Talk:Qadianism

Declaring "mainstream" Muslims to be "Kafirs"

Please note that it was Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad [Mian Mahmud Ahmad], son of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who declared mainstream muslims Kafirs AFTER Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had died. Also please note that the Ahmadiyya movement split because of this (among other reasons). The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement does not subscribe to this belief. Please visit their repective website for more details. Thank you. Nazli 12:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is link to one web page that will provide additional references in this regard http://aaiil.info/misconceptions/other/takfir.htm Nazli 01:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

npov dispute

Although I think that what the article currently says is probably true, without looking into it in more detail - but it doesn't sound very NPOV. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is an alleged heretic - alleged by who exactly? I think it's okay to mention allegations of heresy but they need to be more substantial. Squashy 13:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miraz Ghulam Ahmad's Name

Mirza Qadiani is a colloquial term used in a derogatory fashion by certain Muslim groups, it is not Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's given, legal name. Nazli 01:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any objection on any word or sentence in this article then please go to the Wikipedia arbitration committe. Please do not revert or change anything on this page without getting permission from Wikipedia arbitration committe. Do not start another edit/revert war. You have given written notice. If you any objections then please file a formal complaint with the Wikipedia arbitration committe.

Siddiqui 07:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one wants to start a revert war. I would like to understand why you feel that you should use the colloquial term rather than his real name? Nazli 08:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was there a higher power that said that Nazli must seek the permission of the arbitration committee before editing this page? Seems like Siddiqui is trying to take ownership of this page, or prohibit a second POV to enter this article. Pepsidrinka 16:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the Qadianism page

Siddiqui: your suggestion to seek arbitration at this stage is not valid - Requesting Arbitration is only a last resort. In this regard following is a list of issues with the Qadianism page:

1. The information is factually incorrect: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not declare non-believers in his claim to be non-muslims. It was his son who did so after Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's death. You can verify this by visiting http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/mali/splitahmadiyyamovement/splitahmadiyyamovement.shtml and also http://aaiil.info/misconceptions/other/takfir.htm

2. The information is factually incorrect: The person who founded the movement is not named "Mirza Qadiani". His correct name is "Mirza Ghulam Ahmad". This can be verified by visiting http://www.aaiil.org/index.shtml or http://www.alislam.org

3. The information is misleading: The name of the movement founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is not "Qadianism", it is the Ahmaddiya Movement. "Qadianism" is a term used by some Muslims groups with derogatory connotations. This fact needs to be stated clearly. Please verify this by visiting any of the above links.

I have highlighted these issues many times before. Please explain your point of view and please explain why you keep reverting back. Thank you. Nazli 13:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please forward your request to Wikipedia.

Siddiqui 16:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is now how things work on Wikipedia. Things get done by consensus, not getting higher-authority approval for every change one wants to make. It seems that you have put yourself above the getting permission-position that the rest of us have been delegated towards? Pepsidrinka 17:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the obvious POV statements as I can see no reason for this article to go into any specifics beyond explaining the origin of the name. It originated from the town of Qadian. Full stop. Anything beyond this such as the Parliament of Pakistan did this, that and the other makes this an inappropriate POV fork from the page on the Ahmadiyya movement which is a more appropriate place for these discussions. Green Giant 23:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and sources tags

Statements like:

"We have summarized here some of the differences between Qadianis and Muslims."
"It should be obvious that most of the beliefs instructed by Mirza Qadiani contradict verses of the Holy Quran -- not to mention hundreds of authentic Hadith and Islamic doctrine."
"It is unfortunate that many of the people are unaware of this aspect of the Qadiani doctrine."

are not WP:NPOV or encyclopedic. The article has external links, but does not indicate if they are its references, and if they are the specific assertions still need specific citations. Not being Qadiani or Muslim I have no opinion as to the validity of the claims, except to point out that this article seems to be an WP:POVFORK. Criticism of the Ahmadi should be in that article, provided it is NPOV and sourced. It should not be shuttled off to a separate article. If the criticism there grows so extensive that it needs its own article, so be it, but even then a brief summary of the criticisms should remain as well as a link to the new article. Esquizombi 03:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

I'm wondering if both (only two?), or multiple sides, can chime in with how they think they can work together to make the article better, while accomodating the past problems that have been raised. Ronabop 12:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nazli can make counter arguments after each statement or in a seperate section and should not change my statements.

Siddiqui 12:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statements that are in factual error cannot be left as they are regardless of whom they belong to.

The first step is to agree on what is meant by Qadianism:

Siddiqui's use of the term “Qaidianism” to refer to both Ahmadiyya sects in the article is not correct. The proper name of the religious movement is the “Ahmadiyya Movement” as can be verified by visiting http://www.aaiil.org/index.shtml. The term “Qaidianism” is a term used by certain other religious groups to refer to the Ahmadiyya Movement and is used in a derogatory fashion. This is an easily verifiable fact.

