Talk:Mirza Ghulam Ahmad/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Editing Intro

The intro needs the following edits:

1 - The alleged claim of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad regarding being a qualified prophet is contentious and this should be made clear. 2 - No citation is provided for Jesus being alive in heaven as being an "established" Islamic position. It may be the majority view, but cannot be called established as differing pov's exists within mainstream Islam. 3 - It says (without citations) that Ahmad's view on Jesus and Mahdi is the reason why he was branded an apostate. I understand his alleged claim to Prophethood may also have played an important role in this regard.

Overll some contentions need to be removed or supported with RS and alternating POVs mentioned to maintain neutrality.

Sufaid (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Lahore debate with Pir Mehr Ali

I have edited this section for it seems one sided, if a contentional episode of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's life is included then both sides of the story should be mentioned.

Sirius86 (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

The text needs a complete overhaul - the depth of details in some sections is irrelevant from the perspective of a wikipedia article. Also a number of subtle and not so subtle pov issues need to be addressed. I will be editing the article over next few days and would welcome any comments and suggestions.

You need not alter the text. I have read the entire page. It is written in an extremely appropriate and relevant manner. The depth of details is all that is required to discern the truth from falsehood...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umar1908 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Since there are no active discussions in progress I am archiving the discussion page.

Nazli (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would edit the part talking about how clear and definitive it is that Muhammad is the Seal of the prophets... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.182.95.221 (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are writting history you should be honest, some one wrote that Hadhi Baig was from Iran which is far from fact. How can Barlas Moughal (Persian word for Mongol)be Irani while he was from same sub-clan of Mongol as Zaheer-ud-din Babur

---

I have made some changes to your recent edit of the opening paragraphs of the article trying to keep it as neutral as possible. there is no reason why the Islamic dates of his birth/death should be removed. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad remains a highly unconventional yet important figure within Islam in particular and the religious world in general.

Sirius86 (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's lineage and background

I have made changes to your recent edit in this section.It is disputed whether Ghulam Ahmad's lineage is Persian or Turco-Mongol(Mughal). According to various [2] [3]Hadi Beg's family traced themselves to Barlas. The family lived for a long time in Khorasan, Iran and later migrated to Samarkand, and from there to India. There seems to be little evidence of Persian blood, but neither that of pure mongolian. At most the family in India was known as Mughal's in the governmental records, probably for the high positions it occupied within the Mughal Empire/courts, however, even the Mughals were not purely Mongol, they were originaly, Turko-Mongol, and later also persian, as a result of inter-mingling and inter-marrying of the these races.

Sirius86 (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I made some effort to fix references in several ahmadiyya related articles. I can not agree that you insert with your edits notes as No 3, 11 and 12, also inserts with <!-- Bot generated title --> are not acceptable. This form of work is not productive. Its your charge to fix the references while editing, not charge of others. Please take it in mind. Greetings. --Ahmadi (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I finished cleaning up the refs. Please keep it clean while editing. Greetings. --Ahmadi (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

18:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)18:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umar1908 (talk • contribs)

Dr. Basharat Ahmed in his three volume book '[4]Mujjadad-e-Azam'[Great Reformer], has discussed his lineage in detail and proved that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmed(as) belonged to Persian descent. BTW, Timur also belonged to Barlas family [Please see Timur page in wikipedia] and Timur was of persian blood not mongol. Some people think that Barlas was a mongol clan but that is not true. You can read Basharat Ahmed's book to get info in detail. Moreover, 'Mirza' is purely a persian title used for nobility—Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.15.109 (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Doesn't this page, or even the Ahmadiyya page, even qualify for semi-protection? I have brought this up several times before but users have always side-stepped the issue. Don't these pages get vandalised often enough already? (and add to this the fact that vandalism seems to be on the rise) --Maurice45 (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocking edits from anonymous editors may not be a bad idea - is there some way of checking if the Ahmadiyya articles are subjected to above average levels of vandalism? Nazli (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that there should be some level of protection. Blocking edits from anons would be the minimum. Perhaps even only allowing edits from users with atleast some history of valid edits. --Sufaid (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This article has seen and abundance of abuse and vandalism. Recent edits in the title alone in the past few days contain street language such as 'Bastard, son of a dog, traitor.' Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a religious figure meriting respect and devotion from millions of his followers across the world. There have been several demands for a partial lock on the article to protect it from blatant and vulgar vandalism. Why is this not being done? Does Wikipedia have an agenda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SEMTEX85 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources?

Does anyone have any sources that aren't written by religious followers of MGA? The legend-like tales should be either sourced or removed. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, like legends lacking sources. I support the neutrality issue at the top of the article. It is in heavy need of cleanup. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The article seems fairly neutral to me. It considers the viewpoints of Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis. Peaceworld111 (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Descent, attribution

I think we ought to say who claims Ahmad descended from a famous or important person. First, the fact that no one has rebutted the statement could mean simply that no one bothered to, not that the fact can be cited without attribution. My recent edit comment was a reference to Time Cube, which has never been rebutted in a scientific journal. This doesn't mean the TC article should say, matter-of-factly, "Time is a cube with four sides". Second, there's no way to verify that nobody disputes his ancestry. It is best to leave it attributed.

"It is said" is a particularly egregious way of leaving something unattributed. It is said by whom? And how do they know? WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Holy Prophet Mohammed SAAW said: "In My Ummah, there shall be born Thirty Grand Liars (Dajjals), each of whom will claim to be a prophet, But I am the Last Prophet; there is No Prophet after Me." (Abu Dawood Vol 2 p. 228; Tirmidhi Vol 2 p.45) Mirza further degrades Holy Prophet Muhammad Holy Prophet Muhammad did not understand the correct meaning of Surah AlZilzal. (Roohani Khazain vol.3 pp.166-167). (This reference is absolutely false and meant to deliberately mislead un-suspecting readers. The book Roohani Khazain vol.3 (p 166-167) is in front of me right now. There is just no mention of Holy Prophet pbuh in this narration. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has in fact said that the tafseer(explanation)of Sura Al-Zalzaal done by our Ulamaa (scholars)is not correct, because when the earth will get destroyed inside out, where will the non-believers come from to ask the earth as to what happened to it.

Holy Prophet's revelation also turned out to be false. (Roohani Khazain vol.3 p.472). Misleading comment taken out of context. The reader must read the page completely to understand the point.

Holy Prophet has also committed mistakes in understanding revelations. (Roohani Khazain 2 vol. 2 p.224). This is also a misleading comment taken out of the context. The reader must read the complete page to understand the point. This person is not a scholar but someone who is deliberately trying to mislead the readers. It is not fair to take a few words out of context and mislead the readers. One reading of the relevent pages will clear the confusion being created by this gentleman.

Grave of the Holy Prophet is one of the Most Sacred site for Muslims all over the world. This is how Mirza humiliates it (May Allah and His Messenger forgive me for quoting such profanity): "And God chose such a DESPICABLE PLACE to bury the Holy Prophet which is EXTREMELY STINKING and DARK and CRAMPED and was the PLACE of the EXCRETA of INSECTS…" (Roohani Khazain vol.17 p.205) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.51.162 (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

regarding the (Rohani Khazain vol 17. p. 205): This person is referring to footnote where contemporary beliefs regarding hazrat Esa(as) are compared with the facts from the life of holy prophet(pbuh). The reference is not to the grave of the holy prophet(pbuh) but to the Cave of Saur where he(pbuh) along with hazrat abu bakar hid himself while migrating.

I would like to encourage people to read the referenced pages with 2-3 pages before and after and you will get the true picture of what is being said.

so please try not to misinform people. I can bet you haven't read any of those references quoted. typical and good for nothing tactics.

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam ahmed(as) always considered himself a humble follower of the holy prophet(pbuh). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kchughtai (talk • contribs) 18:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a place for a discussion of who is the last prophet or who is Isa/Jesus reborn. In order to enhance the article with arguments on the pro-Ahmad side (Kchughtai ?) and the con-Ahmad side (Mr 92 ?), recent references are needed that critically analyze and compare statements from Ahmad, from the Qur'an and other relevant sources. Besides Ahmad didn't act very much like the Jesus from the Christian Bible, for whatever that's worth... Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well that's your opinion that you have put forward about the similarity of characteristics:-)Peaceworld111 (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Whatupdetroit, 26 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Death

Main article: Controversy surrounding the death of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

While he was in Lahore at the home of Dr. Syed Muhammad Hussain (who was also his physician), Mirza Ghulam Ahmad fell ill from dysentery and excessive weakness. He died in Lahore on 26 May 1908 on the toilet. His body was subsequently taken to Qadian and buried there.

References

Whatupdetroit (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Your second reference does not support your point.Peaceworld111 (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: As Peaceworld111 says, the second reference does not appear to state that he died on the toilet, nor does it support the existing footnote, "The eye witnesses said that when he died the motion was passing from his mouth." This looked suspiciously like old vandalism, so in the absence of a valid reference I've removed it. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think trying to cover this up that he died while '"bleeding from the anus and shit dripping out of him"' and the witness that he died on a toilet for religious motivation is not a what Wikipedia expects from its editors. It might harm your religious sentiments, but there is a need to include it. Adjutor101 (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What is this crap some child has scribbled here?

