Talk:Ahmadiyya Muslim Community/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Who Added All this New Stuff

Parts 1,2,3,4 and 5 (Humanity First) which are on this page were written and added by myself.

Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and Ahmadiyya Community

This Article should be clubbed as Religions and movement influenced by islam and not as ISLAM. Its clear in Islam Quran is the main and only book of reference not even the Sunnah believed to be manipulated. Some also believe that the Quran has also been manipulated as it was written after the death of Prophet Mohammed(PBUH). Its clear that Quran is final and Prophet (Mohammed ) was the final messenger hence Ahmadiyas are non Moslems. Even the courts of Pakistan(Purest Islamic Slave state of the Arabs)has rejected Ahmadiyas as non - MOSLEM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by59.92.158.131 (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This name of this article reffers to the movement that officially calls itself the "Ahmadiyya Muslim Community". Hence it would be unfair to redirect it to a page with a "generic" name.Nazli 12:04, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

The official name of the community is Ahmadiyya Muslim Community translated in English.Peaceworld111 (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not enough if someone just claims himself/herself as Muslim. Like you cannot claim yourself as citizen of some X country unless the basic criteria of becoming citizen of that country is met. Similarly to be a Muslim one must believe that Muhammad (SAW) was the final prophet. And this Ahmadiyya community claims someone else as a prophet after Muhammad(SAW), so this community is not a Muslim community. — Preceding unsigned comment added byLuqmanshareef (talk • contribs) 18:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This issue has already been discussed many times in several talk page, e.g. 1. Hope that helps.Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Despite Ahmadiyya's tensions with the Sunnis and Shiites (i.e., "mainstream" Muslims), Encyclopedia Britannica and other third-party, reliable sourcesconsistently define Ahmadiyya as "an Islamic sect". See: [1] [2] and[3] Wikipedia's policy in such situations is to follow the usage of reliable third-party sources. That's the bottom line. AtticusX (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

A major point has been forgotten

You missed a major issue: Jihad and how Ahmadiyyat has presented the Jihad of a new age. The Jihad of this age is through the pen, not the sword. In other words, we are to educate others about Islam through books and lectures, not violence. Let it be know that the Ahmadiyyat Jamat is one of peace.

However, I'm not sure if this page really should be made anyway. Hazoor did not want amateures to make articles and what not on the internet. Such work should be left for Jamat officals for they know how to correctly deal with these situations. If someone questions Ahmadiyyat simply refer him or her to the offical website, which I'm quite sure you're aware of but those who are not- the URL is Alislam.org

Like it or not, people are more likely to find Ahmadiyyat on Wikipedia than on its official website. This page is going to exist no matter what Ahmadis think, so we should make sure it presents us equitably. 121.254.56.104 (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please Take this Page out of Islam Heading

Dear Wikipedia team Qadiani (Ahmadiyya Community as the call themselves) are non muslim. I know this matters least to you, But for the dake of creadabilty of this site I want you to give the true Picture only and true picture is that Qadiani are Non Muslins as this is agreed upon by all the scholars of the Islam, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan , Banglash, Indonesia and all other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonenone4 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an opinion. If someone wants to be called a muslim, christian etc, surely they have the right to do so.Peaceworld111 (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

