Talk:Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Muslim scholars article assessment section, a WikiProject related to the Muslim scholars. It has been rated - on the quality scale. |
Wikipedia has a neutral POV that must be maintained, that is why I have reverted the article. DigiBullet 07:20, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
About the birthdate: I don't know enough to be any authority on the subject, but I'm not sure we should state it without some qualifier, like a question mark. What exactly is the evidence for the date? Do we know that Ahmad himself recognized that day as his birthday? Lots of generally reliable English language sources say he was born in 1839, without giving a certain day, so I'm hesitant to bluntly contradict them without some fairly good reason. Everyking 19:55, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The date is based on authentic biography of A R Dard Imam of the London Mosque, 1948. { He states that the references are drawn from the writings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad et al.} CORIN 30 Nov 2004
The Birthdate is clearly supported from Biographies and original sources. I do not understand why so much fuss is made over this point. The Article is likely to be considered as POV because of the anamosity towards the Community and its substantial growth in recent years - the information is supported by biographies and materials provided by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Movement and Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha`at Islam, not mere opinions of opponents. The article is likely to be uncomfortable to both Christians and Muslims, but the facts given cannot be disputed as Ahmadi. It cannot therefore not be controversial. Every effort has been made to avoid bias over the 1914 split. CORIN 2.12.2004 09.19
All right, all right, there's no fuss, I know little about him, but I just didn't understand why sources like Britannica weren't giving that date. It's no problem, I believe you. By the way, could you convert your chronological list into standard prose (I assume you were the one who added it) and integrate it into the rest of the text, or at least add bullet points so it's neater? Everyking 10:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
mubasher: (1) there is tremendous controversy regarding the status of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as prophet. It would be unfair to label him as such in the opening paragraph of the article without reference to the dispute. (2) most of the material regarding the authenticity of his claim has a one sided point of view: it may be better to link to it rather that make a part of the page.Nazli 01:52, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
== Headline text
- The point is not controversy but what Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed. If that is what he claimed then that is what he claimed. This is what neutrality is all about. Present Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's claim as it is and then present what the other side has to say about it. Do not censor Ahmadiyya view for the sake of it.
- I think a selective view is taken in the Ahmadiyya case. Is it not allowed to claim prophethood for Muhammad (Prophet of Islam) if majority of world population disputes his claim? This also applies to other people who claimed to be prophets whether you or me accept them or not, such as Mormons etc. (neutrality – remember?)
- I can't see the point of inserting negative elements right from the very first sentence. In fact the first two paragraphs give nothing but negative views about Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. This is poisoning the well. The editor has already hinted to reader which way he/she is supposed to take it and it is unlikely he/she will be able to have a balanced view after that. How is always imposing the majority (and perhaps editor's own) view the neutral way?
- The best way would be to write one ore more paragraphs, preceded by phrases like "He claimed...", "According to Ahmadiyya Muslim Community..." etc. and then following with a few paragraphs on what the other side thinks of it. Let the reader read about one point of view and then the other. Do not poison each sentence against the Ahmadiyya view. This is certainly not neutral.
[edit] Headline text
His claim was not only of a prophet but the one foretold by Prophet Mohammad (saws) i.e. second coming of Jesus son of Mary and second coming of Prophet (saws) himself as mentioned in holy Quran.The arguments Mirza gives are very convincing as regards the death of Jesus.I am perticularly impressed by the analogy he gives from Trdition in which Prophet explains verse of Al-Jumma "wa bilaakheriena l'm yelhako b'him" narrated by Abu Huraira. Generaly muslims donot believe that Jesus's second coming will not be as a prophet but in this perticular hadis Prohet(saws) has addressed him four times as prophet.I will be greatful if sopme one can download the original hadis and explain.thanks.Yassiah Yasser.
[edit] Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's Grand Prophecy / Stern Warning
Mubasher: it may be best to mention the prophecy in a line or two and then link to the material, rather than presenting it in detail and making it a significant portion of the Wiki article.Nazli 04:45, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Grand Prophecy / Stern Warning
Nazli: it is not best to mention the prophecy in a line or two because to understand his claims and thoughts you have to read it the intact prophecies but here I am just quoted one of them so please take this matter to the public and you are not the moderator of this free Encyclopedia if you want to say any thing you can discuss on the talk page but please for the sake of understanding and information don’t delete his prophecy and web site link, thank you.
- Mubasher, this article is not a forum for promoting Ahmaddiya teachings. Readers will not want to and do not have to read extremely long quotes to "understand". If it's more than a short paragraph, it should become a link to a Wikisource or an external website. Nazli is not the moderator, nor am I, but I think we represent the vast majority of Wikipedia editors when we say that huge chunks of quoted text do NOT belong here. Zora 22:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
- Mubasher: I agree completely with Zora. I do apologize however for inadvertently deleting the external links in my last edit.
