed name change appears to be the most common spelling. Stability Information East 2 (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

On second look, I have proposed deleting Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi, and moving this article's text to that title. The text here is better since I did today's cleanup, and the Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi title seems the clearest and most neutral. Stability Information East 2 (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ahmed_Raza_Khan_Barelvi. I've nominated that article for deletion as a content fork, and then we can move this article there, and re-direct all possible alternate spellings to the good article to prevent future forks. Stability Information East 2 (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Inconsistency of names

The title of the article is Ahmed Rida Khan; immediately under it is Ahmad Raza Khan; the Urdu version reads Maulana A. R. Khan (I write AR to avoid the above alternation in transliterated spellings), and the Hindi reads as Imam Ahmad Raza Khan. Further into the article he is referred to as A‘lahazrat, which is the title by which adherents of the Bareilvi School of Thought now refer to him; non-Bareilvi Muslims, or non-Muslims will be confused to a degree as to who this A‘lahazrat is.

It might be an idea to make the main page Ahmad Raza Khan, since that is the Urdu / Hindi pronunciation of his name; Rida is an approximation of the Arabic name, and he was not an Arab. Whatever is done, some degree of consistency is needed. Energyworm (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Giant quotes?

The sections like Works in physics appear to be quotes. Are they? If so, they should be quoted and sourced.—C45207 | Talk 07:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The article has been neutralized

A significant effort has been made in this respect, please further improve the article but don't alter the entire article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelonerex (talk • contribs) 14:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Neutral"? The October 21 version of the article refers to the Ahmaddiya as a "deviant sect". The version you cite as neutral is extremely, extremely biased. I have reverted to an earlier version from over six months ago, and done further cleanup on even that version. Please do not re-introduce these biases which have ruined the article for months. "Neutral" does not mean "pleasing to my side of the argument." Stability Information East 2 (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Muslim007, 13 May 2010

{{editprotected}} Respected Sir, I want to ask wikipedia that why this page was edited

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

Alot of stuff from this article has been deleted. Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi is one of the greatest religious scholar of Islam who had wrote more than 1000 books his biography should not be that short. somebody has edited this page and alot of his biography has been deleted and many External links were deleted and no information about his greatest writings and his works in Science, Fiqh, Quranic Studies, Hadith Studies & Against the DEVIANT SECTS of Islam. please restore all of stuff which was in this article. And i request you to edit this page please read the biography of Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi here...

http://www.sunnah.org/articles/Imam_raza_ahmed_khan.htm http://www.raza.co.za/the_mujaddid_imam_ahmed_raza.html

Read his biography from above links and edit them in his wiki page. He's one of the Greatest Scholar in the History of Islam therefore his Biography must be written As Long as You Can. Hoping for an early response.

Thank You Muslim007 (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Please describe your proposed edits here on the talk page. If other editors agree then they can go in the article. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Why Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi's Biography was removed ?

Whats wrong with wikipedia team ? why they have remove Ahmed Raza Khan's previous biography. One of the greatest Scholar and 14th Century Mujadid's Biography should not be that small. ahhh i don't know what to say to wikipedia team and why they're working against his Biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslim007 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 119.152.99.41, 17 May 2010

{{editprotected}} Please give us Edit Permission on this page so we can improve this Article. There's alot of wonderful researches and works of Imam Ahmed Raza Khan which are still not listed on wikipedia. Like more than 23 People have got Ph.d on Imam Ahmed Raza. 119.152.99.41 (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please propose changes to the article on this talk page. If the ideas achieve support they can be added. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

please add the biography of greatest scholar imam ahmed reza khan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.200.105.60 (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please Give Us Edit Permission in this Article

Please Give Us Edit Permission in this Article so we can write more about Imam Ahmed Raza Khan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.53.252 (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Add Following Things in this Article Please...

AlaHazrat Imaam-e-AhleSunnah Imam Ahmed Raza Khan Fazil-e-Barelvi (Urdu: احمد رضاخان, Hindi: इमाम अहमद रजा) was Mujadid of the 14th Islamic Century & One of the Greatest Islamic Scholar of the 19th Century, whose works informed the Barelvi movement. Imam Ahmed Raza Khan wrote on numerous topics of religion, Science, and Philosophy. He is best known for his collection of fatwas entitled Fatawa Ridawiyya & Kanzul Iman.