How the hell can you be a Muslim ? You obviously don't know. These qadiani are not Muslims. People will come on this site and start thinking they are Muslim. Why can't you say they are trying to use the name of Islam but are not Muslim ????????!! —Precedingunsigned comment added by 98.199.50.249 (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, religious discrimination cannot be served here. Peaceworld111 (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Peaceworld111|Peaceworld111 Religious Impostors are exposed here Khalid bin waleed 04:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliable, third-party sources are the true litmus test at Wikipedia. Encyclopedia Britannicadefines Ahmadiyya as a modern Islamic sect. Globalsecurity.org calls it "a movement within the broad spectrum of Islam." It seems like most of the world considers Ahmadis to be a movement within Islam, even if many orthodox Muslims feel threatened by and refuse to acknowledge the close relationship and enormous similarity between their respective belief systems. The disdain, hatred and violence continually heaped on this religious minority by orthodox Muslims is truly baffling. Ahmadis don't put a bad face on Islam -- quite the opposite, in fact. They're not hurting anyone, but it's clear from news reports that Ahmadis are the target of hate-crimes on a regular basis in Pakistan in particular. AtticusX (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a new movement, and it doesnt matter what others consider. If the existing Muslim community doesnt want to accept Ahmadiyyat as its part, thats it. If that community wants to be part of the original Muslim community then why not believe in whatever the oringinal Islamic belief is? i.e., Muhammad(SAW) as the final prophet and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as just a common man, neither prophet nor Messiah nor Mahdi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luqmanshareef (talk • contribs) 18:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If the existing Muslim Community doesn't want to accept Ahmadiyya as Muslims it's completely fine. But that doesn't give them any right for Ahmadis to be referred to as non-Muslims on wikipedia as long as Ahmadis define themselves as Muslims.Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Khatm-e-Nabuwat

The faith that make Qadianis , non muslim is the Faith in Khatm-e- Nabuwat(Finalization of Prophethood. A muslim belives that Muhammad (PBUH) is the last Prophet and messenger of Allah (God), and no new prophet will come after him(PBUH). The qadianis wrongly believe that Mirza Ghulam Qadiani(God forbid) is also a prophet of God. This makes them different from us Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonenone40 (talk •contribs) 17:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Gospels

The article refers to the gospels as the first five books - how is this counted? I know different faiths may subdivide their texts differently, but I'd just like clarification before making a change.Autarch (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

> ... I've added one more book - the Kitab Yahya ... see below > DLMcN (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC) DLMcN (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This Article Represents Views of a Single Religous Community And Is Not Neutral

Removing following sentences from this article is vendalism:
"Mainstream Muslims reject the claim of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad that he was a prophet. They reject the doctrine of the continuity of prophethood, and thus consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his followers as Non-Muslims. In 1974, parliament of Pakistan through an amendment in the constitution declared the followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be Non-Muslims."
The rationale given to remove these sentences is:
"the text is not about ahmadiyya"
Everyone can conclude that this text is perfectly about Ahmadiyya. But Wikipedia is used by some people to advance their personal beliefs. They are damaging neutrality of Wikipedia. This attitude must be checked.Suhayli (talk)

I repeat as I already mentioned in your talk page: With regards to Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, you started to talk about Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, which is a different article. This is the reason why I reverted. Also if it is with regards to criticism of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, I would advise you to summarise it in his articlein a sentence, and not put a whole chunk of mainstream views in the introduction section. With regards to detail of mainstream view, that has already beendealt with in the Criticism section, unless you have something different to add. Thank You. Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Adding following paragraph is necessary to improve the article.
"Mainstream Muslims reject the claim of Ahmadiyyah Community that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet. They reject the doctrine of the continuity of prophethood, and thus consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his followers, including Ahmadiyyah community, as Non-Muslims. In 1974, parliament of Pakistan through an amendment in the constitution declared Ahmadiyyah Community, along with other followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be Non-Muslims."
In this paragraph, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is not discussed. It discusses Ahmadiyya Community. So your revert is unjustified. It contains no criticism on the views of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. It only expresses view of Mainstream Muslims about Ahmadiyya Community. Suhayli (talk)

Removal of POV

Dear Peaceworld111, you removed the POV I added in this article. It is not to remove untill dispute of neutrality is not resolved. I expect you will abide by the rules of Wikipedia in future. Regards.Suhayli (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You are ignoring what I am trying to say, Read again Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Response

Peace be upon you,
I realy thank you that you did not remove POV this time. Actually whole Wikipedia community should be thankful to you for abiding by the rules this time.
I read repeatidly what you have said. You are trying to dictate me. Wikipedia is not for this purpose. I invite you to positvely participate in the discussion. This will resolve the dispute.