“ A very important fact is that he died in his own poo, which was inetially accepted by all Ahmadiyaa but to protect his false claims they deleated it from their books. The main cause of his death is disputed between Ahmadiyaa's, some say that he consumed the stone which he used for cleaning himself after going to toilet mistakenly and his stomach stoped working and produced hell in their.”

1. poor spelling.

2. died in his own poo? is there anything less descriptive and more immature?

3. i will be very impressed if you can find a citation for this.

4. this kind of thing makes it very apparent that even grade-school dropouts can use wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.98.132.153 (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section

The entire "Criticism" section is an encyclopedic train wreck at the moment, full of WP:original research and WP:synthesis of published material. It reads like a battle of personal viewpoints between two editors. Arguments and counter-arguments are attributed to entire populations ("most Muslim scholars"; "Ahmadis further state that...") without any evidence that these criticisms or defensive arguments have been published before. AtticusX (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It is not exacly correct to say that these are the personal views of the editors. I have cited references to most of the ones requested. Thanks!Peaceworld111 (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the references you've added. There are still a lot of statements in that section that need to be supported but they are probably mostly not from edits that you made. As a reminder to everyone involved in this article, WP:primary sources are potentially misleading, because they require interpretation. For example, in this case, any editor could come along and add some primary source in the form of a Pakistani anti-Ahmaddiya website, and use it to support anti-Ahmadi arguments, claiming that the website's arguments represented mainstream Muslim opinion across the entire world, when it might actually only represent the view of a small group of people in Pakistan. That's why we need secondary and tertiary sources to put things in perspective, of course. Wikipedia permits very occasional and careful use of primary sources, but "all interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." So please, whenever possible, try to cite third-party sources written by outsiders who are neither Ahmadi nor anti-Ahmadi -- for instance news articles reporting on the issue. AtticusX (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I understand you fully here. As far as my edits are concerned, none of them fit the category of 'Primary sources', as often both the anti-ahmadi and the ahmadi side discuss the issues. (well, mainly the Ahmadi side - trying not to be biased here!) I agree that it is incorrect to say that 'most non-ahmadi muslims state...' - as most of them are not faced with the issue - its probably better to state 'non-ahmadis state...' avoiding 'most'. Concering newspapers and reports, it is difficult to find arguments presented by neither the Ahmadis and nor by their opponents. These issues are rarely discussed in detail. But if one pops up, I'll be happy to accept it. Thanks for your advise! Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words

Hi ... some people say, it is believed, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, it was proven ...

From the examples above, I get the picture that none of the phrases used in this article are weasel words, such as opponents say, Ahmadis argue Thanks. Peaceworld111 (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peaceworld111,

A more thorough explanation of "weasel words" is found here: "words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." Other examples cited include "Critics claim..." and ""Some argue..."

If the reader is left wondering, "Which opponents?"... "Exactly which Ahmadis?"... then you have weasel words. Overgeneralization is the problem we're talking about.

My point in drawing attention to the overgeneralizations in the Criticism section is obviously not just a semantic concern. My point is that the text loses credibility by failing to precisely define the participants in the argument. Who exactly is making these claims on either side? When I read that "most Muslim scholars" consider Ahmadis to be non-Muslims, one should immediately suspect the phrase of POV manipulation unless it cites a survey of Muslim scholars worldwide, or some similarly reliable source, which it probably doesn't do because no such survey has been done. Which is why one usually can't safely say "most Muslim scholars" on Wikipedia. It is almost always a gross simplification of the situation. Muslims in different countries and different branches of the religion obviously have different politics, different beliefs, and different levels of tolerance. I think the safest approach when reporting criticisms of a whole movement or people is to pick individual representatives of the opposition and briefly quote those individuals' writings or speech, without attributing their POV to some vague, undefined "they".

"Ahmadis claim" and "Ahmadis argue" are less problematic phrases in this context, but only to the extent that one can cite the claims and arguments of a centralized organization that accurately represents Ahmad and his followers. If you can't cite a source, you might as well not dignify the opposition's accusations with a response. I have to say, from an outsider's perspective, some of the arguments presented "against" Ahmad are downright silly, and don't merit being included in a serious biography, let alone given further weight by an apologetic counter-argument defending the poor guy against every little ad hominem insult.

But all of that is peanuts compared to the real problem: the entire Criticism section is wordy, poorly written, full of POV language. It reads like an argument back and forth between two people, which is emphatically NOT the Wikipedia style. I am looking at articles on other religious leaders like Jesus and Gautama Buddha, more specifically the articles that go into detail about how they are viewed by other world religions, and somehow those articles haven't devolved into the thinly disguised bickering that I see in this section. So it can be done, and it can be done succinctly. Short of starting the Criticism section over from the ground up, I think somebody's going to have to have the guts to trim this section mercilessly... integrate the quotes into the prose (16 quotation boxes in one section is way too many)... edit out the unsourced insults and petty criticisms (which is almost all of them, from my perspective)... and make it flow like one train of thought rather than two.

In the end, I have no interest in getting involved in the edit wars I see going on here. My sympathies go mostly to you, Peaceworld111, because you have shown respect for Wikipedia's guidelines, and have continued to engage other editors even when they were being horribly rude to you, or when their edits were just bad by Wikipedia's standards. Most of the stuff other editors keep trying to cram into this article frankly doesn't belong, and I personally think you are right in trying to take it out. But I'm not knowledgeable enough in the subject to help rewrite it. My main interest is in helping encourage adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines. So that will probably be the extent of my occasional involvement here. AtticusX (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your advice. However, the examples regarding Jesus and Buddha, I think are way off this issue. Those articles focus on their personal views of his status under a positive attitude whereas this article is about criticisms and Ahmadi perspective on criticisms. Thanks a lot for your thoughts once again. Ill try and keep them in mind. Peaceworld111 (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding criticisms

If any editor wishes to add criticisms please discuss on this page, particularly if it is leading to edit wars. Peaceworld111 (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected the article page as there's an edit war in process. Please reach consensus on the talk page first. Consider dispute resolution techniques if that helps, such as a request for comment. Thanks. GedUK  11:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

My view on current edit war warning

Mr newobserver mentioned two dreams in which Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad saw in his dream one woman in naked body . He put the heading of Nudity for these two dreams.

ahmadiyya stance is that these two dreams do not become under the Nudity definition.

As a prove , a dream have been shown in which Prophet Muhammad saw naked men and women.

Muslim all over the world do not consider the dream of Prophet Muhammad (saw) a NUDE DREAM.And none of the person in this world bother to add this dream in the wiki page about Prophet Muhammad (saw).

That is why , i deleted the Heading Nude Dreams.

I request newobserver to tell me why i am wrong? and why he consider this a Nude dream when he does not consider dream of Prophet Muhammad (saw) a Nude dream .

i am new to wiki , my appology if i am not following the wiki standard . but i shall learn soon.Khalidnawaz123 (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

it seems to me User talk:Newobserver do not have any interest in current dispute resolution . Khalidnawaz123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC).

well i suggest that you should concenterate on a complete biography instead of the religion or if you want to discuss religion then mention those teaching and saying as they were and let the people decide as bad or good.

Criticism

I have removed some parts of the ever-increasing list of criticisms in this section but have kept some of the older (major) ones. I had thought of removing the whole section but thought it should be discussed first, as the person of this article HAS been a subject of much criticism enough to form an aspect of his legacy. We have to keep in view that this is an encyclopaedia, not a forum that is increasingly becoming a medium for Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis to criticise and vindicate. If this continues this article will turn into a joke.

Sirius86 (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Sirius86

That's fine with me, though there is always a possibility to start a separate article on it.--Peaceworld 14:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

New Page: Criticisms of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

I'm strongly thinking of moving this section to a new page. two reasons, it deserves its own page and 2nd to maintain the quality of the current page per reasons given by user AtticusX Talk:Mirza_Ghulam_Ahmad#Criticism_section. Please comment and give views thanks.--Peaceworld 20:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 June 2012

115.186.48.44 (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC) sir apne ghulam ahmed kadyani ki death ke bare main nahi likha ke unko dairya tha or woh potty karte hue unki death hue in short indian potty per unki death hue.agr main sahi nahi keh raha to ap inke bete se pouch lain jin ki book se maine ye parha hai.

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages....

anyway Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Mdann52 (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Update to main headline banner

I have added a quotation from the BBC which is an extremely reputable source. I hope before making amendments that people will comment. (Reheally (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC))

Use of an anti-Ahmadi propaganda site as source

There are excerpts in this article quoted from a website Irshad.org whose "mission" is to denounce "fraudulent man-made cults -- Bahais in Iran and Qadianis (Ahmadis) in India", comparing Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to "David Koresh, Jim Jones, and Charles Manson", "Of all these newly formed cults, Qadianism (Ahmadiyyat) poses the most danger to the uninformed". I don't think any excerpt from (and no link toward) such a hatemongers website should be included in any article on wikipedia. --Minorities observer (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Finality of Prophethood?