The second step is to agree on what Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's name is:

His proper name is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, again easily verifiable by visiting any of the Ahmadiyya sites. The term “Mirza Qadiani” as Siddiqui insists on using is a colloquial term which has derogatory connotations.

If Siddiqui is interested in any sort of meaningful exchange of ideas these two points need to be sorted out. Nazli 14:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No response from Siddiqui

Since Siddiqui is not interested in responding to the naming issues, repeatedly highlighted by me on this talk page, I am reverting back to what I believe to be an more NPOV version of that article. Nazli 18:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post-AFD

I would appreicate it if some one could explain why despite the AFD consensus, the article is being reverted to the same old version repeatedly. No reason has been given or discussion has taken place on the talk page. Nazli 19:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make these points:

(i) Qadianis claim that they are Muslim it is their POV and it is not NPOV.

(ii) Mirza Qadiani declared that he is a prophet and those don't believe him are Kaffirs.

(iii) Pakistan constitution clealy states that all the followers of Mirza Qadiani (Ahmadi and Lahoris) are non-Muslims

So please do not declare to be Muslims when your religious founder and Pakistan's constitution states otherwise. Also stop redirecting this page.

Siddiqui 19:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Ahmadis claim that they are muslims. This is their POV. The Majority of Muslim countires have declared them non Muslims. This is their POV. A NPOV is to present both views. All articles dealing with Ahmadis clearly state that they are considered non muslims by the majority of muslims while they themselves consider them selves muslims. This is a NPOV. Stating that they are Kafirs is not NPOV.

2. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad declared him self a prophet. This is already clearly stated. His followers are considered karifs by most muslims is also clearly stated. However this in the majority muslim POV. Not NPOV. Hence it is also essential to state the Ahmadi POV, i.e their interpretation of phophethood and that fact that they call themselves muslims.

3. Pakistan consitution clearly states them to be non Muslims - a fact clearly stated and referenced in the Ahmadi article. I don't see you point of view here? Can you elaborate.

The fact that the constitution of some country declares a sect to be non muslims does not take away their right to call themselves muslims in a neutral enviornment. However please note that they in all Ahmadiyya related articles it is stated that it is the ahmadiyya that like to call themselves muslims not that they are universally accepted to be muslims. Nazli 20:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

links

Point to note: ALL the links at the bottom of the page are Negative POVs. Im sure you could have at LEASt included the alislam.org page...AT LEAST--AeomMai 03:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this group of articles will never be completely neutral since there's no way to keep neutrality on such a topic as ahmadiyyat(BTW-whats with that, any non ahmadi wikipedians?)--AnnonD 04:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete this article and move on to fixing the AHMADI page. we don't need to start another article summarizing the negative parts of another wikilpedia article. its completely irrelevant.--AeomMai 22:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All three primary Ahmadiyya pages (Ahmadi, Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement, Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad)have links to anti-Ahmadiyya websites. In the interest of maintaining a neutral point of view it is only fair the the Qadianism page has links to website from both pro and anti Ahmadiyya points of view. Also since the topic is directly related to the Ahmadiyya movement, it makes sense to add internal an link to atleast the Ahmadi page as a minimum. What are your thoughts on this Siddiqui? Nazli 03:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facts or Fiction

It is seems that the main point of this artical is to present that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed has claim to be a prophet and it is not allowed as mainstream Muslims belief the Prophet Muhammad (PBUHM) was the last prophet. Well in his several writings Mirza Ghulam Ahmed acknowledge this fact and he never said that he is a new prophet, his point that prophets will come but only those which were describe by Prophet Muhammad (PBUHM). Any way if some one reads this artical will get the impression as there is no possiblity what so ever in any case that any prophet will come, but as the same time mainstream Muslim do belief that Jesus as prophet will return from Heaven. So will be Jesus when he decend to earth consider as a prophet among the mainstream Muslim or he has to lose this part. phippi46 01:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Islam, Hazrat Isa (Jesus Christ) will return and thus will not be a new prophet. Mirza Qadiani has claimed to be a new prophet. There is no mainstream Muslims only Muslims. Qadianis are not Muslims since they believe in a new prophet.

Siddiqui 02:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you more explain

Sir if you kindly provide some more information on this matter, will be highly appreciated, as you said According to Islam (Jesus Christ) will return, but there is no mention in which form he will come back, second the problem is the Jesus was sent as a Prophet to the Childern of Israel, now when he will come back, is he still considered to be the prophet of Israel or Prophet of Islam, if he is still alive, as you belief, is he knows that Islam has came and is the last religion. in which form of his previous teaching, which he received from God will affected and which new teaching will be added to his new message and how the Muslim will unit on his claim on his arrival and accept him as the right Isa (Jesus Christ) and not a false one. As you mentioned above, he will not be a new Prophet, but he will remain a Prophet and according to Muslim Belief there is no chance what so ever in any case that a "Prophet" will come after Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), regadless in any form and if some one belief that, he is consider to be a non Muslim according to the Law of Pakistan, as you self mentioned in the Artical, if you kindly clear some of these question in artical so there will be a clear picture so any one can see the difference and understand better. You have alot of knowledge on this matter, so I think if you take little time on this subjec will reduce alots of Question. regards phippi46 11:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Islam, Hazrat Isa (Jesus Christ) will return and thus will not be a new prophet. Mirza Qadiani has claimed to be a new prophet. There is no mainstream Muslims only Muslims. Qadianis are not Muslims since they believe in a new prophet.