Incident from Childhood

Sayyid Ayub Ali says that when AlaHazrat was a young child, a Maulvi Sahib used to come to his house to teach him. One day, the Maulvi Sahib was repeatedly telling AlaHazrat to say a word, but AlaHazrat could not pronounce it. The Maulvi Sahib was pronouncing the word with a zabr but AlaHazrat was pronouncing the same word with a zer instead. It happened time and time again. The grandfather of AlaHazrat , Moulana Raza Ali Khan also witnessed this situation and called AlaHazrat to himself and asked for the Holy Qur'an. Moulana Raza Ali Khan noticed that the copyist had accidentally placed a zabr instead of a zer and was astonished to see that the pronunciation of Imaam Ahmad Raza Khan was actually accurate and perfect. His respected grandfather asked, 'Ahmad Raza Khan ! Why are you not following your teacher?' AlaHazrat politely replied, 'I tried my best to follow the pronunciation of my teacher but I lost control over my tongue.' The Maulvi Sahib witnessed many other peculiar incidences similar to this one and once privately asked AlaHazrat , 'Oh son, be honest with me, I promise I will not tell anybody, are you a human or a Jinn?' AlaHazrat replied, 'All praise be to Allah , I'm human, however, the grace and generosity of Allah accompanies me all the time (Hayat-e-AlaHazrat, V1, P68, Maktaba-tul-Madina Karachi)

First Fatwa

At the age of 13 years, 10 months and 4 days, after studying the prevalent sciences under the guidance of his respected father Moulana Naqi Ali Khan , a Dastàar (accomplishment of Islamic studies) was awarded to AlaHazrat . On this very day, he wrote a Fatwa and presented it to his respected father Moulana Naqi Ali Khan who found it absolutely correct. Looking to the talent of his son, Moulana Naqi Ali Khan authorised AlaHazrat to work as a Mufti and AlaHazrat continued this until the end. (Hayat-e-AlaHazrat, V1, P279, Maktaba-tul-Madina, Baab-ul-Madina Karachi)

AlaHazrat as a Mathematician

Allah had blessed AlaHazrat with knowledge of great sciences. AlaHazrat wrote about fifty different types of knowledge and was an expert in every single science. AlaHazrat was such a professional astronomer and astrologer that he would set his clock just by observing the sun in the day and the stars at night. The time that he would set would always be precise and accurate with not even a minute difference. AlaHazrat was also a unique and remarkable mathematician. Once, Sir Zia-ud-Deen, vice chancellor of Ali Gar university, a prominent Mathematician of Indo-Pak Subcontinent, and holder of many international degrees, came to Imaam Ahmad Raza Khan . After greeting Imaam Ahmad Raza Khan , he asked the mathematician the purpose of coming. He answered, 'I have come to seek help in solving a mathematical problem.' Imaam Ahmad Raza Khan asked, 'What is the problem?' The vice-Chancellor explained, 'It is not such an ordinary and easy problem that I can state it in such a way.' However, Imaam Ahmad Raza Khan again asked, 'What is the problem?' The vice chancellor hesitantly presented the full complexity of the problem but to his astonishment, Imaam Ahmad Raza Khan solved the problem immediately! In a state of awe and shock at the speed of the solution that Imaam Ahmad Raza Khan had provided, he exclaimed, 'My intention had been to travel to Germany for the solution but Professor Moulana Sayyid Suleiman Ashraf (Professor of Islamic studies) guided me here. It seemed as if you were observing the solution of this problem in a book.' When the vice-chancellor returned home, due to the impact of this experience, he grew a beard and became punctual in performing salaah and fasting. (Hayat-e-AlaHazrat, V1, P223-228, Maktaba-tul-Madina, Baab-ul-Madina Karachi)

Imaam Ahmad Raza Khan was also proficient in arithmetic, astrology, astronomy, Ilm-e-Ja'far etc.

Extraordinary Memory

Abu Haamid Sayyid Muhammad Khachauchi says that when people gave up finding the references for Fiqh in order to reply to questions, they would go to AlaHazrat who would provide the precise book references straight away. AlaHazrat would say, 'look in rad-dul-muhtaar, so and so volume and so and so page, you will see the passage written down. It is written down in the book of Alamgiri, so and so volume, so and so page, so and so line etc.' When the people obtained the books, they would find the passage or sentence written down exactly as AlaHazrat had said. We can only say that this is surely God-given unique memory, that he knew even the '1400 year old books', off by heart. (Hayat-e-AlaHazrat, V1, P210, Maktaba-tul-Madina, Baab-ul-Madina Karachi)

Memorising the Qur'an in just One Month

Sayyid Ayub Ali states that one day AlaHazrat said, 'Some people, out of unawareness, write 'Hafiz' before my name even though I am not worthy of this title.' Sayyid Ayub says that on that very same day, AlaHazrat started memorising the Qur'an. The daily routine was most probably from after he made his wudu for Isha up until the time of Isha Jama'at. AlaHazrat memorised one Para (Chapter) every day and so finished the 30th Para on the 30th day. On one occasion, AlaHazrat said, 'I have managed to memorise the entire Qur'an in the correct order just so that the people of Allah who assume that I am a Hafiz now are not proven wrong. (Hayat-e-AlaHazrat, V1, P208, Maktaba-tul-Madina, Baab-ul-Madina Karachi)..