Adjutor101 Of course, we can view some criticism from the sources around the world about his prophecies, but a citation has to be reliable. Following citations are clearly not reliable:-

• alhafeez.org - Seems like a fan portal.
• quran.com - Primary source, many of the quotes of this website have been disputed outside and its webmaster has frequently altered them.
• sunnah.com - Fan portal.
• www.inter-islam.org - Fan portal.

Bladesmulti (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Reply

Bladesmulti

• Sunnah.com is cited to cite Tirmidhi Hadith. See http://sunnah.com/urn/675760
• Quranic verses are often cited to negate Mirza
• I agree http://alhafeez.org/ is a fan-portal but it is only used to show contents of book Nadwi, Abul. Qadianism - A Critical Study. Islamic Research and Publications.

• www.inter-islam.org is not a fan portal it represents an organisation that has centres of Dawah around the globe primarily Pakistn
• Also you forgot: Maududi, Abul A'la (1993). Finality of Prophethood. Islamic Publications. Where Pakistan's most well known Scholar of Islam Abul A'la Maududi criticise Mirza; also on the Quranic verses I provided

You also removed False Prophecies, which has Mirza sources: Mirza stated:

To Judge my truthfulness or lies, there is no better test than my prophecies.

— Roohani Khazain, Volume 19, Page 288

His critics have shown various "prophecies" not to hold water. A few of his prophecies include:

Enemies wish for my death and prophecise about it. God has, however, given me the good news that I shall live for eighty (80) years or more.

— Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Roohani Khazain, Volume 19, Page 239; Mawahib-ur-Rahman, Page 21

But Mirza only lived for 68 years.

I will die either in Mecca or Medina.

— Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Tadhkirah, Page 784

But Mirza died in Lahore.

Please rather than seeing this an opportunity to spread your belief, see yourself as a "Wikipedian" Adjutor101 (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2014‎ (UTC)unsigned

References

None of these citations are reliable, they are following a fan portal. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll add more tomorrow. But Bladesmulti is correct, we can't use fan portals. We can't say "His critics have shown various "prophecies" not to hold water". We can say, for instance, Ehsan Elahi Zaheer has said.... We need to have reliable sources commenting on each prophecy you want in the article. I've got no problem with that - I don't believe in prophecies. If any of the ones that are said to be false are defended by his followers we need that also. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If you actually have a problem with the urls, doesn't matter I will remove those "pov" urls. Just restrict it to books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjutor101 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

These books are primary citations. How can we trust on those website that are altered almost every day? Bladesmulti (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Quotes

Is there a reason why there are so many quotes boxes in this article instead of regular quotes? A number of them don't conform to WP:BQ and make the article more choppy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources Verifiability

Dear Bladesmulti you stated that the sources were unreliable.

1. I have provided 6 books with verifiable tracking info: isbn, publishing house, date and author
2. These l books are by Islamic scholars such as Sa'id Akhtar Rizvi, Abul A'la Maududi, Ehsan Elahi Zaheer and others
3. I have also included an Islamic Encyclopaedia as reference: http://www.amazon.in/The-Everything-Understanding-Islam-Book-ebook/dp/B001OLRLAQ
4. I have also included direct sources where the quotations can be read such as: I will die either in Mecca or Medina.Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Tadhkirah, Page 784
5. You stated that alislam.org "unreliable". The website "alislam.org" is the main and official page of the Ahamadi religion. References: 2, 7, 24, 30, 35, 37, 40, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,69, 74, 80 are all from this website in the this article.

Adjutor101 (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

DMacks here my reply to reservations expressed by editor Bladesmulti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjutor101 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller you have accused me of edit warring but I have tried to discuss with all pro-Mirza editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjutor101 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticism

FreeatlastChitchat has removed the tags, although I would like to point that none of these citations are reliable enough to include. irshad.org, aaiil.org, alislam.org, are unreliable and very one sided. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I removed the tags because WP policy is to ALLOW self definition and the websites used clearly depict the criticisms along FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)with the answers given by the claimant.

You really think that these are good citations? We have discussed many of these websites above, and they don't seem to have enough relevance for this subject because you can find criticism about just anything in these websites. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

To be honest I agree with Alislam.org. It is clean and gives the criticisms alongwith the answers. I do not see any criticism that is not mention in Alislam and covered by other websites. So I think source is good atm. however this is my opinion, you can differ, but please provide a reason for differing here. Ty for your input.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not about whether you agree with aliislam.org or not, but it is mostly about who has written that article, and it seems like it is just a self published blog. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think alislam.org is a blog. tbh it reads like a full fledged , organized website. "to be honest I agree with Alislam.org". I meant that I agree that this can be a good source as it is a well maintained and professional website.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Now I have removed it. It had been already challenged for a long time, see Talk:Mirza Ghulam Ahmad#Criticism section, Talk:Mirza Ghulam Ahmad#Criticism, Talk:Mirza Ghulam Ahmad#Use of an anti-Ahmadi propaganda site as source, Talk:Mirza Ghulam Ahmad#Quotes(somewhat), Talk:Mirza Ghulam Ahmad#Finality of Prophethood.3F. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Separate "criticism of" article

User:Adjutor101 has now started a stand-alone Criticism of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad article, seemingly dedicated to containing the material he was intent on including here in the main article. As it seemed that the talkpage here was that the material was not acceptable to WP standards, I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. I welcome others' work on that article and/or comments in the AfD discussion on its fate. DMacks (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

I have made an article Criticism of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. I now know that it was deleted previously because of unreliable sources but this article has reliable sources and the topic is notable because millions of people which include both Christians and Muslims criticize the person for his claims. All proposed changes shall be discussed and the article should be modified accordingly to be included in Wikipedia.

Thanks. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 11:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Much of it cannot be considered as any kind of criticism, like Pakistan government, Muslim league, etc. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Owais Khursheed: I don't see the point of your list. I dare to say that nearly every religious movement has been a subject of debates, criticism or scholarly attacks by those professing differently. However, going into all such debates, and in a terribly biased manner, is beyond what Wikipedia is for; see WP:NOTSOAPBOX. The main article includes mentions of criticism and fatwas against M.G.A. and the Ahmadiyya movement - sure, they can be slightly improved but not replaced with a tyrade like yours. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 12:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: The main article does not contain any mentions of criticism and fatwas against M.G.A. and the Ahmadiyya movement, you can check it. And my article is not based on bias, if it is, you have to prove it. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 14:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

And pardon me, what is this "tyrade". Not heard of this before.

Cheers. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 14:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Tyrade/Tirade means long rants. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I have read the article and to be frank it feels like a blog post from a person who is feeling bored. I mean you no disrespect but it is just that your "article" does not read like an encyclopedia. If you want to write articles like this I would like to recommend that you go onto other modes of writing like wordpress etc. I can link you to at least 5 policies which make your article fall under deletion hammer. SOAP, BIAS, etc etc. Anyway, I would like to keep this reply short and as most others agree with me, I do not see any point in dragging it out in a long debate. The bottom line is that you have the right to write anything you want, there is no one bothering you there. But, BUT, you must get yourself to the proper forum to get it on the web. This article is a blog post, not an encyclopedia article. Thank you for contributing to Wiki, and I hope you contribute more in the future, but I am sorry to say that I will be marking this for deletion.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Well everybody is saying that article is this and that but no one is really there to modify it and propose changes to it. Every body is saying that it is a bias but no one is proving it because its sources are reliable. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 16:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

They are published by unreliable publishing companies. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

These books are published by government printing press of KSA and by Darussalam publishing, both are reliable publishers. thanks Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 01:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Owais Khursheed:,

• Darusslam and Saudi Arabia are both famous for their for various biases, predominantly Salafi/Wahabbi, and both are used in academic works with great caution (Saudi Arabia specifically Religious circles). Darusslam is especially notorious for its omissions, alterations, and redactions especially in its English language books.

• Turning to the Saudi Arabia, which along Pakistan is one of the 2 major institutionalized Anti-Ahmadiyya Hate Mongers and these Fatwas donnot mean anything nor do they have any value outside Secretarian Circles.

• From what I see all of your sources are sectarian or completely unreliable, for example: The Analysis of Qadyaniyat, Fatawa Islamia, Ahle Hadith Magazine etc.

• Again there is no need for hate pages and resurrecting a article which is part of POV content fork people are trying to clean up. --Nawabmalhi (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Nawabmalhi: At the first place you are not the scholar to say that Saudi Arabia is famous for its biases, if you are claiming anything you have to produce reliable sources in favour of your statement. Just by shouting KSA is famous for its biases does not mean they are biased. The article contains Criticism by notable individuals and Scholars of the Islamic world. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 08:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Moreover it is not the hate page, Wikipedia allows criticism of an individual by notable scholars with reliable sources, we have articles in wikipedia like Criticism of Jesus, Criticism of Muhammad etc.

Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 09:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Owais Khursheed: I am not saying I am scholar but this is common knowledge: [5], [6], [7] --Nawabmalhi (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Nawabmalhi: These are unreliable sites, these criticize mainly saudi government and never claimed the scholars living there and book publishing companies are biased, if the government in America is biased that does not mean Christian scholars of America are biased, similarly it applies to India, Pakistan etc. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 18:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Owais Khursheed: First of all sorry for the late reply, I was studying for a exam. The sources I provided above are very reliable and are written by accredited Authors and cited in various other academic papers. The reason I did not add sources about the unreliability of Darussalam Publishers is that I thought you did your own research on them. Here are some sources which show that they can be unreliable and should be used with caution: [8], [9], [10], etc. According to userpage you are Sunni, so you can visit Sunni forums as well which talk about Darussalam. Now let me be clear, I am not saying that Darussalam cannot be used, I am saying it should be used with caution, especailly on contreversial issues. I myself have used Darrusalam to reference the article Sa'd ibn Mu'adh for the English Translation of Ibn Kathir, which is for the most part is good, but has a few omissions of text.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Jesus(all of) and Criticism of Muhammad(most of) have very notable and historical authors/thinkers, unlike the page that you have made. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani, Muhammad ibn al Uthaymeen, Permanent Committee for Islamic Research and Issuing Fatwas, Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz, Ehsan Elahi Zaheer are the notable scholars, authors, thinkers and organisations of the time. Ie; why there articles are in Wikipedia. If you don't know about Islamic scholars of the time then you have no knowledge about Islam because every knowledgeable muslim knows them, respects them and acknowledges them as scholars of time. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 10:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Owais Khursheed (Talk to me). I already told you that the article is not encyclopedia material. I see from your long winded comments that you have already made up your mind to write this biased, POV article. So feel free to write it. It will be deleted as it does not fulfil WP standards. tbh you are atm behaving like a child who must show off his work. We have already seen your work and we thank you for the effort but it cannot be put up on Wikipedia. I would like to again suggest that you put this up on some blog etc to save yourself from the heartache when this gets deleted. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: You are not the Judge here on Wikipedia, with just 1 article in your bank and you are telling me what is encyclopedic and don't worry about my headache, I am an engineer, I eat these kind of headaches in dinner. Regards Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 14:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

But I am not going to let you down, I will make it encyclopedic if you think it lacks much of it, add more sources, add more text to it. Cheers Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 14:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Owais Khursheed, As already mentioned by editors above, the article resembles like an attack page than valid criticisms. Infact as already mentioned by Bladesmulti, many of the points in the article do not fall into the category of "criticism of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad". However, those individuals/committees that you have mentioned may be notable as individuals. It may also be the case that they are scholars within their respective faiths, but can it really be said that they their views/fatwas are really valid criticisms? Are they really reliable sources? With relevance to this article, here is my very short list to test the sources:

• Would the individuals/committees be in favour of permitting Ahmadis to call themselves Muslims openly in their respective countries? What is their view on Anti-Ahmadiyya laws? If they cannot uphold basic human rights, can they really be considered reliable?
• How do they refer to Ahmadis? Do they refer to them by their identity, such as "Ahmadi Muslims", or at least "Ahmadis"? Or do they prefer to use derogatory terms such as "Qadianis" or "Mirzais"?
• Do they consider Ahmadis as British/Jewish/Indian agents?

Thanks.--Peaceworld 16:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Bro, every individual has the right to call himself what he likes, but one should choose a title for himself that suits him, eg; if I choose for myself "Dr. Owais" but I have no MBBS degree, What will the other docs have to say about me? They will simply say that he is not a doctor because he does not fulfil the basic criteria for being a doc. Similarly a muslim means who is a follwer of islam and Islam is based on two sources "Qur'an" and "Sunnah". Both Quran and Sunnah say that Muhammad is the seal of the prophets. Prophet Muhammad says in a narration of Sahih Muslim that "if there would have been prophet after me, it would have been Umar". Now Ahmadiya community believe that "Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadyani is the last prophet of Islam". So they don't fulfil basic criteria for being a Muslim. It is a basic belief in Islam to believe that Muhammad is the last prophet of Islam. Then the docs of Muslims ie; scholars, how they can acknowledge them as Muslim's not because they have some personal matters with this community but the sources of Islam conflict with the concepts of Ahmadiya community. Every prophet has foretold his community about the prophet to come, moses foretold about Jesus, Jesus foretold about Muhammad. But Muhammad didn't foretold about anyone else and told to everyone that he is the final prophet. If I neglect any saying of Muhammad, then I am a Non-Muslim according to the sources. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 17:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't careless what the theological argument is, nor should an encyclopedia. The first bullet point addresses the point that if the so called reliable individuals/committees cannot agree to fundamental human rights, how on earth can they be considered reliable?--Peaceworld 17:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Human rights are

• Everyone religion and its followers are allowed to practice freely in a country and every government and scholars allow that. Infact Quran allows that by saying that "there is no compulsion in religion" I was answering the part of your question "Would the individuals/committees be in favour of permitting Ahmadis to call themselves Muslims openly in their respective countries", Ahmadiya community call themselves as Muslim's but no muslim can agree with that because they don't fulfil basic criteria for being a Muslim. It is a bitter truth.

Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 18:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so can you give references where these scholars/committes have fought for the right for Ahmadis to call themselves Muslims, call their places of worship Mosques, openly proselytize, permit entrance to Mecca for pilgrimage in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Most surely, if these scholars are experts in Ahmadiyya theology, they must have addressed this issue somewhere.--Peaceworld 18:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

If Scholars say that whosoever does not believe in finality of Prophethood on Muhammad makes them unreliable, then whole Muslim population is biased and unreliable. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 18:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand my point: These scholars may consider Ahmadis to be non-Muslims for whatever reason. But to support Anti-Ahmadiyya laws that exist in multiple countries to a varying degree, is to oppose fundamental human rights. --Peaceworld 18:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Peaceworld111:

Ahmadiys are free to practice their religion in Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan. But they cannot be permitted to enter Mecca. It is because every country has its visa requirements, if a person does not fulfill visa requirements we will not allow him/her to enter India. Similar thing is common in every country. The Visa for entering Mecca or Medina is to bear witness that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the final messenger of Allah. If you agree to that even the king of KSA cannot stop you from entering these cities. But Ahmadiya community does not fulfill visa requirements what can scholars, muslims do about it. Similarly terrorists do not fulfill visa requirements of India, so we cant allow them in India. Now you cant say Narinder Modi is against human rights. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 04:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Owais Khursheed: Ahmadis are not free in Pakistan to practice their faith--Peaceworld 18:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Peaceworld111: The point is not whether we agree with these authors, or whether these autors have respect to human rights. Wikipedia rightfully includes the voices of people with varied attitude to the current concept of human rights. The issue is that the proposed text lacks any merit and is simply aimed to be an attack. @Owais Khursheed: does not present criticism in a balanced, detached manner, the way, say, it has been done in Criticism of George W. Bush. Rather, he has collected all the negative opinions he could possibly find - most of them from a religious institution formed to fight other religions. Such an attack is not what Wikipedia is for - but defending Mirza Ghulam Ahmad by questioning the morality of the attackers is absurd: "He is wrong because he is immoral". We are not politicians here and should not be employing such tactics IMHO ;) Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 20:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your point. I do agree Khursheed doesn't present criticism in a balanced, detached manner. My intention was not to question the morality of the individuals, but rather to determine their credibility as critics of the Ahmadiyya faith and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. I mean, you can't just drop an opinion piece by a person of a person, simply because the former is notable. Exception may be given to such notable people whose notablility is determined by their criticism.--Peaceworld 20:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Owais Khursheed (Talk to me). Of course I am a judge of wikipedia. who told you I am not ? Lol. Dude, we are ALL judges on wikipedia, and we all get to say which articles are worthy of this encyclopedia or not. The article you mentioned has already been deleted twice. So it is deemed unworthy.

A criticism article should include criticisms from valid sources. Simple as that. Lets take one of your sources and see if he is valid. You mentioned Ehsan Elahi as a source of criticism. But he was not even born when Ahmadiyyah Muslim community was formed, he did not write any books on the subject which were reviewed and published by reliable publishing houses. You should rename the page as "Anti-Ahmadiyyah Rhetoric" and then try to get it published. Try to distinguish between criticism and rhetoric. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: They were not my articles which were deleted twice or thrice or whatever it is. For answer of your query let us take example of Criticism of Jesus, Jesus is being criticized by Dayananda Saraswati, was he even born when Christians were formed, why is then his comment in Wikipedia. This is not the criteria of valid sources. You should check other wikipedia pages for further info. In my opinion little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The Analysis of Qadyaniyat by Ehsan Elahi Zaheer has been published by notable publishers of india, pakistan and ksa. I think you have not seen that book yet. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 04:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As you wish. Feel free to put it up I will be nominating it for speedy deletion as before. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your concerns. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 12:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent reverts to the article

This is to discuss my edits and the reverts done by @FreeatlastChitchat: over the last day or so. In brief:

• I replaced template "infobox royalty" with "infobox religious biography". I understand that M.G.A. might claim noble origins - as do tens of thousands of people on the Subcontinent - but this is an article about a religious leader and not about a king or a member of royal family.
• I removed reference to a scanned newspaper page from early 20th century just after article title, per WP:REF. In short, reference indicates the source of the given information - and you don't need to have a source to the name (it is not debatable). Moreover, the newspaper also badly fails WP:RS.
• I reverted adding unverified titles and claims to the infobox, per MOS:INFOBOX.