[edit] NPOV clearly not in play
The table of events clearly shows that NPOV is not being followed. "# 1907 Dowie dies in utter disgrace." "1893 Prophesy disgrace of Pandit Lekh Ram.". These "disgraces" are clearly intended to promote Ahmad's ideology. While statements like the above do not necessarily violate NPOV, on their own, without context, cannot be viewed as anything but as an attempt to proselytize. --GNU4Eva 13:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The many quotations of ibn Arabi were also not required. For biography of Ahmad, theological controversies are essentially POV--Akberc 14:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Ahmad's prophecy to be married to Muhammadi Begum is another prophecy that spans 18 years of his life and should not be ignored. --Akberc 14:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Response to the above comment "NPOV clearly not in play"
[Tariq Rasheeduddin: rutariq@gmail.com] REGARDING DEATH OF DR. JOHN ALEXANDER DOWIE: A worse picture of pain and misery cannot be imagined. Dowie's death was an object-lesson, a Sign for the people of the West. Many newspapers declared that the prophecy of Hazrat Mirza Sahib had been fulfilled. I quote some of the newspapers of those days:
Ahmad and his adherents may be pardoned for taking some credit for the accuracy with which the prophecy was fulfilled a few months ago. (Dunville Gazette, June 7, 1904)
The Qadian man predicted that if Dowie accepted the challenge 'he shall leave the world before my eyes with great sorrow and torment. ' If Dowie declined, the Mirza said, 'the end would only be deferred; death awaited him just the same, and calamity will soon overtake Zion.' That was the grand prophecy: Zion should fall and Dowie die before Ahmad. It appeared to be a risky step for the Promised Messiah to defy the restored Elijah to an endurance test, for the challenger was by 15 years the older man of the two and probabilities in a land of plagues and famines were against him as a survivor, but he won out. (Truth Seeker, June l5, 1904)
It is quite true that Hazrat Mirza Sahib was much older than Dowie. So there were more chances for Dowie to survive Hazrat Mirza Sahib.
Dowie died with his friends fallen away from him and his fortune dwindled. He suffered from paralysis and insanity. He died a miserable death, with Zion city torn and frayed by internal dissensions. Mirza comes forward frankly and states that he has won his challenge. (Boston Herald, June 23, 1904)
These quotations from the American newspapers show that the prophecy made an impression not only on Christians but also on free-thinking editors of the American newspapers. They had been so impressed by the grandeur of the prophecy that they felt obliged to write about it. They were not able to deny its truth or its importance. Whenever the Sign of the death of Dowie is narrated before Western audiences, they will have before them the testimony of scores of newspapers, edited by fellow-countrymen and fellow-believers.
REGARDING DEATH OF PT. LAKHRAM The story of the murder of Lekh Ram is that some time before, a man with blood-shot eyes had come to him, wishing to be converted from Islam to Hinduism. People tried to dissuade Lekh Ram from entertaining him. But Lekh Ram did not heed. This man became Lekh Ram's trusted companion. Lekh Ram had appointed the fateful Saturday as the day of his conversion. Lekh Ram was busy writing. He asked for some book. This man, pretending to hand Lekh Ram the book slipped a knife into his stomach and turned the knife round and round so as to cut the entrails thoroughly. He then disappeared, according to the statement of Lekh Ram's family. Lekh Ram was on the upper floor of the house. Near the gate, on the ground floor, were many men; but no one saw the murderer come down and escape. Lekh Ram's mother and wife were certain he was still in the house. On a search of the house nobody was found. Where had he disappeared to? Into the earth or the sky? Lekh Ram died in great pain on Sunday. In my opinion this incidence is prophetic indeed.
[edit] Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's Claim to Prophethood was qualified
In his short work "Eik Ghalatee ka Izaalaa" Transl: A misunderstanding removed", Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has extensively qualified his claim to Prophethood. He has explained that it is his firm belief, that there is no possibility of a Law-Bearing Prophet like Moses (peace be upon Him) or the Holy Prophet of Islam (Peace be upon him) after the advent of Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). He has explained, however that there is one type of Prophethood, the doors of which are still open and that is a Prophet who is subservient to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sas). Thus he explains that the Prophethood which he (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) has been blessed with is the zilli Prophethood of the Holy prophet of Islam, i.e. His (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's Prophethood is a continuation of the Prophethood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sas). In a Persian Couplet, he has explained :
Hasst oo KhariurRusul Khairul anaam, Hur Nabuwwat Ra barau shudd ikhtitaam
"He (Muhammad) is the best of the Messengers and the best of Creation All Prophecy has come to completion with his advent"
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is very clear that the claim to Prophethood which he has made is not a "Permanant Prophethood"
Main Mustaqil Nabi naheen hoon
"I am not an independent or permanent Prophet"
"My Prophethood", he goes on to say is none other than the Prophethood of The Holy Prophet Muhammad, it is not separate from HIm!"