Love for the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wassallam)

From head to toe, AlaHazrat was an example of love for the Prophet . The love that AlaHazrat had for the Prophet can be acknowledged by reading 'Hadaiq-e-Bakhshish', in which every line of every page is proof of the fact that the most sacred thing in the world to AlaHazrat was the love of the Prophet . Every single verse which he has written praising the Prophet from the depths of his heart, testifies his immense love & admiration for the Prophet . AlaHazrat never ever wrote flattering poems in praise of a chief or a governor to persuade or convince them of something, because AlaHazrat had whole-heartedly accepted the slavery, servitude and obedience of the Holy Prophet .

Once, the poets composed poems in praise & compliment of the governor of Nan-Para (district Behraich-UP). Some people requested AlaHazrat to also compose a poem in praise of the Governor. In reply to this, AlaHazrat wrote a Naat Shareef in the last verse of his poem, AlaHazrat very elegantly writes,

AlaHazrat says why should I compliment the rich? I am a beggar of the gate of my merciful Prophet . My religion is not 'Para-e-Naan'. 'Para' means a piece and 'Naan' means 'Roti', which metaphorically implies that I will not sell myself to the worldly kings.

Translation of the Holy Qur'an

The Urdu translation of the Holy Qur'an written by AlaHazrat is dominant over all present Qur'an Translations. (Sawanih Imaam Ahmad Raza, P373, Maktaba Nooria Razaviya Sakhar) The translation written by AlaHazrat is called 'Kanzul-Imaan'. The spiritual successor of AlaHazrat , Moulana Sayyid Naeem-ud-Deen Muraadabaadi has written the commentary inside Kanzul-Imaan.(Biography of Ala Hazrat, P7, Maktaba-tul-Madina, Baab-ul-Madina Karachi)

Books & Compilations

AlaHazrat has written approximately 1000 books. Other than this, AlaHazrat has written thousands of 'Fatawa' (rulings) from the period 1286H-1340H, but sadly, not all of them have been recovered. Those that have been, are collectively entitled as 'Al'ata yanabavia fil Fatawa-e-Razaviya'. The New Edition of 'Fatawa-e-Razaviya' consists of 30 volumes, 21656 pages, 6847 questions and answers and up to 206 booklets. (Fatawa-e-Razaviya (New Edition) V30, P10, Raza Foundation, Markaz-ul-Auliya Lahore) Every Fatwa contains an ocean of knowledge. You can appreciate and acknowledge the knowledge and far-sightedness of AlaHazrat with regards to Qur'an, Hadith, Fiqh, Mantiq (logic) by studying his Fatawa. The names of some of his other books are stated below;  : AlaHazrat wrote this book condemning those people who slander and blame Allah of lying and say that He عَزَّوَجَل is capable of doing so. This booklet astonished and gob-smacked his rivals & opponents. : In this book, AlaHazrat , through verses of the Holy Qur'an, has proven that the earth is motionless & stationary and has refuted the scientist's theories of the earth rotating. (Biography of Ala Hazrat, P7, Maktaba-tul-Madina, Baab-ul-Madina Karachi)

My 2 cents

I have never heard of him before today but I must say that while the shorter version is neutral and lists his works and important the longer version reads very badly. Having several long anecdotes from parts of his life (with no references at all) some of which come across as very corny. Having a huge paragraph on Incident from Childhood , AlaHazrat as a Mathematician (which contains the lovely sentence AlaHazrat wrote about fifty different types of knowledge and was an expert in every single science), etc just makes whole article sounds awful and unneutral. By all means link the sources for these stories but having them in the article just creates a horrible mess and casts doubt over the validity of the other material. - SimonLyall (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example from the Kim Jong-il article: Also an apparent golfer, North Korean state media reports that Kim routinely shoots three or four holes-in-one per round[107] (The odds of making a single hole-in-one in one round are around 1 in 5000).[108] His official biography also claims Kim has composed six operas and enjoys staging elaborate musicals.[109] Kim also refers to himself as an Internet expert.[110]. The claims about Kim Jong-il are obvious exaggerations which is what some of the anecdotes sound like (they 'may be true but they sound exaggerated and lack independent references) - SimonLyall (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Please add category Mujaddid

Please add Category:Mujaddid on this page as Sunnis consider him Mujaddid of 13 century Hijri. _Contribs Muslim Editor ^Talk 10:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please prove a reference for this. - SimonLyall (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Please add Barelvi sidebar template

Please add the Template:Barelvi to the page. Thank you--Urduboy (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Aamirik, 15 June 2010

{{editprotected}}

The article says about Ahmed Reza Khan: He advocated the practice of praying to deceased Muslims, which his opponents declared to be shirk (polytheism):

This first part is slightly wrong as he never advocated "PRAYING" to deceased, taking the Prophets and pious as intercessors whether during their lives or after it is not considered praying, praying refers to worship whereas intercession or even seeking help from Anbiya/Awliya with belief that real grant is from Allah alone is actually allowed by Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) himself.

Plus even the scholars of deobandi school who opposed Ahmed Reza also sought help from Prophet and Awliya and said many things like it.

Kindly edit that. Aamirik (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources.