However, User:FreeatlastChitchat summarily reverted these changes and my later attempts of restoring the WP-compliant version.

I have a strange feeling - I might be wrong - that User:FreeatlastChitchat is pushing an Ahmadi POV into Wikipedia without heeding to policies and guidelines (which seems to be a pattern in his/her case). Thank you for your insight. kashmiri ^TALK 17:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the first two. Third: These are easily verifiable claims. The question should be whether it is sufficient to place "founder of the Ahmadiyya movement"?--Peaceworld 18:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant, claims and unverified/contentious titles. In my understanding, an infobox should only present key facts, an "ID card" of the subject, and ONLY widely accepted definition/facts. Information that M.G.A. called himself "Mahdi" is irrelvant, and writing that he is "awaited by all faiths" is plainly FALSE (unless there were recent changes to Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc.). Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 19:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is incorrect to say "...Mahdi awaited by all faiths" as the concept of Mahdi doesn't exist outside of Islam. As far as the rest of the statement is concerned "Claimed to be Mujaddid (divine reformer) of the fourteenth Islamic century; the PromisedMessiah (Second Coming of Christ) and Mahdi" that is correct though needs to be referenced.--Peaceworld 22:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Won't you agree that in the Infobox, we should tell who the person actually is, not who he thinks he is? That can go to the rest main body of the article (even to lede) - but infobox should be restricted to facts? kashmiri ^TALK 22:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. Muhammad doesn't mention anything besides "Islamic prophet".--Peaceworld 22:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the edit summary you will see that kashmiri ^TALK edited the infobox to remove his claims. According to manual of style we DO write claims which are sourced and as this is an encyclopedia not some personal blog there is no need to go into the discussion of what "He is" or "what he is not". As I wrote in my edit summary If the user just READS the article he will find his claims sourced inside the article so We just mention that he claimed to be the Mahdi etc etc. I agree that we can change the wording a little bit but it cannot be blatantly removed just because some one says "oh,I don't think that he is the Mahdi". As that will be in your face POV. As I am involved in this revert I will leave it up to --Peaceworld to change the wording of the text. But the text stays as it is for the sources are mentioned in the article. You can link them as citations in the infobox too if you want.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: Manual of style? Where do you see that? Infoboxes provide INFORMATION, not claims. Under Jesus, you don't have: "claimed to be a son of God awaited by all faiths"; in pope articles (Pope Pius XII, etc) you don't see "Claimed to be a successor of St Peter"; and so on. Of course, ANY information can be removed by any other editor, and please read thoroughly on Wikipedia's bold - revert - discuss cycle. kashmiri ^TALK 10:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: First off in the Infobox it specifically says 'claim' and this was his actual claim that he is Promised Messiah and Mahdi awaited by not only Muslims, Christians but also by people of other faiths(Different names) such as Hindus(Kalki Avatar) , Buddhists etc. Now looking at various similar pages: Jesus, Abraham, Moses, Ishmael etc., I personally believe, there is no need for a infobox.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It said "all faiths" which was false (Taoists do not await anyone, nor do many indigenous religions of Africa, South America, etc.). As to adding claims to infobox, see my argument above. kashmiri ^TALK 10:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes hold information. Where is it written that you cannot write "claimed to be" in an infobox? Many great leaders do not even have a title in the infobox. Although many leaders have their ranks in infoboxes. If you want to replace the claim with "Mahdi and the Promised Messiah" then be my guest.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If you seriously think that this would be correct, then perhaps you need to read again what Wikipedia is not. kashmiri ^TALK 12:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As to "rank", feel free to add it, now with correct template it is possible. Note that this is about hierarchical ranks within an organisation. kashmiri ^TALK 12:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources

I'll attempt to re-write the entire article in the coming weeks/months, depending on my availability. I haven't had the time to read the DRN, but I'd like to make a note on Iain Adamson's book: The book here Ahmad the Guided One appears to be a reliable source - the fact that it has been made available online on the Ahmadiyya official website, doesn't make it less reliable, in fact it's an extended edition to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian 1989 by the same author, published by Elite International, Houston. Secondly, Irshad is comparable to Anti-Islamic sites, which as User:Minorities observer notes here, it's mission is to denounce "fraudulent man-made cults -- Bahais in Iran and Qadianis (Ahmadis) in India", comparing Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to "David Koresh, Jim Jones, and Charles Manson." Secondly, User:Xtremedood, blanking the entire article is unconstructive even if it is badly sourced, nor did the DRN give anyone the licence to do so. Why not be constructive and add references? Otherwise, one could make a sweep clean of all 1000s biography related articles which are far worse referenced such as Muhammad Qasim Nanotvi, Haji Imdadullah Muhajir Makki, Hamid Raza Khan etc. Gotta go.--Peaceworld 21:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Peaceworld111,I have reviewed Adamson's source and it is not reliable. His tone is highly subjective and lacks impartiality. He has a book entitled "A Man of God: The Life of His Holiness Khalifatul Masih IV". He writes in a very biased tone. I do not think this article should be based on Adamson's source. The book also lacks academic materials and citations.[11] It is NOT credible. I protest the utilization of this book, as it is NOT academic in nature. It is seldom different than the previous source of Freeatlast's. We are currently operating on the DRN and mediation. It seems better to wait. Xtremedood (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

'ahmadiyyawatch' is the jihad watch of anti-ahmadiyya guys. So anything written there is not worth anything. Ian admasons book has been vouched for even at DRN, so your personal opinion does not matter even if you protest. Anyway, section blanking is pretty much a big no no unless consensus is established with at least some guys supporting such an act. that is why I took the case to mediation. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2015

mirza ghulam ahmed qadyani was a Kazzaab. he was kafir and mushrik, because he was fake prophet. please do not believe ghulam qadyani, please believe only Islam. the religion of Islam. I love Allah, Muhammad (S.A.W), Quran.

113.203.155.176 (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also provide a WP:RS Cannolis (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

This article requires a cleanup

Sources like "Alislam.org" are not reliable. According to FreeatlastChitchat's own requirements which he has applied to edit other wiki pages, stated as follows: Firstly this is an encyclopedia, we try our best not to put in what the subject thinks about himself/herself, for example we dont put in Mr XYZ think that he is the king of the world. Secondly we are here to make sure that 'promotional' adjectives and words are deleted from an article to make it neutral in weight and NPOV.... So basically you need to provide 'reliable third party' sources if you want to put this sort of stuff in, and even then it will have to be heavily copyedited. [12]

Thus, all unreliable sources on this page are subject to removal. There is also a lot of puffery in breach of NPOV. All promotional advertisements need to be removed from this page. Code16 (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat, I will point you to WP:BRD, WP:TALKDONTREVERT, and WP:EW. Stop reverting justified deletions arbitrarily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Code16 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The deletions are of sourced texts, why are you removing sourced content? sources are third party. what is your beef with them? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

How are they 3rd party? The ones I deleted were from an Ahmadi website/blogs. Please list all sources here and we will see if they belong here. And in the meantime, stop reverting. I will remind you again: WP:BRD, WP:TALKDONTREVERT, and WP:EW Code16 (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You keep reverting without following through on the request. It's up to you to prove the merits of the sources on the talk page if they were deleted. Please follow guidelines and stop reverting: WP:BRD, WP:TALKDONTREVERT, and WP:EW. Thank you. Code16 (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This user has been reported and was subsequently blocked for his disruptive editing across the ahamdiyyah related pages. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2015

Dear resource person/ Editing authority,

I propose following addition in section 2.16 (Information regarding Death of His highness, Mirza Ghulam Ahmed) > His last words should be added, quoted as "Allāh, meray piyaray Allāh" (English translation: Allah my dear OR beloved Allah)

Refernce: http://www.ahmadiyyagazette.ca/articles/172-the-promised-messiahas-his-life-a-times.html

Shezaib (talk) 06:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: Not convinced this is a reliable source. Moreover, I'm not sure I see the point of including his last words. This man was clearly very religious, and for his last words to be perhaps a prayer to his deity is not particularly stunning or interesting Cannolis (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071127221039/http://www.alahazratnetwork.org/english/Hussam_ul_Harmain.pdf to http://www.alahazratnetwork.org/english/Hussam_ul_Harmain.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205180023/http://www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/page.php?title=&record=1512 to http://www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/page.php?title=&record=1512
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102194813/http://www.alislam.org/books/victoryofislam/VICTORY%20OF%20ISLAM.pdf to http://www.alislam.org/books/victoryofislam/VICTORY%20OF%20ISLAM.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Claim that he was an incarnation of Krishna

I think this wikipedia site needs to mention that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed that he was the second coming of Krishna, the Hindu deity.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claims “Krishna... appeared as a Prophet in India... I am the Krishna whose advent the Aryas are awaiting in this age. I do not make this claim on my own, but God Almighty has repeatedly disclosed to me that I am the Krishna - King of the Aryas - who was to appear in the latter days...” (TEOI, V4, P83)

I hope someone notices this and adds the relevant information in the right section of his page.