I think it is very important to qualify the Prophethood of the Promised Messiah (Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) as a Buroozee Nabuwwat (a reflection of the Prophethood of Muhammad) an Ummatee nabi (A Prophet from the Umma of the Holy Prophet Muhammad ) or a Zillee Nabi (A prophet who is the shadow of the Prophet Muhammad, i.e. one who follows the Prophet Muhammad like a shadow)
Navidul Haq Khan email: drnhkhan@hotmail.com
CLAIM TO RASOOL Regarding the section under Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's Legacy, It says: "One of the main source of dispute during his lifetime and continuing since then, is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's use of the terms “Nabi” (prophet) and “Rasool” (messenger) when referring to himself." You may have to check the sources. Did he actually refer to himself as a 'Rasool'? His followers disagree to the fact that he ever called himself Rasool. Please check and amend if necessary.
[edit] Islamic eschatology
I disagree...by listing him under this Cat he is simply associated with it, to his followers he is the mahdi so there so I see no issue. freestylefrappe 22:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Link farm?
Just wondering are there too many links at the bottom of the page? --GNU4Eva 20:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Love et cetera
Mubasher, if you redirect your talkpage there is no way of communicating with you directly. The info that you are adding is highly pro-POV and is more relevant to the Ahmadiyya page. freestylefrappe 02:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Chronology, Grammar
Can someone do something with the chronology list? It contains a lot of cryptic information not references in the rest of the article, making it often more perplexing than informational. Also I noticed some questionable grammar, a couple of typos and whatnot, but don't have time to go back through right now ... if anyone feels like proofreading, there's a spot or two that could use it. --72.25.8.86 00:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy for controversy sake?
Under Controversy section, in relation to Abrogation, how does claiming that Quran is free of imperfection cause concern to Muslims? It is claimed in the article that Muslims of his (Ahmed’s) time believed in abrogation (proof/reference?). How many of them believed this? Dose majority of Muslims (then and now) believe that Quran is imperfect? No. Rather most Muslims will be offended at the mere mention of it. Isn’t it a case of trying too hard to find controversy in whatever Ahmadis believe?
This is also true to some extent regarding the militant version of Jihad. The fact that vast majority of Muslims living in both Muslim countries or otherwise are/were not up in arms does show that most Muslims consider militant Jihad to be an exception rather than norm. It seems to me that the point of view of a small extremist (but vocal) minority is being presented as the view of majority of Muslims and Hazrat Ahmad’s view being declared controversial merely for not going along with the militant minority. Pleasse see Jihad. Yahya 04:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Good point: I have made the change regarding Quran abrogation, and added one of the bigger controversies - the claim to "real Islam" - verifiable by the comments of Mirza Bashiruddin and the testimony of Mirza Nasir before the 1974 Pakistani Parliament.--Akberc 14:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] death
no mention of the fact that he died in a lahore toilet -t ali 23/01/06
where is the proof?
This link will clarify matters about his death and the fact that he did not die in a toilet http://www.qadiani.org/death.html.
[edit] Qadianism
Qadianism is also the accepted name of this new religion. The insistenece by Qadianis to call themselves as Muslims must be balanced by the Muslim counter argument that Qadianis are non-Muslims. This view is repeatedly being censored and removed by Qadianis. It must be emphasized that this is not a Qadiani website and both Qadiani and Muslim arguments must be presented. Muslims are not claiming to be Qadianis but it is Qadianis that claim to be Muslims while following their non-Muslim beliefs.