You should also provide an exact suggestion - the text to insert, and where to insert it. If you can do this, with appropriate sources, please reinstate your request. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  07:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Please Let me Update Imam Ahmed Raza's Page

Please Let me Update Imam Ahmed Raza's Page I have to add some of his works and some information about his writings. And please remove Criticism section from this article. I had updated Imam Ahmed Raza's Page recently but now there is nothing that i updated. So plz let me update this page. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslim007 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi ! You are welcome to edit the page, but per WP:CITE, you need to add citations of reliable sources for content which you add to verify it. It would also be good if you added relevant internal links. Removing the criticism section is not a good idea, because criticism of Barelvi exists, and Wikipedia is based on neutrality. Claritas § 12:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Muslim007, If you are serious about trying to add your proposed test then please discuss the text with a native English speaker you know and trust (preferably not a follower of Barelvi) so they can give you some feedback on why your proposed wording has problems. To me the entry reads something like Chuck Norris Facts and is closer to a parody meant to mock Imam Ahmed Raza than a serious entry - SimonLyall (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Why no clickable links in the footnotes?

Given that this man is a very popular religious scholar, and most of his works are presumably out of copyright, I would imagine that most of his stuff is compiled on the Internet, probably even in English, somewhere. That being the case, why can't we get some clickable links to the cited points in the text? It would make the article that much more credible if a casual reader could go directly to the statements made by ARK to see them in proper context. I think this would really suit the needs of both Barelvi readers and unaligned academics, and would be a great way for some of the Barelvi editors (who are presumably more familiar with his writings and where to find them) to add a unique contribution to the article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Rjahangir, 11 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the section of this article "Antagonism towards Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and the Ahmadiyya branch" Ahmadiyya are written branch of Islam. Whereas it should be written and read as claimed to be branch of Islam. As all the scholars of Islam are unified in opinion that it is not a branch of Islam.

Rjahangir (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You raise a valid concern, but though the Ahmadi are not, theologically and politically, considered Muslims by many branches and governments, academically they fall within the Islamic community since they subscribe to the Quran and to Mohammed's prophethood, regardless of later developments. Calling them "alleged/claimed Muslims" would be akin to calling Mormons "claimed Christian": while many branches of Christianity consider Mormons heretical by theology, they do academically fall within the Christian category. Simply referring to them as "Muslim", with the Ahmadi article itself laying out the controversy, seems the most NPOV way to adddress it. Hope this helps. MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree . I'm therefore delisting this request. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Improving footnotes in Criticism

Muslim Editor was quite correct in that the Bukhari hadith quotes were being inappropriately used as primary sources, vice a source which says "XYZ hadith was used by Foo group to criticise ARK". Good call there. There's another section which has been long-challenged, and was accordingly deleted by M.E., which I would like to see put back in if it is indeed academically verifiable. Quoting here in blockquote so folks can take a stab at finding good refs for it:

• He supported the Sufi concept of caste system among Muslims, per portions of his Fatawa Ridawiyya. Many Muslim scholars consider this against basic Islamic principles. "If a Untouchable Muslim becomes a alim, he is not equal to Syed, Sheikh, Pathan (surfah key kufu nahin)."

If sourceable, it's very interesting info, but is too controversial to stand without better proof. Really glad to see folks stepping up to hold these Barelvi articles to good WP standards. There's definitely a lot of good academic literature on them, so no reason not to have plenty of good cites. MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Undiscussed Changes in lead section

Imam Ahmed Raza Khan was not founder of the movement,his writings influenced the Ahle Sunnat movement this is what sources says. Shabiha (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

All of the sources which I placed either refer to him as the leader, or as the founder. From Sirriyeh, for example:

"The most voiciferous defense of the Sufi status quo came from the tendency known as Barelwi after its founder, Ahmad Riza Khan Barelwi (1856-1921)."

And from the The Columbia World Dictionary of Islamism:

"Its name derives from its founder, Ahmed Riza Khan of Bareilly."

And it's also repeated literally from a Google search I did right now, in less than two seconds. From the Illustrated Dictionary of the Muslim World:

"Ahmad Raza Khan was the Indian founder of the Sufi-influenced Sunni Muslim Barelvi movement."

From Globalisation, Religion & Development by the International Journal of Politics and Economics:

"Another movement, the so-called Barelvi movement, also originated in the same area and was founded by Ahmed Reza Khan Barelvi in 1880."

From Tremors of Violence: Muslim Survivors of Ethnic Strife in Western India:

"Barelvi Islam is a school of thought founded by Ahmed Reza Khan al-Qaderi, a contemporary of Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi of the Deoband school."

From The Religions of India: A Concise Guide to Nine Major Faiths:

"Barelvi: An Islamic sect founded by Maulana Ahmad Riza Khan (1856-1921) in the nineteenth century."