Aditya

References

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2018

in articals Mirza Ghulam Ahmed qadyani is considered as a muslims but actually he is owner of a new religion, he is not a muslim. The religion made by Ghulam mirza is Ahmaddiya religion which is completely different from Islam. So i want to remove the word Muslim from their artical, beside Muslim there should be Ahmaddiya with their names.

the another edit I wanted to do is in list of ten basic rules of Ahmaddiya religion. there is a point which says the chain of prophecy is not ended on Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) which is considered as last prophet by muslims and IIslam, But Ahmaddiya religion belive that the chain of prophecy is still ongoing result Mirza Ghulam ahmed as a prophet. so these ponts should be clear in this article Malak310512 (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Removing the word "Muslim" from the article would be a significant change as it appears more than 20 times (not to mention that the work "Islam" appears many more). If there are specific places you feel the wording should be changed, please point them out in the form "Change X to Y", citing reliable sources as appropriate.
As to adding the ten basic rules of Ahmadiyya, that strikes me as more information than needed for this article. Remember, this article is about the person, not the religion. Your suggestions may be a better addition to the Ahmadiyya article rather than this one. Again, if you have specific suggestions, please feel free to make a specific request. Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Why does it wrongly imply Ahmadiya cannot hold Pakistani passports?

Why does the article wrongly imply that Pakistani passport holders have to deny their imam? Who put that there with suspicious references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umairlooms (talk • contribs)

@Umairlooms: I see nothing wrong with the sources, particularly the Cambridge University Press book. Do you have sources denying this? Doug Weller talk 15:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see this article which shows the actual application for a Pakistani passport. https://www.dawn.com/news/1261622 You have to declare them non muslims, only if you are a Muslim. IF YOU ARE NOT A MUSLIM ie. you are Christian or Hindu, you do not have to make such a declaration. As it is currently worded, it implies that they cannot get citizenship unless they give up their faith, Which is absolutely incorrect

@Umairlooms:It says "Pakistan is the only state that specifically requires every Pakistani Muslim to denigrate Ghulam Ahmad as an impostor and his followers as non-Muslims when applying for a passport or a national ID card." How would you change it? Remember Ahmadi consider themselves Muslims. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

my bad

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2019

some minor changes about date correction is required Myedit1 (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

Proposed merge of Early life of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad into Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge. PepperBeast (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

---

This article at Early life of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad on its own does not meet notability, it is already a part of the later and can be improved therein. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 10:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Merge. There's no real reason 'early life' should be a separate article. Frankly, I'm surprised it's survived this long. PepperBeast (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
• Merge or create redirect.— Hammad (Talk!) 02:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

