User talk:Phippi46

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

* Have Comments to make, then this is the place *

Leave me a message or comment
Thursday 12 June 2008 17:40

[edit] Hi

Hi, thanks for your comments. I am sorry if some of my recent conversations appeared to be "un-civilized". I presume you are refering to my interaction with Siddiqui? Nazli 03:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thomas from Germany

Thomas from Germany !!!! Seems another sock puppet is on the lose. Siddiqui 01:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today

Hi Phippi. Earlier today you moved Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today to a different name. I believe you were confused by the fact that the page is transcuded on the main Wikipedia:Articles for creation page. The two pages are not the same, however, and both serve very important roles. Please do not repeat this action. Thanks. ×Meegs 06:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Question about personal attacks

Hi Phippi. You left me a message on my one of my talk page archive. I moved it to my main talk page and responded to it there (User talk:Meegs#Question about personal attacks). Regards. ×Meegs 02:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Phippi. I have replied again on my talk page (User talk:Meegs#Question about personal attacks).
While I'm here, I'd like to tell you three things about talk pages:
  1. It is customary to start new discussion topics at the bottom of pages, not the top. If you look at the very top of your browser, next to the "edit this page" link, there is a "+" link. Many people use that link to create new topic sections automatically.
  2. When you reply to a previous messages on the same talk page, it is not necessary to start a new section. Simply leave a few blank lines after the previous person's message and then begin your own. The idea is that each topic should have exactly one section, not more, not less.
  3. After you're done typing a message on a talk page, conclude it with four tildes (~~~~) to generate your signature and timestamp. This lets others know who said what, and when they said it.
By the way, I'm adding our standard welcome message below this topic. When you get a chance, take some time to browse through its links and learn more about Wikipedia. Best wishes. ×Meegs 17:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Phippi46, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  ×Meegs 17:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You've almost got the signature correct: put the four tildes at the end of the message and you'll have it. If you want to practice, you can do so at Wikipedia:Sandbox. ×Meegs 18:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your changes to Maulana Mohammad Ali and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

Hi, I have reverted your changes to these two pages. Please see the relevant discussion pages for details of why I have done so. Please do discuss any issues you may have regarding these two page. Thank you. Nazli 03:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your suggestion regarding a discussion page

Hi, thanks for your message. You idea regarding a discussion page sounds interesting, however it may be outside the scope of wikipedia to act as a platform for a forum type discussion. There are many other highty active site on the internet for this type of activity. The idea behind wikipedia is to present the facts from a neutral point of view rather than to pass judgment on the suitability or authenticity of someone's faith. As an example, most primary Ahmadiyya related articles on wikipedia state that Ahmadi's are considered non-muslims by some muslim countries, however, it does not say the they ARE non-muslims. Similarly it says the Ahmadi's refer to themselves as muslims, it does not state that they ARE muslims. i.e. there is no judgement, just the facts and opposing points of view are presented. Nazli 12:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usage of the terms "Ahmadi" and "Qadiani"

1. The word Qadiani was originally used to refer to anyone from the Qadian region of India.

2. Since the movement originated in Qadian, it was then used to refer in a derogatory way to followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

3. Once the Ahmadiyya movement split up, the term Qadiani was used to refer to (again in a derogatory fashion) to the faction based in Qadian which followed Mirza Bashir ud Din Mahmood. The term used for the splinter group was the "Lahori" party. Since many Muslims clerics harbored intense hatred against the Ahmadiyya movement they preferred to use the term "Qadiani" for all Ahmadis because of its derogatory connotations.

4. The constitution of Pakistan differentiates between Lahori and Qadiani groups and refers to them collectively as Ahmadis. So in this context the term applicable to both parties is "Ahmadi", not "Qadiani".

5. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the movement, named his movement as the "Ahmadiyya" movement, not the "Qadiani" movement. Details of why the name Ahmadiyya was chosen are in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Hence even from this perspective the correct name that can be used to refer to both parties is Ahmadi. Nazli 06:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Member count of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement

Unforturantely I do have no idea of how large the movement is. I would have added the information to the article if I had known. Maybe you could try e-mailing the organization directly with this question.regds. Nazli 04:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metaphysics

Hi Phipphi46, thank you for your comments and views on metaphysics. At my current stage of understanding I am obsessed with understanding how absurdity permeates every conceivable aspect of existence. No doubt as time progresses my understanding of reality will change. Please do keep me updated on your work on Quran and metaphysics. Best regards, Nazli 13:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I think there is a dispute first of all to clear who is actually Muslim, there is alot talking over Main stream Muslim but if some one ask them just define first who is Muslim ? they even can not settle on the defination of their own belief !! it is well known that people of Shia faith do not consider other sects of Islam Muslim and Sunnies and other do not belief the Shiaa's are Muslim, Wahabi consider them Muslim and rest non Muslim, in order to declare Ahmadies non Muslim, first they should consider their own status in the eyes of their own "Brother Muslims" and then declare them Non Muslim. It was a mistake for a National Assembly of a country to decide the faith of a peace full movement, but they all forget the nature of charector these people who were sitting in the Assembely then. All kind of people, with all kind of sins in thier pockets and you expect them to decide about some ones faith, I think people should also read the white paper published by General Zia's Government about the charactors of Assembly members, I think they will be satisfied, if not, then it is just their hate with close eyes you can not do any thing as their is no cure for blind hate. Phippi46 00:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You have a vast knowledge on ahmadiyyat it seems. Are you ahmadi?--AeomMai 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S- The qadianism page is needing a look over if you could help with that