From Islam in South Asia in Practice:

"The second fatwa is by Mawlana Ahmad Rada Khan (1856-1921), the founder of the sectarian orientation Ahl-i Sunnat wa Jama'at, known to outsiders as "Barelvis" after the north Indian town of Bareilly where the founder was born."

It just goes on and on from a little Google Books search and I already see it mentioned in those same search results for numerous other scholarly titles. I will be inserting the old sources along with these new ones as I really don't see how any contrary argument could be made. Any attempts by to delete this validly sourced information will eithe be viewed as petty vandalism or, in the case of someone like Shabiha, a breach of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Pleas be objective and allow the article to reflect scholarly consensus on the topic. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This is just and opinion and mere opinion not fact.He did not create it.Authentic reseraches on this movement specially done by Usha Sanyal considered him main leader.Please arrive on a consensus before editing or inserting it. Shabiha (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This isn't merely opinion. I've given you a mountain of sources - and this isn't even all of them - from places like Princeton University Press, Penguin Books, and so forth. The one person you mentioned isn't enough to break that scholarly consensus, but even then Usha Sanyal refers to the subject as the leader of the movement; being the leader and being the founder do not cancel each other out, so there is no conflict of sources. STOP removing valid sources, STOP inserting Wikipedia forks as sources and STOP doing mass reverts of any and all of my edits simply because you disagree with some of them. TALK here first, because right now if you continue like this I can guarantee that the result won't be good for you. Calm down, take a break from the computer and consider how you can get good results. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The Sources you have posted are personal opinions not authentic researches.The Scholars who have done Researches on this subject confirmed that he was not involved in founding any movement.Be civil and Assume Good faith. Shabiha (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you you can't just dismiss a whole bunch of sources like that. Please explain why the are incorrect, whole really founded the movement and give pointers to your sources. I also note that her book has the subtitle "Ahmed Raza Khan Barelwi and His Movement" which is a little suggestive.. - SimonLyall (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Shabiha, I am being as civil as possible given the ridiculous nature of this discussion. The sources I posted are NOT personal opinions; they are published pieces as I mentioned above, and as is clear from the sources themselves. Being coy and putting your head in the sand isn't going to work, especially considering that your whole argument is based on one author, Usha Sanyal, who refers to the subject as the movement's leader - again, leader and founder are not mutually exclusive terms. The burden of proof is on you. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request from ISLAMTHEWAY4US, 5 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

At the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Raza_Khan_Barelvi

The following has been written under the 'Beliefs' section: He is haazir naazir (present in many places at the same time, as opposed to God, who is everywhere by definition)

The correction is as follows: He is haazir naazir (present and observing) This does NOT mean that the Prophet is present in many places at the same time which many people mistakingly understand or interpret this as. Instead it means that the Prophet can be present only in once place. wherever he wishes to be, and witness the actions of the people of his Ummah. This is why the Quran says that the Prophet was sent as a witness (Surah 33.45-46).

ISLAMTHEWAY4US (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, can you provide a neutral/academic source which backs up your assertions above? I understand that the cited Surah can be interpreted as saying that, but given that other Muslim groups disagree, it's clearly not completely agreed on. If you want the clarifying change, please use GoogleBooks or similar which clearly explains the definition of haazir naazir from the Barelvi perspective.MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 119.159.219.76, 18 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

He supported British Government by refuting jihad forever. 119.159.219.76 (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Stickee (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of photograph

Ahmadvns (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC) I have removed photo of him, as it false and has no credibility.

Photo & Beliefs Removal

Ahmadvns (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)I would like to clarify you that my edits are constructive. The photo of Ahmed Raza is false, as he was against photography, and he has written several fatwas against photography, this hand made photo is spreading by Deobandis, as they are against Ahmad Raza and wants to defame him. And the second thing is, this photo has no credibility, I have done sevaral resaerches in his (Ahmad Raza) life, so that, I strongly believe that this photo is false.

Beliefs. And the beliefs of Ahmed Raza is not at all like that, neither the follower of him nor Ahmad Raza himself, has this type of beliefs, these are false allegations. Can you prove that he has written anywere in his books or fatwas. I just want to maintain credibility of wikipedia. I hope now you'll find reason to remove such things.

For the picture, since we don't have clear sourcing on the picture I'm not dead-set on defending that particular one. But if anyone can find a book with an illustration of ARK (woodcut, drawing, etc), we can add that since it'd be out of copyright. As far as "can you prove" regarding beliefs: the material is footnoted, so if you want to remove it you need to prove that the footnote is not properly quoted, or provide a better footnote. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahmadvns (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC) I'll soon try my best to provide a better footnote. Meanwhile, I would like to assure you again that these are not his (Ahmad Raza) beliefs but a false allegation, It's my duty to maintain wikipedia's credibility. Thanks for co operation.