edits by xtremedood

This talk page is for improving the article. It is not a forum for general discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Xtremedood added some content which I deleted. My reason is Wikipedia:Independent sources says that An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective. But the content that was added came from an author who has been writing hate literature against the entire community since he started writing, also the website in the reference is one which ONLY published hate literature against the community. I don't think that these are reliable sources. If you do not agree please discuss here.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC) I see that you have once again removed a valuable and crucial criticism in that section. I have checked the sources and no where is hate promoted against anybody. I have also provided four sources. The criticism is rather simple, but necessary to maintain a neutral atmosphere. Many critics of the so called "sun and moon eclipse prophecy" maintain that the eclipses never happened on the dates provided in the "prophecy." These are the four sources of criticism that I have referenced. As I have stated, I have checked these four distinct and separate sources and no where have I read hate speech. They make rational statements pertaining to the issue at hand. The statement, "Some critics also claim that the lunar eclipse did not occur on the first night of Ramadan and the solar eclipse did not occur on the middle day of the month as detailed in the prophecy" should therefore remain and not be removed. The questioning of the veracity of the dates of the eclipses is a crucial issue that should not be ignored. Let us examine the four sources: 1) "FLAWS IN THE AHMADIYYA ECLIPSE THEORY" is written by Dr David McNaughton. David examines "Ahmadiyya" claims and criticizes their conclusions and approaches. 2) " Exposing Qadiani Falsehood on the Internet and on TV - The Fraud of Eclipses" is written by the organization 'Idara Dawat-O-Irshad' in the United States, and they are operating freely and have not to my knowledge been accused of promoting hate or intolerance. They make criticisms of the "sun and moon prophecy" theory. 3) "Muhammad is the Last Prophet" by Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi is published by the Bilal Muslim Mission of Tanzania, which is an active organization. They are reputable amongst the Shia community and are not considered a hate group. The statement expressing the position of these critics of the prophecy theory should therefore remain. We have Sunni, Shia, non-Muslim, etc. critics who disagree with the "Ahmadiyya" position of the so called prophecy. Disagreeing in this manner is not hate speech. Xtremedood (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC) References as far as your statement that "FLAWS IN THE AHMADIYYA ECLIPSE THEORY" is written by Dr David McNaughton so is reliable. Well the eclipse occurred and was documented by newspapers as well as other journals so saying that it did not occur is like saying that a historic even did not occur. You cannot contest the occurrence once something has happened. Your second statement that Idara Dawat-O-Irshad is not spewing hate literature is not true. You can look at their website and you will see hundreds of hate statements. This has been discussed on this very talkpage before you should read the entire talk page before commenting on validity of such a source. Your third source is invalid because Manzur Chinioti is a hate preacher and I can cite at least five hundred links to his hate statements. However your fourth source seems ok to me now that I have read it, I would like to apologize for removing it, i should not have bundeled it up with others. Feel free to add the content from the fourth source i.e "Muhammad is the Last Prophet" by Sayyid Saeed Akhtar RizviFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC) There is ample evidence to counter your historicity claim. I also do not see any hate speech in those sources, however I think those two sources are sufficient to get the point across and I have therefore removed the Idara Dawat-O-Irshad and Manzur Chinioti (because it was not in English) references. The statement "Some critics also claim that the lunar eclipse did not occur on the first night of Ramadan and the solar eclipse did not occur on the middle day of the month as detailed in the prophecy" and the remaining references are however valid and should remain. Xtremedood (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC) There is ample evidence to counter your historicity claim.Really? Well you should visit http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsearch/SEsearchmap.php?Ecl=18940406, I put it in url so that everyone can see that the site belongs to NASA. So please provide any source valid enough to counter NASA or else please remove the historicity content.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC) I have checked the url you provided and it does nothing to strengthen your claim, rather thanks for providing that link to me as it disproves your claim entirely. Let us examine the initial prophecy: "For our Mahdi there are two signs which have never appeared before since the creation of the heavens and the earth, namely the moon will be eclipsed on the first night in Ramadan and the sun will be eclipsed on the middle day in the same month of Ramadhan, and these signs have not appeared since God created the heavens and the earth." According to this statement, there should be a lunar eclipse on the 1st day of Ramadan and a solar eclipse on the middle day of the month. NASA claims no such thing happened, you can check the data. According to data the solar eclipse occurred on the 28th day of Ramadan, not the 15th and the lunar eclipse occurred on the 13th day of Ramadan, not the first. According to the Islamic Finder date conversion, April 06, 1894 converts to Ramadan 29th, 1311 AH Xtremedood (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC) This talk page has something written at the VERY TOP you should read it before scrolling down. It says that this is not a forum to discuss the topic in general "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Please stay on topic about the sourcing. You said that "There is ample evidence to counter your historicity claim", whereby you meant that there is AMPLE evidence to suggest that the eclipse did not occur and therefore the website blog/article by David McNaughton is a reliable source. I countered this by saying that NASA has shown and accepted that the eclipse did indeed occur. Therefore the historicity of the event cannot be challenged without some powerful evidence. What you wrote has nothing to do with this. Please stay on topic and discuss this. Here on WP we do not discuss anyones claims, we just create content based on sources, anything else is original research.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC) You misunderstand my statements. You are the one bringing the primary research with your NASA website. I agree Wikipedia is not the place for this, but this was a necessary thing for me to do to counter your point that your website was a source for your claim, which it is not. NASA data in no way supports the "Ahmadiyya" prophecy claim. I request you to stop bringing original research into this. I have already provided you with four references containing proofs and views by a variety of sources that counter the fulfillment of the prophecy claim. Remember, the prophecy itself claims that the lunar eclipse should happen on the 1st day of Ramadan and the solar eclipse on the middle day of the month (15th). There are currently two views being shared on the article as of now, the view of critics claiming that it is weak and the view of "Ahmadis" that it is sound. There however is no information (as of now) on the article indicating a crucial view that the prophecy was not fulfilled in the first place. The criticism that the prophecy has not been fulfilled should be shared and there are two major points for this view, the first being that the solar eclipse and lunar eclipses did not occur on the days prophecized and the second point is that the prophecy itself applies prior to the arrival of the Mahdi, not after. This is clearly expressed on page 100 of "Muhammad is the Last Prophet" by Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi. Xtremedood (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC) You are again muddling up the issue. Keep the discussion simple and you wont be "misunderstood". To simplify this discussion let us discuss one point at one time. Let us begin by discussing the simplest thing first. i.e the historicity of the event. You are saying that there is someone who says that the eclipse did not occur and you have given the source of David McNaughton. You have said that as "There is ample evidence to counter your historicity claim", so according to you the content added to the article should show that the eclipse may not even have occurred. I am countering this my providing you with data from NASA, which is more reliable than a website article. So what is your counter argument to this? You can either say that "ok" the eclipse did occur as NASA says, or you can say that "NO" it did not occur and then provide some source which is as authentic as, if not more than, NASA. Let us first discuss this then move on to other points.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC) I am being clear and concise. NASA never shows that a lunar eclipse occurred on the 1st day of Ramadan and never shows that a solar eclipse happened on the 15th. The date on the NASA website is likely on the 29th of Ramadan, according to Gregorian to Hijri calendar conversions, NOT on the 1st or 15th. The content shows that the eclipse did NOT happen on the 1st and 15th days of Ramadan as described by the prophecy. The content is clear. Therefore the criticism should remain. Wikipedia is not the place for such religious propaganda. Also, do not bring about such original research as well.Xtremedood (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC) HISTORICITY means that the event occurred or not. Either you accept that or you say that it did not occur. This is why I wanted to talk about this first. If you admit that the eclipse did indeed occur, even if it occurred on the 29th, you cannot bring the David McNaughton source into the mix because his claims are refuted by NASA data. Simple as that. We are not going to discuss the prophecy I already told you that, we will just put in what "reliable" sources tell us about its occurrence. and the most reliable of sources ,NASA, says that it did occur. The first and fifteenth of the month do not have any possibility of an eclipse. There has never been any contest about those days. The hadith clearly uses a pronoun to say the eclipse will occur in the middle or the first of "the possible" days and nights.So please either agree with NASA or present some argument against their data.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Nobody denies solar and lunar eclipses occur. The issue is not whether or not the solar or lunar eclipses occur. It is scientific fact that they occur. The issue is if they occurred in 1894/1895 on the date outlined by the prophecy itself (the 1st and 15th of Ramadan respectivly). NASA shows it did not happen on these dates. The four sources I have indicated also say the same thing. Therefore, the claim to the fulfillment of the prophecy is false. However, "Ahmadis" may claim otherwise. I am proposing a neutral and impartial representation of the views on this article, which includes three criticisms on the article, 1) the veracity of the prophecy itself (which is already on the article), 2) the indication that critics do not believe the eclipses occured on the 1st and 15th respectively, and 3) according to critics the prophecy is referring to before the arrival of the Mahdi, not after. I believe I have demonstrated quite rationally and soundly that my points are valid. Your statements are quite clear and demonstrate your incoherance, if you have nothing else to say I believe it is now time to remedy the situation and fix this portion of the article. Xtremedood (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC) The article is ok as it is. The prophecy does not say that the sun and moon will be eclipsed on the 1st and the fifteenth. You should read the Arabic prophecy before making such a claim. It does not mention dates. It mentions that the eclipse will occur on the first of the nights i.e the first of the nights when an eclipse "can occur" and the sun on the middle day i.e middle of the days when the eclipse can occur. Why will you want to put "the indication that critics do not believe the eclipses occurred on the 1st and 15th respectively," when there is no claim from the person Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib Alaih Salam that they occurred on these dates? He claimed that the moon was eclipsed on the first of its possible nights and the sun was eclipsed on the middle one of its possible days. This was his claim. As I have rendered your first two points moot. let us move onto the third. Which source would you like to use for it? and what content would you like to put in. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC) This is Wikipedia English, not Arabic. The prophecy as indicated on the article stated exactly: "For our Mahdi there are two signs which have never appeared before since the creation of the heavens and the earth, namely the moon will be eclipsed on the first night in Ramadhan and the sun will be eclipsed on the middle day in the same month of Ramadhan, and these signs have not appeared since God created the heavens and the earth." — Dar Qutni Vol. 1, page 188 You seem to have personally changed the translation, so it reads as, "For our Mahdi, there are two signs which have never happened since the earth and the heavens were created, i.e., the moon will be eclipsed on the first of the possible nights in the month of Ramadhan and the sun will be eclipsed in the middle of the possible days of the month of Ramadhan." This translation is a corruption of the original prophecy, which comes from an pro-"Ahmadiyya" website which is notorious for propagated "Ahmadiyya" agendas and doctrines and therefore it violates Wikipedia's neutrality rule. It is also not a proper and direct translation, but rather an interpretation of a prophecy. Also, the interpretation of the prophecy is translated here, not the prophecy itself from the direct source. Even the translation provided from the website does not give the translation which you have changed it to. The prophecy's translation from the website cited states: "For Our Mahdi there are two Signs which have never appeared before since the creation of the heavens and the earth, namely, the moon will be eclipsed on the first night in Ramazan (i.e. on the first of the nights on which a lunar eclipse can occur) and the sun will be eclipsed on the middle day (i.e.; on the middle one of the days on which a solar eclipse can occur), and these Signs have not appeared since God created the heavens and the earth." Notice the brackets, the brackets indicate an interpretation of the prophecy, however the wording of the prophecy itself does not contain what is in the brackets. This translation + interpretation was taken from: https://www.alislam.org/library/sign.html This is demonstrative of intellectual dishonesty and an extreme attempt to divert the issue. You provide no legitimate source for such a translation. Also, even if hypothetically we use this translation, the sources I have indicated provide for legitimate criticisms to the claim itself, based on the critics own understanding of the prophecy. This is a crucial element to include as to avoid bias. If you change it back I may have to escalate the issue, as I do now have legitimate proofs for your clear and concise academic dishonesty. This is in clear violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policies. It is meaningless to engage in such games. Wikipedia is not the place for such zealously inspired religious propaganda. Xtremedood (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC) Dispute is at DRN you can comment there. The wording of the Prophecy you cannot change as the article is about the Ahmadiyyah view of the Prophecy and will use their translation, which is given on their webpage.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC) I am David McNaughton, author of "FLAWS IN THE AHMADIYYA ECLIPSE THEORY". Here are some important extracts from my paper: > Fundamental to the [Ahmadi] thesis is a claim that the lunar eclipse occurred on the earliest possible date in an Islamic month - which they argue is the 13th > If the Ahmadiyyas wish to base their decisions on observations made just at a specified point (like Qadian, where haze may hide a young moon), then lunar eclipses will sometimes be witnessed on the 12th of an Islamic month. This is because crescent identification is occasionally impossible even after 1½ days (as in Figure 1), and also because the interval between New and Full Moon can be less than 14 days. > Weather conditions favouring lunar eclipses on the 12th are not too different from those necessary to obtain solar eclipses on the 27th of an Islamic month (Figure 1), namely haze which is dense enough to disguise a 1½-day crescent. Thus, the Ahmadiyyas must either accept that eclipses may occur on the 12th of a lunar month as well as on the 27th - or else they must regard eclipses as impossible on both those Islamic dates. Whichever choice is made, requires revision of their thesis. >>> Yes, I accept that the important lunar eclipse did indeed occur on the 13th of the Islamic month - but the weakness in the Ahmadi argument, is the fact that the 13th is not the earliest possible date for a lunar eclipse to occur. --DLMcN (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Qadiyani claim to be Muslims but they are not ; they call themselves to be ahmadi which is also misleading . Though they read the same Quran but the difference in basic believes is remarkably huge . Here is what other Muslims think of qadiyanis: we Muslims firstly believe that prophets don’t lie ? How can a so called prophet lie on several places ? That within itself is an evidence of his falsehood. In rohani khazain volume 15 page 394 Ghulam mirza qadiyani says(I’m quoting you rephrased translation) that prophets do not get any religious education from any one as they learn directly from Allah. But then on another occasion he contradict this statement by saying that he had a teacher when he was 6 to seven year old who use to teach him Persian language and also taught Quran e pak . Teachers name was fazal e elahi ; he quotes his teachers as his servant at several places ( rohani khazain vol 13 page 180 181) 2nd point : Mirza Ghulam qadiyani made 13 claims at different occasions; I’ll try to give you references for the most important ones where possible . Important ones means those which are misguiding muslims . 1 Normal muslim In Asmani nishani page no 28 He says that I can never claim to be a prophet , and that I don’t want to be left out of ummah; In hama ma tul bushra page 282 he says that it is un suitable for him to claim prophecy and become part of non believers. He claim to be a normal Muslim at several other points in books like : asmani fasila page 2 , tableeg e risalat vol 2 page 20 and same volume page 44. 2. Mujadid: It is not an important one to discuss for me here but since it is linked to his claim of prophecy I’m writing this down here for you. This will help us to establish the fact that he was contradicting his own claims. And anyone who says one thing and then says completely opposite is called liar and kazab. In his book ( silsila tasaneef w ahmadiya) vol 3 page 33 he says that he is informing everyone that he is nominated to purify Islam in 14th century. (No and important one so I’ll leave it here ) but still it will establish a fact later in the discussion 3 . He claimed to be imam mahdi ( mahdaviat) He says In his book tazkara tul shadatain page 2 that he is Mahdi of which Muhammad pbuh mentioned 1300 years ago . So point to notice here is his claim of madiyat. First only a Muslim, then mujadid and now he is promoting himself to be mahdi. And this isn’t the end yet 🙂 4 masaal e maseeeh He says that he never claims to be essa (maseeh) Jesus, and he confirms that Jesus or Essa will never comeback. And that he is like Essa but not exactly Essa though. (Tableeg e risalat vol 2 page 21) Thanks Allah pak he didnt claim to be Essa at this stage 🙂🙂 5 Ain e Maseeh This one is an interesting one brother and I will recommend you to Atleast counter check this one : I’m going to write exact copy of it . “ESsa who was to appear is me, I’m real Essa. Now it is up to you to believe. For two years I was maryum (he became woman in other words) and was raised with the properties of maryum. After two years a spirit was installed inside my tummy and I became pregnant which I remained pregnant for not more than ten minutes months . And then with allah will I changed to Essa from maryum. And this is how I became son of maryum. (Kisteay nooh page 68 69) Baraheen e ahmadiya vol 4 page 556,696 Fatheislam page 15 6 afzal un e maseeh This is also an interesting one as now he claims to be a better Essa than the previous Essa who was sent long time ago. You may check this in haqiqat ul wahi page 148. Published 1907 qadiyan). 🙂🙂🙂 8 Zilli nabi This is also an Interesting one . My prophecy is not permanent but zilli( like a shadow) and he says this in tofagulwarvea 9 baroozi nabi Here he claims to be a hidden prophet and says that he is sent as a hidden prophet and he is prophet Muhammad; and with that he establishes the fact that he is Muhammad and Ahmed and that Muhammad pbuh prophecy didn’t go anywhere and stayed with Muhammad while he became hidden prophet 😀😀😀 (ek ghalti ka izala page 16) 11 afzal ul mustafa This bit is mind blowing . This is after which I close the book and do not read any further But; since we are discussing this I would like to write this for all those brothers and sisters who are seeking guidance inshallah . Now listen to this . And please counter check this also : It is true that any person can reach to higher ranks, and can even get to highest rank even can be greater than Muhammad PBUH . (Alhbar ul fazal page 9 book printed 17 July 1922 ) He further says that Muhammad PBUH APPEARED TWICE. first he appeared in 5th thousand year and second time in 6th thousand year. Initially in Makkah and now in rabwah. Because after 1000 years gap his spirituality level is even higher . As this is time he appeared in myself it is even better than the Muhammad who came back in Makkah . Khutba e ilhamia page 182 Rohani khazain vol 16 page 271 272 Prophet Muhammad PBUH WAS given 3000 miracles and myself is given with one million miracles ( rohani khazain page 72 vol 21 ) So now my brother I’ll shed some light on his claims : he made three big claims ; 1 his claim to be mehdi, 2 his claim to be Essa and 3 his claim to be Muhammad Pbuh naozubillah His first claim to be the mehdi is a open lie as as per muhammad pbuh sayings he will be from Muhammad progeny. Which Mirza qadiyani is not . And also people will take ba’it on mehdi hand in makka and this never Happened either 🙂🙂there are many other ways to link this back to ahadees e mubaraka of Muhammad pbuh which proves that mirza qadiyani was making a false claim. Khaqan.dar (talk) 08:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC) Research Khaqan.dar (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