• You said "With regards to Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, you started to talk about Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, which is a different article." This is not true, I discussed just Ahmadiyya.
• You said "Also if it is with regards to criticism of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, I would advise you to summarise it in his article in a sentence, and not put a whole chunk of mainstream views in the introduction section."

Brother, this is not advice, this is dictation. You must avoid dectating others.

• You said " With regards to detail of mainstream view, that has already been dealt with in the Criticism section, unless you have something different to add." Intoduction paragraphs must summurise important contents of the article.
  
• The edit you made reduces the mainstream Muslim view to this sentence: "Many mainstream Muslims reject the views of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, and thus consider them out of the pale of Islam." This sentence is not true representative of facts. Not many, but almost all who claim to be Muslims, other than Ahmadiyya consider Ahmadiyya as non-Muslims. More over you omitted a historical fact that parliament of Paksittan passed an amendment declaring Ahmadiyya non-Muslims.

This article is incomplete unless a new section "Controversy" be made a part of it. It is to contains history and reasons, that why beliefs of Ahmadiyya are considerred heretic in all those who claim to be Muslims, other than Ahmadiyya. Views of renouned scholars of Islam, other than Ahmadiyya should be a part of it.It must contain summary of the procedings in parliament of Pakistan on the occasion of passing constitutional amendment in which Ahmadyya were declared non-Muslims. I hope you will agree that without this new section, this artilce is not complete. I am planning to create this new section. I need your feed back on it. If you could could provide me some materail and references for this purpose, I will be thankful to you. Regards,
Suhayli (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

3O

Hello - I have responded to a request for a third opinion. I'd like to point out that special "criticism and controversy" sections often imply that the whole article is not neutral. It is better to include all views on every point. There is no doubt, I think, that many Pakistani Sunni Muslims hold that Ahmadiyya are not true Muslims, and surely this must be a significant fact in the history and culture of the community. It is not surprising: many people of every religion think every other religion is not true! On the other hand, I am sure non-Ahmadiyya Muslims can give full, reliable and notable details of the precise reasons for saying this?

Suhayli, perhaps you can prepare an account of the material that you think is missing - that you would like to include as criticism - and find verifiable, authoritative citations for these views? If you post them here on this talk page, we can consider what to do with them. You have already written:

"Mainstream Muslims reject the claim of Ahmadiyyah Community that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet. They reject the doctrine of the continuity of prophethood, and thus consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his followers, including Ahmadiyyah community, as Non-Muslims. In 1974, parliament of Pakistan through an amendment in the constitution declared Ahmadiyyah Community, along with other followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be Non-Muslims."

But there is no reference to show this is true, so that I can verify it. Can you do this much? Maybe you will have to say only that "this and this mulla have said" - to say "mainstream" when you mean one particular school of Sunni jurisprudence is not OK - it is not exact.

Redheylin (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure why the (non-style) words "Muslim Community" are needed in the page's title - why is there this page as wel as Ahmadiyya? And I do not think the matter of the community can entirely be separated from that of the founder. Redheylin (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your question at the end, Redheylin, Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is the name of one of two branches that have emerged from the broader Ahmadiyyamovement. The other branch of Ahmadiyya is called the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement; they operate independently and subscribe to some different beliefs, as partially laid out in the table at Ahmadiyya#Comparison, though some non-Ahmadi Muslims sometimes (incorrectly) lump the two separate movements together under the label "Qadiani". That's why this page is titled as it is.

I agree with the absolute importance of depending on and citing reliable sources if Suhayli is going to add a "Criticism" or "Views of mainstream Muslims" section. The potential pitfalls of this kind of content and some guidelines for doing it well are documented at Wikipedia:Criticism and I would recommend that Suhayli and Peaceworld111 refer to those guidelines as they discuss.

By the way, the Ahmadiyya page already has a section like that proposed by Suhayli, at Ahmadiyya#Views of mainstream Muslims. That would also be a good starting point for this discussion. How do mainstream Muslim views of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in particular differ from their views of the larger Ahmadiyya movement?