Change the belief of Noor

Imam Ahmed Raza Khan was not of the belief that Hazrat Muhammad was Noor rather than Bashar . He has written in his "Fatawa e Razawia" vol.6 that if someone do not accept Hazrat Muhammad to be Bashar then he/she will not be a muslim. I have found this belief to be wrong written in wikipedia because no one of his follower has such a belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsek1212 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

We have 2 references that say otherwise. Explain why they differ - SimonLyall (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Imam Ahmed Raza Khan was of the view that Hazrat Muhammad was Noor as Allah has made him. HE was sent to earth as a Bashar and HE is Insan e Kamil. I have asked some of his followers about Noor. They claimed Imam Ahmed Raza Khan had such a belief of Noor because of Quran (surah Al Maida Ayat 15) . They claimed it in reference to this Ayat and Tafseer from "Tafseer Jalalain" , Imam Ahmed Raza Khan has claimed such thing. In wikipedia it is written "rather than Bashar" . I gave you the reference of Bashar . It is claimed that Hazrat Muhammad is Bashar and Noor at the same time. As no human is like him because HE is Insan e Kamil and last Prophet. HAZRAT MUHAMMAD is different but HE is human.This is the different belief than what you have claimed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsek1212 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a reference *[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsek1212 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I want to change the belief "He is noor (light) rather than bashar (human, flesh)" to "Muhammad , although human,possessed a noor that predates creation".*[2] Has anyone argument? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsek1212 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 20 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In this section a big mistake that his father and grand father was shia please right this,, i can prove that Early life

Ahmed Raza Khan was born on 14 June 1856 (1272 AH) in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India. His father was Naqi Ali Khan, and his great-grandfather Shah Kazim Ali Khan[3] was a great shia scholar from Kabul.

Ahmed's mother named him Amman Miyān.[4] Raza Khan used the appellation "Abdul Mustafa" (slave [or servant] of Mustafa) prior to signing his name in correspondence.[5] He studied Islamic sciences and completed a traditional Dars-i-Nizami course under the supervision of his father Naqī Áli Khān, who was a legal scholar.[2] He went on the Hajj with his father in 1878.

There Is I have edited please publish this instead currently aritcle shia please right this Early life

Ahmed Raza Khan was born on 14 June 1856 (1272 AH) in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India. His father was Naqi Ali Khan, and his great-grandfather Shah Kazim Ali Khan[3] was a great Sunni scholar from Kabul.

Ahmed's mother named him Amman Miyān.[4] Raza Khan used the appellation "Abdul Mustafa" (slave [or servant] of Mustafa) prior to signing his name in correspondence.[5] He studied Islamic sciences and completed a traditional Dars-i-Nizami course under the supervision of his father Naqī Áli Khān, who was a legal scholar.[2] He went on the Hajj with his father in 1878.

Yasir Attari (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The sentence "and his great-grandfather Shah Kazim Ali Khan[3] was a great shia scholar from Kabul. Replace "Shia" To "Sunni" because the father of Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi was a Sunni Scholar.

Muhammad Naveed 92 (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please could you provide an appropriate reliable source to say that his great-grandfather Shah Kazim Ali Khan was a great Sunni scholar - and re-request. Thank you.  Chzz  ►  08:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Request to improve this Article

This Article has many broken Links. Please try to improve this Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart.flash26 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there any evidence to the suggestion that Ahmed Raza Khan was a proper Khan i.e. a Pashtun, or even of descent from a Kabuli. It all sounds incredible as Pashtuns have traditionally been viruently anti-Shia whereas as the subject's predecessors have all got very Shia sounding names - only a fragment of the Bangash tribe have a declared Shia faith. According to Ahsan Elahi Zaheer the complexion of Ahmed Raza was very dark (black) as is the case with his sons and grandsons - something not linked to Pashtuns at all. Can someone shed a light on this please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.57.193 (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Restored sourced contents

I have restored and added sources where there was required in some headings which were there in the Articles.Removed criticism from the beliefs section.It should be in proper place not in beliefs section.Added some comments from supporters with valid sources.You tube can be used sometimes. Shabiha (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I've removed your edits. Claims like "He knew 800 names of Muhammad from books, and was able to gather 1400 more" just make the guy and his followers sound like idiots, we are trying to keep the article serious not add stupid claims that discredit him. See previous dumb claims that used to be in the article above (search for "incidents from childhood" on this talk page) - SimonLyall (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Shabiha, on a controversial article like this it's best to stick with academic sources rather than websites made by the movement which the subject founded. Also, mythical comments should be avoided like the ones in question here. Sticking directly to what historians have written is the safest bet in these cases. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit warring (August 2014)

User:MohaddesTop, recently there has been a dispute on this article. I'm tagging you here so you can see it on talk and respond here.
As is clear on the history page, you made a large number of edits to the article. I first reverted these edits as you deleted content which was reliably sourced, added in content which was unreliable sourced or not sourced at all and threw in some contentious language. You're new, so I understand that you may not be used to the methods of dispute resolution here on Wikipedia. Your next revert contained some pretty unfounded accusations and the last one didn't contain any text at all.
I warned you on your talk page twice about the pitfalls of such behavior, as did User:Jim1138 here. Please discuss the dispute here and the reasoning behind your edits before continuing any further.
Also understand that this article and others relating to Barelvism have been hit hard by POV pushing and sockpuppetry for at least six years. These are controversial topics and thus major changes should be discussed first, given that multiple users have ended up IP banned due to the conflicts on these articles. I understand that as a new user you weren't aware of the spotty history, but please keep that in mind - there is hesitation about major changes here for a reason. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Protection for Vandalism!