Siddiqui 13:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you just repeat as you wrote above, but if you read the questions I asked I think you will know that there are something else I am asking, I understand what you just said but can you comments what I wrote above phippi46 15:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat again for you until you understand: Mirza Qadiani declared himself as a prophet, referred himself as nabi and rasul thus breaking away from Islam. Mirza Qadian's son declared all non-Qadianis as kaffirs. Jesus Christ was prophet of all humankind and he will return thus will not be a new prophet. The only law that can be considered controversal is the Qadiani religious law. Islam and Qadianism are two different religions. Qadianis can worship Mirza Qadiani in their temples according to their belief but do not call yourself as Muslims. That is the only controversy.

Siddiqui 12:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seems to be very much sure of somethings like Mirza Ghulam Ahmed declared himself as a prophet and thus breaking away from Islam, how you know that, is there any prove for that ? second you said again and again without any prove the Isa (Jesus Christ) will return but you shy to tell how and when and also with your Artical Qadianism is also very un-clear in nature, there are lots of POV statements from you, there are very few solid information from you, I think you can write in detail about for example, the purpose of Qadianism, what are there motives, as you claim that it is a new relegion but you only use words "new religion" and they can worship in there tempel now are you sure that their place of worship called temple, is there any prove for that, now what I want to tell you is simple, Wikipedia is a Encyclopedia and any information from you will be taken by readers to be athentic and proven and you have lots of information so please write this Artical in sence so people can see as a neutral and informative Artical and not simply your own openion. regards phippi46 00:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan's constitutional amendment had extensive hearings about Qadianism. Leaders of Qadianism presented their beliefs and Muslim also presented their arguments. You should try to understand the issues and the Muslim perspective even if you don't agree with them. Mirza Qadiani declared himself as a prophet, referred himself as nabi and rasul thus breaking away from Islam. Mirza Qadian's son declared all non-Qadianis as kaffirs. Jesus Christ was prophet of all humankind and he will return thus will not be a new prophet. The only law that can be considered controversal is the Qadiani religious law. Islam and Qadianism are two different religions. Qadianis can worship Mirza Qadiani in their temples according to their belief but do not call yourself as Muslims. This is not the only page discussing this subject: Ahmadi, Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement, Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Maulana Muhammad Ali, etc.

Siddiqui 12:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So in your openion decision taken from Pakistan's constitutional amendment allow you to claim write or wrong. It is also intrested to know that still in Pakistan this amendment has been added to the Constitution, but no other country in the world has adopted any kind of changes in their Laws, (you can provide me any reference against this statement if I am wrong). I some time think when ever you write something against Qadianies or Ahmadies or Lahories what ever, you personal motives and openion affect your writings. In my openion this is personal point of view. phippi46 23:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Qadiani claiming to be nabi and rasul is his opinion and the opinion of his followers. Islam and Qadiani are seperate religions. It was Mirza Qadiani that broke away from Islam. It was Mirza Qadiani's son who declared all Muslims that do not accept Mirza Qadiani as prophet are kaffirs. Pakistan's constitutional amendment had extensive hearings about Qadianism. Leaders of Qadianism presented their beliefs and Muslim also presented their arguments. This was the most fair decision as it followed the Islamic defination of a Muslim. Qadianis can worship Mirza Qadiani in their temples and explain their religion in over seven pro-Qadiani pages in Wikipedia. This page gives details about Qadiani amendment to the Pakistani constitution and also provides 5 links to pro-Qadiani website and pages.

Siddiqui 23:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I get the hearing between Qadianies and Muslim leaders in Assembly is there any written form available on internet ? phippi46 23:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to protected redirect page

I found this page redirecting to Ahmadi, a redirect page that points to Ahmadiyya. I changed this page to also redirect to Ahmadiyya. If I have done something insensitive or terrible in editing to dodge this double redirect, chalk it up to the fact that I didn't know what I was doing and have no clue as to any distinctions between Ahmadi and Ahmadiyya. I don't see that the dispute here has to do with these, which seem to me to be variant transliterations into the Latin alphabet. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smerdis of Tlön, your edit should not cause any problems, the entire contents of the Ahmadi page were moved to Ahmadiyya recently - thanks for correcting the double redirect. Nazli (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

different redirect

{{editprotected}} Since there exists a page by the name Qadiani, this page deserves to be redirected to Qadiani. Peaceworld111 (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do you one better, I've unprotected the page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Peaceworld111 (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]