One final note: Because many of this article's editors have been from Pakistan, it has tended to show a Pakistan-centric bias. Since Ahmadis have been historically vilified and discriminated against more in Pakistan than in any other country, this Pakistan-centered bias has had the effect of skewing the depiction of Ahmaddiya's reception by the wider religious community. When describing the views of "mainstream Muslims" we need to remember that Pakistan is not the only country in which the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community exists.

AtticusX (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for oferring third opinion. I'll respond to you soon. The dispute of edit arose from a religous controversy regarding Islamic faith. So it was my request that a person who is not from the background of Islamic faith should offer 3o. This way neutrality will be acheived in a better way.Suhayli(talk) 11:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You said: " In 1974, parliament of Pakistan through an amendment in the constitution declared Ahmadiyyah Community, along with other followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be Non-Muslims." But there is no reference to show this is true, so that I can verify it. Can you do this much?"

As a metter of fact, this was with refernce to the constitution of Paksitan, whose link I gave in the article. Thsi link confirms both. 1) such amendment was passed. 2) Not only Mullahs, but public representatives from Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's party, which was liberal, progressive and scialist were of the opinion that Ahmadiyyah are non-Muslims. Suhayli (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Atticus, thanks for the explanation. Since you are here, there's no need for 3O! You write; "When describing the views of "mainstream Muslims" we need to remember that Pakistan is not the only country in which the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community exists." This is what I was trying to say, more gently. If you want to say "mainstream", then I want to see twelver Shia fatwas, denunciations from Aga Khan and Mevlevi Sufis, Hanafis, Hanbalis, all. Otherwise "mainstream" = "Far-right Pakistani mullahs" to me.

Suhayli, let me explain, little star. You note that "In 1974, parliament of Pakistan through an amendment in the constitution declared Ahmadiyyah Community Non-Muslims." Well, Quran gives no power to one Muslim to declare another "non Muslim". Hadith say "no compulsion in religion". Quran says "warn your brother then leave it to god" OK? So it is absolutely valid if I decide in my own heart that "Pakistani government is non-Muslim, haram, kafir". I can even make a case that this is "mainstream Islamic" opinion. But I cannot write it in wiki. Wiki is not for my thoughts, but for reliable, notable, authoritative sources. And religion is not an excuse to hate your brother. We need cold, neutral facts. I think the "criticism" you want to add will bring the sympathy of the world to Ahmadiyya people, but whether or not - please supply citations for everything you want to add. This page is not going to be just an advertisement for Ahmadiyya - and it is also not going to be a forum for Wahhabi psychopaths. Also not a religious war. But there is a place for all thoughts if they are truly noteable. Please bring your sources. The website will be fine to confirm the constitution, but we need page number/article number. Redheylin (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I requested third opinion. But the people who are oferring for third opinion are trying to become a party, and are using aggressive and ofensive language. Whether parliament has right to declare someone non-Muslim is not the issue to be discussed here. What is being said is that historically parliament has declared Ahmadis as non-Muslims. I reject the offer of 3o by Redheylin as he has become a party, and is using extremely offensive language on the issue.Suhayli (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

AtticusX, I agree with most of the guideline you presented. I will try to keep them in mind while expanding this article, Thanks.Suhayli(talk) 07:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Suhayli - I have used strong language on the subject to reflect the strongly polarised opinions involved and the necessity of giving due weight to all notable opinions only when referenced - I am sorry if for any reason you felt personally offended. I have found that more than two editors have been observing and that 3O was not needed.

I continue to observe that the decision of the Pakistani government is a significant fact if full reference can be given - though if it applies to both wings of the Ahmadiyya it probably belongs in another article, if these two wings really require separate pages. And it would benefit from some account of how it came to be. The fact cannot be said to be evidence of mainstream Muslim views and a government has no power in mainstream Islam to decide theological issues - it carries no more weight than my opinion or yours, as I meant to convey.