Siddiqui 04:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article re-write
I am attempting a re-write of this article. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a contorversial figure and I would welcome any ideas or suggestions before I make extensive changes. Nazli 11:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Changes in article
1. Article shortened to a reasonable length
2. Long rambling biography cut - link to biography available for those interested
3. Tried to highlight the important controversial issues surrounding him
4. Attempt at a NPOV
5. Reverted photograph to an older version which does not prolaim him to be the Messiha or Mehdi
6. Removed details of differences between the two Ahmadi sects and mainstream Muslims - these are available to those interested at Ahmadi, Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement and Ahmadiyya Muslim Community
Nazli 19:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reversion of Article
The old version is loaded with pov statements and has many factual errors. If some of the old material is important please incorporate it into the new version or alternatively modify the old version so it is more suited as a wiki article. Reverting back to a version with a neutrality dispute is counter productive. Thank you. Nazli 03:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reversion of recent changes
The fact the Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is highly respected by his followers is already stated in the very first paragraph. However from a global perspective the contorversy surrouding him warrants the highlight. Also the use of the term "controversial" is not used in a derogatory or disrepectful fashion. Hence the reversion. Nazli 02:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] All We ever know
People argue about the nature of claim made Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahab, was right of wrong you can discuss forever, but do not forget that we are just only humans, with limited capacities, I do not belief if some one claim such a big thing on the name of God and if he is wrong, God will wait so long to finished his teaching. No one who ever claimed that he was from God and was lair, never existed too long, hence here is Community still spreading in large numbers every years.. Do you think you know more than God ? and do you belief that God will let Ahmadiyya Community spreading like this like last 100 years so on the name of God if they were wrong. ? NO, so in which world you people are living ! You can do what ever you want but if you are wrong.. you will remain like that. phippi46 11:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
In your own words, no one can say what is right or wrong. Leave other people to themselves.--AeomMai 00:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I have studied much to get my first amalgomus ideology working, and have found that all religions, in their core, were the same. Every single one. The differences, are minor, though they cause so much controversy. And to awnser your question, no, muslims are not going to be christians, because, though all religions are similar, no none is willing to admit it.----AeomMai 19:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I had to remove the section on Ahmadiyya claiming 200.000.000 adherents. I understand that there are no credible statistics on Ahmadiyya, and I understand that ANY religious movement in the world tends to inflates its own numbers, but this FAR TO MUCH, a slap in the face for any thinking human being with an average IQ. I heard about some Born Again Christian groups trying to inflate their numbers adding milions of adherents (normally in Africa, exploiting the lack of religious censuses. They boaest numbers which are the double of their real numbers. The same for Muslim minorities in some Sout-East Asian Countries. But claiming 200 milion while thera are probably between 5 an 10 milion makes me sick. It's like saying there are 20 billion Muslims or 15 billions Catholic. Pure bullshit which doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. The fact that there is a link to a Web Site which WE MIGHT PRESUME belongs to one official branch of the Ahmadiyya, and that its a groups claim and not an official statistic, is not an excuse. Too much is too much, especially when you don't give an alternative more credible number. Who reads the part I canceled could think that "much less" than 200 milion is 60-80 milion, which is still ridiculously high. Please a volunteer should fix the hole I tore an put some decent numbers. I suggest adherents.com Sindbad
How these numbers 200 million came in this artical and who brought that. If you follow the history you many know, so if we ask this editor about the proove, he or she may help to clear. phippi46 23:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recent Changes
Changes were reverted in following areas:
1. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's legal name does not include the term 'Qadiyani'. The usage of this term is already clearly mentioned. However insisting on adding this term to this name does not make sense.
2. He did not claim to be the 'second coming' of Muhammad - he only claimed to be the second coming of Christ. His reference to Muhammad was in the context of a 'Zil' as per Sufi tradition.
3. The fact that he spend a lot of time studiying the Quran is well documented.
4. Also the fact that his early teaching were well recieved by the local clerics is also well documented.
5. He specifically encouraged stepping away from the idea of 'militant' jihad.
6. Ahmadi vs Mainstream Muslims beliefs are compared and contrasted in detail in the [Ahmadi] article. This is not the place for the comparison.
7. The list of ahmadiyya links my be long, however deleting all of them is absurd and against the npov policy.
Nazli 04:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Padlocking
I would like to Padlock this article as it has been vandalised repeatidly by various users. I, as and Ahmadi, would like to defend my Religion. So my question is: how do I padlock this article?
- Your religion doesn't need article padlocking to "defend" it. Your religion is above some idiot vandalism. But, i do support padlocking if it will "defend" wikipedia. Happy editing. --Merbabu 15:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have edited the artical and removed POVs from it, it is a biography of a person, and should contain strict neutral info init, either some one agree or not, there are other artical on wikipedia where other informaiton against him can be put. phippi46 13:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edits by 203.81.192.67
The following addition to the aritcle was reverted by me for reasons given below:
"There have been many ups and downs in the Ahmadiya Movement. One serious setback was the conversion of Shaikh Rohail, the head of Ahmadiya Movement in Germany, to Islam in the year 2001"
1. Shaik Roahil was not the head of the "Ahmadiya Movement" in Germany. He belonged to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in Germany. The Ahmadiyya Movement in Germany has two representations, the other one being the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement, with which Shaik Roahil had no link.
2. The "conversion" of Shaik Roahil to "Islam" if it is deemed important enough to warrant addition to wikipedia should be done in the article on the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.
Nazli 06:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- I saw many time editing from this IP address and user claiming about Shaikh Rohil to converting Islam, first of all this reference has been taken from an Anti Ahmadiyya link with no reference to this website and also the contents of this website is also disuputed. Puting this informaiton is clearly sign of puting pov on this page, as Nazli has stated there are other pages where you can try this info .. phippi46 11:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Protection
Why can't this page be protected? Why can George Bush, Bin Laden and Taliban be protected but not Mriza Ghula Ahmad's page? Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" MUST take effect!!!!!! Maurice45