The page should be FULLY protected to prevent vandals from defacing the page. Reasons of the request:

1. Vandalism (deleting info supported by reliable sources) 2. Edit War 3. Conflict of interest 4. Sectarian and Ideological Bias --BiKaz (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@BiKaz: As I advised you on this thread, Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

BiKaz, please explain your edits as they have been reverted. The goal is to gain consensus and you were blocked for edit warring last time you did this. Ogress _smash! 05:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.ridawipress.org/wp-content/uploads/who-is-alahazrat.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Lucas559 (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Is the Barelvi movement a "sect"?

One editor has tried to label the Barelvi movement a "sect" and claims that the word "sect" represents a neutral point of view. IMHO it seems to introduce needless subjectivity. I may be wrong, so I'll be grateful for other editors' views. Thank you, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources needed for unreferenced information

Citations to reliable, authoritative, and neutral third-party sources are essential. Wikipedia requires them. Two good sets of Wikipedia guidelines that I have found really useful can be found HERE and HERE. It seems odd to me to replace unreferenced information but then merely tag it as unreferenced. Nothing personal. It's just not right to purposely re-insert unreferenced information, tag or not. Respectfully, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm cleaning up this article. this will include.

1. Removing information which has been mentioned multiple times in the article.
2. Removing 'some' information which is poorly sourced to Alhazrat.net. Only that information will be removed which gives too much detail, so that the article is not hurt.
3. Removing Some 'completely' unreferenced information like his "Other works". I will do this in a separate edit so you can just revert my one edit if you disagree or find a source. this may appear to be slightly controversial and BOLD.
4. Removing peacock terms like, 'Most widely read', 'The great', 'Prominent'. etc etc
5. Removing subtle POV which has crept into this article. For example this sentence 'He supported the traditional Sufi beliefs and practices as opposed to Wahabi and Deobandi movements.', tries to show that Deobandis are not really sunnis, so it will be removed. Other similar sentences will also be removed.
6. i will also remove the externally linked websites within the article as this is not allowed here. External links come after the article.

@User:GorgeCustersSabre you have reverted me on this, but I think you just saw blankings and reverted me, so I am going to revert to my version. If you have any questions do ask. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat, your some of the suggestions are really helpful to improve this page. ScholarM (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have addressed your concerns, also added RS.ScholarM (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

ScholarM Thanks for the work done dude. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm cleaning up this article. this will include.

1. Removing information which has been mentioned multiple times in the article.
2. Removing 'some' information which is poorly sourced to Alhazrat.net. Only that information will be removed which gives too much detail, so that the article is not hurt.
3. Removing Some 'completely' unreferenced information like his "Other works". I will do this in a separate edit so you can just revert my one edit if you disagree or find a source. this may appear to be slightly controversial and BOLD.
4. Removing peacock terms like, 'Most widely read', 'The great', 'Prominent'. etc etc
5. Removing subtle POV which has crept into this article. For example this sentence 'He supported the traditional Sufi beliefs and practices as opposed to Wahabi and Deobandi movements.', tries to show that Deobandis are not really sunnis, so it will be removed. Other similar sentences will also be removed.
6. i will also remove the externally linked websites within the article as this is not allowed here. External links come after the article.

@User:GorgeCustersSabre you have reverted me on this, but I think you just saw blankings and reverted me, so I am going to revert to my version. If you have any questions do ask. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat, your some of the suggestions are really helpful to improve this page. ScholarM (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have addressed your concerns, also added RS.ScholarM (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

ScholarM Thanks for the work done dude. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Issues with Misrepresentation of sources

user:MezzoMezzo keeps on reintroducing his source [3] to justify the inclusion of the statement: "Raza opposed labeling British India to be Dar al-Harb ("land of war"), thus opposing any justification of jihad (struggle) or hijrat (migration to escape) against the proposed plans of the Deobandiyya Movement who wished to begin jihaad. Raza's stance was opposed by Deobandi scholars such as Muhammad Qasim Nanotvi"