I'd continue to ask for a source for the phrase "mainstream Muslim" - either a quotation using that phrase, some equivalent comments from neutral observers or simply various instances, as I suggested, showing consensus from representatives of all sides of Islam. Or else the sentence should be modified. But there is no religious edit war, I am simply delineating objections to the paragraph and inviting you to fix them. Obviously the same objections apply to the main page. In fact I think the problem is created by the unnecessary splitting off of these two pages from the main page. There is very little information that applies only to one or the other, and very much that applies to both and is confusingly split. It can cause POV forks and duplication and, in the presence of such heated views, the articles ought to be merged.

Further, some cited sources allege that the founder of the sect was a British spy and agent provocateur - that this is the reason for the foundation of the sect. But these political issues are not explicit here, but rather presented as world-wide theological fatwa. In this connection I notice similarities between this sect and other sevener, alavi and gulat sects, which is also not delineated. It may well be true that such minorities have been protected by European powers, but this history should be explicit. Redheylin (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Should the following quote,"A person who does not believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophethood of Muhammad... or claims to be a Prophet... or recognizes such a claimant as a Prophet or religious reformer, is not a Muslim..." really be part of the introduction, considering the fact that an intro is meant to be concise and is meant to introduce the topic concerned. I think that a brief statement which puts the mainstream view of Ahmadis as Non-muslims should be enough. Earlier I did not agree that the Pakistan's amendment of the constitution with regards to Ahmadis should be stated in the intro, but i do not mind that as much to be stated in intro. Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Peaceworld, this article is split from the main one and the one on the Lahore wing in a confusing way that fails to give a coherent picture of the history of the movement. This renders it liable to instability. The articles fail to establish the place of Ahmadiyya among Shia faiths, and this allows Sunni views, even extreme ones, to be portrayed as "mainstream". The articles fail to explicate the politics of supposed British collaboration and fatally confuse this with matters of theology. This all fails to advance understanding of the religion and its circumstances. Your question arises because of these deeper problems. The articles need reconfiguring.Redheylin (talk)

Alawis are self-described Shi'i Muslims, and have been called Shia by other sources including the highly influential Lebanese Shia cleric Musa al-Sadr of Lebanon. On the other hand, conservative Sunnis do not always recognize Alawi as Muslims. At least one source has compared them to Baha'is, Babis, Bektashis, Ahmadis, and "similar groups that have arisen within the Muslim community", and declared that "it has always been the consensus of the Muslim Ulama, both Sunni and Shi'i, that the Nusairi Alawiare kuffar unbelievers and mushrikun polytheists."

I disagree, The article that really needs work on is that of the Lahore movement. This is because the article is more focused on the split between the larger movement. This article can always be improved, but i disagree that it is liable to instability. The place of Ahmadiyya among shia faiths is exactly the same as sunni views. The criticism regarding the british collaboration only comes from the writings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad - and thus it is through his writings, the criticism is discussed. There is no visible practical relationship between Ahmadis or British that can be put down. Thank You. Peaceworld111 (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello HelloAnnyong, I need your opinion on the section you added to this page. In my opinion it requires some changes. There is a controversy regarding Ahmadiya Community, not only with Muslims but also with Chriistians and Hindus. In my opinion this controversy must be a part of this article (with reference to Ahmadiya community) and the article Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (with reference to his writings). Also a new articel should be made of Wikipedia to deal with this controversy in detail. I am ready to write such an article with help of reliable secondary sources. In my view this topic should be dealt with neutrality, and it will help improving Wikipedia. Thanks. Suhayli (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What controversy are you refering to? Peaceworld111 (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello HelloAnnyong, I feel following additions must be placed in this article. Either the caption of this section be changed and following additions be made here, or in already existing sections, in some proper place. All the following information has reliable neutral secondary source:

Sunnis and Shiites are the major sects of Muslims. To the Ahmadis, Sunni Muslims are kafir (infidels), because they do not believe in the prophethood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad; and Shiite Muslims are mushrik (polytheists) due to their doctrine of death and intercession of Imam Hussain. (p 41, The Ahmadiya Movement in Islam, by H. A. Walter, M.A., Humphrey Milford Oxford University Press, 1918)

People belonging to Ahmadiyya community do not follow non-Ahmadi Imam in their prayers, they do not participate in the funeral prayers of mainstream Muslims and do not give the hands of their daughters to non-Ahmadies. Though Ahmadis related to Ahmadiyya community are permitted to marry non-Ahmadi women. (p 115, The Ahmadiya Movement in Islam, by H. A. Walter, M.A., Humphrey Milford Oxford University Press, 1918)

It is specially instructed to those who are new converts that they are not allowed to act contrary to these practices, as non-Ahmadies are enemies of God. (p 150, The Ahmadiya Movement in Islam, by H. A. Walter, M.A., Humphrey Milford Oxford University Press, 1918)
Your opinion is awaited. Suhayli (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Biased view not supported by the Ahmadiyya literature. Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Peaceworld, I need to inform you about a matter of policy. You have referred to an Oxford University Press study as "Biased view not supported by the Ahmadiyya literature". You appear to be saying that the criteria of inclusion are your own personal judgment and that material should have the approval of Ahmadiyya. This is wrong, as I said above: the opposite is more true. We are looking for referenced academic studies above all, while our own assessments must have notable authority to back them and reliance upon Ahmadiyya sources should be moderate. If the situation has changed since 1918, a source can be brought.

You have answered my saying that the account of the movement's split is confusingly split over two articles by saying, effectively, that this is the fault of another of the articles.: thus you prove my point that the matter is not being properly presented in its present form. I have affixed a quotation showing that scholars trace connections between Ahmadiyya, Ismailiyya and Alevi - you have contradicted it: you speak of Shi'a but mean only twelver. Likewise I pointed out that an argument based on political collaboration is represented wrongly as a matter of theology, but you are only concerned to suppress this allegation, not to correct the references. This state of affairs cannot continue as it will prevent a clear, integrated and reliable account of the movement being developed and leave the page as a private playground of believers and unbelievers. All sources must be fully and fairly represented. There is no argument about the inclusion of academic materials of comparative religion.Redheylin (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"At least one source has compared Alawi to Baha'is, Babis, Bektashis, Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, and "similar groups that have arisen within the Muslim community", and declared that "it has always been the consensus of the Muslim Ulama, both Sunni and Shi'i, that the Nusairi Alawiare kuffar unbelievers and mushrikun polytheists.""'

This source is giving a far clearer definition than this "mainstream Muslim" nonsense. These articles inhabit a parallel universe. Redheylin (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Redheylin, you have taken the neutrality issue wrongly. To be neutral is to consider both sides of views about a certain controversy. But when we talk about a belief of some party or faith, you don't ask some opposing or even uninvolved party. Say for example, I want to know what roman catholics believe in, would you want me to go to the muslims or buddists or sceptics to know what they, the roman catholics believe in? Surely the best source are the roman catholics themselves. Another example, for example, I want to know what you think of the x theory. Whould you want me to go to your friend and ask what you think about it. Surely, the best source is the source itself.
• Another point you raised was Oxford university Press study.... Note that there is no evidence that the book has been written under guidance or support of Oxford university. Note that it has only been published by the Oxford university. You have wrongly taken Oxford university press to mean oxford university.
• I am not saying that this article is not in need of any improvement. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community article is very good,but the Lahore... article needs more of additions. I think the matter over the movements split is relatively good in both of the articles, but that the other articles needs additions about its own beliefs, to be references from their own literature.
• I'm not understanding what you are trying to say with the quote, but with reference to many of the communities being mentioned out of the pale of Islam, I don't exactly disagree with it. But note though that Babism and Bahai faith are a different religion altogether, although their may be many similarities. The bahai themselves say that they are a different religion. It's like the muslims claiming that the chiristians are not muslims. But the point im making is that, Ahmadis are defined distinctively more than the other remaining sects, as out of Islam. Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Redheylin is trying to use this talk page to share his personal ideas. This is against the rules of Wikipedia. Redheylin is advised to join some proper forum or to start his blog! Suhayli (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You ask: "I want to know what you think of the x theory. Whould you want me to go to your friend and ask what you think about it. Surely, the best source is the source itself."