i want to change the date of birth of mirza ghulam ahmed that was acttully 1839. i have proof from his book . Needi (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

i have the book scane of mirza ghullam ahmed if you want will submit the book of mirza where he wrtten he was born on 1839 or 1840 Needi (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2021

I with due respect humbly request that Mr. Ghulam Ahmad has renounced the oneness of Allah and Quran by calling himself the Prophet or Messiah. I request you to write him as a Fake announcer of his Prophethood such as Mussalimah and Sajjah.Therefore please remove this respective content or explain the falsification of his announcement. Abdullah 1278685 (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Fake prophet

I with due respect humbly request that Mr. Ghulam Ahmad, calling himself the Prophet or Messiah. I request you to write him as a Fake announcer of his Prophethood such as Mussalimah and Sajjah.Therefore please remove this respective content or explain the falsification of his announcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabdul59 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Not going to happen. PepperBeast (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I have now edited the previous addition I made to the section on Mirza's interaction with the Agapemonites, as per Pepperbeast's request

I have removed the tangential paragraph and summarised it into one sentence and kept the four citations to contemporary newspaper clippings. The main issue with the old section was that it made an incorrect historical assertion regarding John Hugh Smyth-Pigott ceasing his claims to divinity during Mirza Ghulam's life and/or only continuing them after his death. No citations to any primary sources were provided, despite the claim actually contradicting the reports from contemporary newspapers at the time. I hope it's better now. Let me know if there are any issues, would be more than happy to discuss further if needed. Adam Neuser (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks great! PepperBeast (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you Adam Neuser (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Quick question regarding the date of birth cited for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in the section "Early life and education"

Hey guys, hope you are well. I was having a read through the first section of the wikipedia page and noticed that the historical date of birth given in his "Early life and education" was listed as the 13th February 1835. The only citation provided for this was a link to an Ahmadi muslim blog post, as opposed to any historical sources. However, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad states in his own work that his year of birth was 1839/1840, and in 1857 he was only sixteen or seventeen years old. Please see here: http://www.ahmadiyya.org/bookspdf/bar/sklife.pdf#page=14

The 1839 date is also corroborated by primary newspapers contemporanous with his life. Specifically "Review of Religions, June 1906 edition." Please check page 15 of the paper here: https://www.reviewofreligions.org/20543/review-of-religions-june-1906-edition/

I was going to update the date given on the first part of the page and provide two actual historical citations for it to his own writing and the newspaper, but I wanted to check if I had missed anything first. Happy to discuss further if needed, so please let me know Adam Neuser (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Update: Following my message here from yesterday, I have now updated his date of birth Adam Neuser (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2021

He is Non-Muslim including his followers according to the constitution of Pakistan. Don’t mention him and his followers as a Muslim 203.101.166.56 (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 15:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Pakistani law doesnt make something to be valid, support your claim with a soource or proof 2001:4BC9:1F80:625F:9517:D64:CAFD:7BC0 (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

remove no reference claim

please removed it.

Reaction of religious scholars Some religious scholars turned against him, and he was often branded as a heretic, but many religious scholars praised him like Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad among many others who praised him for his defense of Islam. After his death, opponents accused him of working for the British Government due to the termination of armed Jihad, since his claims of being the Mahdi were made around the same time as the Mahdi of Sudan (Muhammad Ahmad).

there is no reference about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.229.231.91 (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Eclipses

Ramadan 1 in 1894 was March 10, maybe a little later, but could not have been March 21. Ramadan 1 in 1895 was February 27, again maybe a little later, but not by more than a week. This is simple math, whoever used those eclipses must've not cared to be too precise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:BEB0:CC20:FCE4:EF7B:B8A1:E4B3 (talk) 05:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2022

It’s not an extension of Islam please change this 206.84.146.75 (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2022

change/remove the line stating whose house mirza ghulam ahmed died in to avoid controversy as it can be a security issue. Just mention he died in Lahore on 26 May,1908.--> Razahussainshah (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Mirza Ghulam Ahmad died 114 years ago, and the name of his host at the time is widely published. Frankly, it's absurd to suggest that this creates a "security issue". PepperBeast (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The article reads he died of old age and weakness,whereas,on the other hand, it is widely published that he died of cholera. Razahussainshah (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

And his death certificate was issued by Dr Sutherland. The facts are not clear. Razahussainshah (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2022 (2)

<--change that he died of old age and weakness as it is a fact that he died of cholera and his death certificate was issued by Dr Sutherland. This fact is widely published.--> Razahussainshah (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2022

<--change he died in the Ahmadiyya Buildings,Lahore on 26th May,1908. --> Razahussainshah (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done This doesn't appear to have been the case, and such a change would require reliable sources. PepperBeast (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

”Seerat Maseeh e Maud”” by Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad (1925) Razahussainshah (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

See also....

During his lifetime, another spiritual figure emerged with a similar belief system. Sai Baba of Shirdi - It could be added to the 'See also' section? 86.22.43.187 (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)