This is a clear misrepresenation of the source. The source does not speak of criticism or opposition in this matter by the Deobandis. Instead it presents a diversity of views. The source refers to Deobandis POV on the matter as being "ambiguous". This is not a criticism of Khan's stance. The problem with this statement is that it states that all Deobandis think a certain way and are against the stance of Khan. However, this is not the case from the source which clearly says that Deobandi views are "ambiguous". Also, nor does it say Nanotvi is a critic or opposed Khan's stance. Xtremedood (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Then the task is simple: remove the word "Deobandi" and retain the reference to Nanotvi, who was a critic. Additionally, a good review of pages 180 and 181 also reveal further support for the consideration of British India as a "land of war." The source itself could probably be used more for the working life of Ahmed Raza Khan in general, if we'd only take the time to look into it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

user:MezzoMezzo, The source does not list Nanotvi as a critic or opponent of Ahmad Raza Khan's stance, it just states his views. Xtremedood (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It states his views in contrast. If you want to change the term "criticism" then that's fine, but the source accurately summarizes the disagreement and is also relevant. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between opposing a view versus having a different view. I may like apples whereas you may not like apples. However, it is not a criticism until you openly say my liking apples is wrong. The source does not justify the statement. Xtremedood (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The source does justify the statement if the term "criticism" is changed to something else, like I just mentioned, since the views are diametrically opposed. Did you read my suggestion above? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The source does not make any mention of criticism by Nanotvi, and therefore should not be included for the source indicated in the criticisms section. Xtremedood (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, you don't seem to actually be reading what I'm writing. I'll try to rephrase it.

The source points out that Khan said one thing, Nanotvi said something which is the polar opposite of that. If you don't want to call it criticism, then I'm not against you in that. But the source is reliable, the text doesn't misrepresent their views, and it's relevant to the subject. So if you have a suggested change then I'm telling you in the loudest proverbial voice I can: that sounds like a good idea. What specifically would you suggest changing the text to? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Your personal attacks are not constructive for the dialogue. It is not a criticism, it is a different point of view, and therefore it does not belong in the criticism section. Xtremedood (talk) 03:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I never personally attacked you; I simply pointed out that you didn't read my comment, and you just did that again. Your response here is evidence that you're still not reading what I'm writing. I'll try this one more time:

If you don't like the term "criticism," then suggest a different term. I'm asking you to make a positive suggestion, and I'm completely open to the idea and ready to work with you. Let's completely change the title of the whole section. I'm with you on that. Just don't claim that a source from Brill isn't reliable. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It is a clear misrepresentation of the source. If we look at other articles, we do not see separate sections just to have a different opinion of 1 individual with no relevance to the individual whom the article is about. Unless you have proof that Nanotvi has anything to do with Ahmad Raza Khan (whether him having some sort of contact, critique, or relationship with Ahmad Raza Khan), it is pointless to bring him up in an article specifically about Ahmad Raza Khan. Focusing on the actual topic, which is criticisms, there is no criticisms proven from the source, therefore it should be clear that as far as this matter is concerned we should have nothing further to discuss, unless you bring another relevant source that adhere to WP:RS. Xtremedood (talk) 07:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The source mentions Nanotvi's opinion in contrast to Khan's; that's absolutely relevant. Again, if you don't like the term criticism then let's change it. In fact, I'll suggest that we remove the entire heading "criticism" since you feel so strongly that it's inaccurate. But this is a reliable source and the contrast is clearly stated on the page, so it shouldn't be deleted; we can just edit the text and improve the content of the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

If you look over here [4] Nanotvi's opinion is already mentioned there. Instead of renaming the section and essentially reading the same content, it makes more sense to just remove it and leave the Political Views section as it is. It uses the same source as well. Would you be fine with that? Xtremedood (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Xtremedood: Excellent idea. It's both logical and cognizant of the article as a whole. This was the first thing I saw after logging in and it's a great welcome to editing for the day. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Shajra lineage

Sufi lineage of Ahmed Raza Khan added was removed although it was cited to be from a verified book "Hyaat e AlaHazrat". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saudmujadidi (talk • contribs) 14:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Saudmujadidi: Are you referring to the source from the website which has no editorial board or known admin? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

No,I cited it from the aforementioned book! Saudmujadidi (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Could you post the diffs of the edits in question here? I'm still not entirely sure what you're talking about. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding semi protection

--Saudmujadidi (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 05:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Copy editing

Hello fellow editors, I've recently been copy editing this page in a semi-systematic fashion, mainly because the written expression was really clumsy in places. I've also cut out what I believe are non-neutral or value-laden adjectives or phrases. I've edited in good faith, without a bias for or against Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi and I therefore hope that if I've annoyed anyone they will at least recognize my good faith and discuss the passage(s) here on the talk page. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources added for reason "why Al Mustanad Al Motamad is documented and signed by scholars"

Reading the sources will clear that the aforementioned document is not just based on scholarly opinions.(why?)(still in practice?)(problematic text underlined)86.90.233.10 (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)a86.90.233.10 (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Removed sources and text

Those texts were added by a book author sharing their own view of a person from its own written book. The book itself contains uncited claim about the person who died a century ago, and author is trying to prove his knowledge as the person is their childhood friend.

All three sources are weak, pushing a point of view, and the central one is effectively just a blog. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Article title

If "Barelvi" is not part of his name, why is it part of the article title? —C.Fred (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)