This will be a PRIMARY SOURCE - so I will go to a noteable authority on such theories. Next - Oxford university press to mean oxford university: I do not, but the imprint is a warrant of acceptable scholarship in the University's judgment - a rare secondary source from a century ago, and I can discover no noteable allegation of "bias". "Ahmadis are defined distinctively more than the other remaining sects, as out of Islam." - again this sort of thing requires outside perspective. The same is true of other Mahdist beliefs. The same is true of the clear presentation of any religion. Redheylin (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

But remember I was talking about faith here. That example may not be as clear - although you who knows about yourself is obviously a better source (call it pre-primary source). Surely still you would ask muslims about Islam, christians about christianity, hindus about their faith, not an academically labelled source. Being academic does not mean that it is accurate about someone's belief. If you want to know what Ahmadis believe in there are much better sources available and in much more detail, alislam.org, their official website. The details provided by that book is nothing as compared to the website about topics related to Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.Peaceworld111 (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please review WP:OR. The article is tagged "controversial" and so the guidelines regarding sources are particularly important: this is not a matter of argument. The article should not rely on self-reporting or primary sources but on academic consensus. The article is not about "what it is like to be an Ahmadi": it is meant to be a verifiable statement of history, doctrine, region and so forth. Redheylin (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Quoting from Ahmadi sites or gaining information from Ahmadi sites is not at all original research. It is a secondary source undertaken by Ahmadi Muslims. Most surely, a site that sets outs its beliefs as compared to a site that has no belief in that faith whether academic or not, is much more reliable.Peaceworld111 (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are the guidelines for use of sources; "Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.... Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.... Do not base articles entirely on primary sources."

"a site that sets outs its beliefs as compared to a site that has no belief in that faith" is a primary source. It may be used for descriptive purposes if no neutral source is available, but it should not be used for interpretation or polemic and should not be the basis of the article. This is how wikipedia works. For example "a scientific paper is a primary source about the experiments performed by the authors". You can argue that those scientists know best about their own experiments. But Wikipedia requires neutral or balanced comment about this paper from the scientific community. You are not free to declare an exception in respect of this page.Redheylin (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What should be the case of those sources that may be scientific or secondary in nature but aren't accurate? The examples raised by Suhayli are not accurate and have taken a biased view that do not entirely agree with the views of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Peaceworld111 (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Those who raise points against the community can be balanced by answers for and in favour of and representing the Ahmadi community. In this way, statements for or against a certain opinion will be balanced and equally weighted to be neutral. This is the correct use of reliable primary sources: they stand in balance to "anti-Ahmadi" statements within the context of neutral, factual studies by outside people who are recognised as reliable and authoritative commentators. Wikipedia holds that there is a supply of such reliable scholarship and journalism sufficient to deal with every notable aspect of every notable subject - this is the very criterion of notability. If a notable authority makes a mistake on a notable subject we ought to find that statement notably refuted - I have not come across many cases where this is not true, so there is no need to worry "what if" it happens here until it does happen.

So Hindus and Christians and atheists who have no reason to condemn, misrepresent the beliefs, way of life, political situation, history of Ahmadi people as Muslims become a context in which strongly anti-Ahmadi views are given context and perspective - balanced with pro-Ahmadi views in an article which is perceived overall as neutral and factual by the reader because the majority of its content is drawn from people who are not "pro" or "anti" and are able to distinguish and recognise content that is intended to be polemical, not just informative. Redheylin (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

These Ahmadiyya are not Muslims !!!!!!!!

Wiki edit testing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by27.107.125.172 (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2