[edit] Testing

Hi this is test text

[edit] Editing the Muslim page

I just recently saw that Muslim artical page contain information which is not truely accepted to whole world, because as you mentioned in the talk page of user Siddiqui that the basic defination of Muslim is relative, can you look into the page to try to re-write it as a neutral point of view and not the point of views from some bais writers. phippi46 15:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


Are you speaking of the qadianism page?--AeomMai 21:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qadianism

The issue that you raise have alreday been discussed in the following pages:

Please read these pages carefully. The Sockpuppet game is getting little too much for some people. This is another clear example of deceptions and lies which is hallmark of a group of people. Siddiqui 02:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet create many accounts and post using different names; claiming to be from Germany, Greece, etc.; while raising issues that expose their deception and lies. How many account do you have ? Don't worry Wikipedia has some ways of exposing Puppeteer behind the Sockpuppet.
Siddiqui 12:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I will be raising the issue of Sockpuppet in Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser. So that we can establish identy of all users have taken part in Qadianism.
Siddiqui 19:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] qadianism

i added human rights organization reports fromAI and the un. THey are documented with a link, though it is slightly positive, it is neutral as it is true facts--AeomMai 22:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

is he a administrator? --AeomMai 22:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

yes i hope to get him to stop with admin help. he seems to revert your stuff too.--AeomMai 23:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S visit Yahya01 this will surprise you...

Tweedledum and Tweedledee from Germany, Greece and from parts unknown. I will be raising the issue of Sockpuppet in Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser.
Siddiqui 13:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence in "Muslim" article

You keep adding your sentence. Please, Phippi, it is a bad sentence. It is diffuse, meandering, awkward, and doesn't really say anything. Please let go of it. Zora 10:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the sentence: "The general discription of the word "Muslim" is now relative because there are different versions and faith groups that claim to be the real Muslims and others not." A description can't be "relative". A version is a version of a human creation, like a book or a movie, usually; it is not the same sort of thing as a "faith group". Faith group sounds like a Christian prayer meeting; it is just not used to describe Muslim groups. Lack of parallelism between "claim to be" and "others not." Look, I copyedit for a living, and I know bad English when I see it. I'm sorry to have to be so blunt, but you seem not to understand.
I'm not saying that "I" always write the best English. There are some very good editors on Wikipedia who can shred MY prose and make it cleaner and tighter. I can also turn out ugly turgid prose if I write when I'm tired.
I do think that I can reliably tell the difference between people who make my prose better and those who make it worse. If it's the good editors working on my prose, I have to let them do it and shut up. For the good of the encyclopedia. Zora 09:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:AeomMai's beliefs

Mine own beliefs are quite irrelevant, though i have a philosophy that all religions are pure, until touched by human hands.My beliefs are also flavoured with canadian, pakistani, and chinese cultures--AeomMai 23:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

May i ask what your own beliefs are?

no, this is not what i meant! i mean all religions are the same, corrupted by the human hand, not srengthened by it. since the true form of a religion is the exact words of god.--AeomMai 20:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

My belief of the prophet Jesus is that he did not die on the cross.--AeomMai 15:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. My scientific beliefs show that this could not be possible. On the matters of him going to India, or France, I shall not comment, for I do not know enough yet--AeomMai 18:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My project iis building a perpetual motion machine. I also am trying to cure a cancerous cell with genetic therapy.--AeomMai 20:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] perpetual motion

Yesd, i shall be using magnets, both are for science fair next year<For School>--AeomMai 23:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


I know, it will try to run forever, my machine--AeomMai 23:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Honorifics

Hi. You just added "(PBUH)" to Muhammad... please don't use honorifics on this encyclopedia because it is not a scholarly convention and is one only followed by Muslims. Sorry if this is disagreeable towards your religious views but it must be done on this encyclopedia. gren グレン 23:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Ay, it is such that the beliefs are close, but not the same. Christianity's main difference from islam is the very belief of the trinity. However, muslims oppose this three aspect of god idea, and insist that the Prophet Jesus was a man, and did not die on the cross.

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 23:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I also forgot to mention, muslims hold Muhammad higher then the prophet Jesus, but they do believe that Jesus did not die on the cross, as for the going to heaven, i have no idea.--AeomMai 18:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks Thomas, myself and Merzbow are working on the article. It would be nice if you could join us. The article requires lots of work. I suggest you take the section that you are most interested in. I think we need to work more on the not top sections of the articles more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Islam#Muslim_arguments for example requires lots of work. It is written badly at the moment. It does not summerize the Muslim arguments. We have probably missed lots of arguments here.

BTW, I hope Germany win the worldcup this year. Cheers, --Aminz 02:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your post Phippi46. Just a few points: 1. Can you please add the pages of the books of which the quote is extracted. 2. Some of your arguments(e.g. marriage one) are better to different sections. This section only tries to answer to the question: "Did Muhammad believe he was a prophet, or did he consider himself a fraud?". We have another section for marriage I believe. 3. I know you have tried hard to find those quotes but as they are lengthy, it is probable that we may lose our readers. I'm not sure they will read the whole thing. I think they are better to be summarized. Thanks again, --Aminz 01:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Phippi. We need to find references (by renowned Muslim scholars) making the same arguments as you made. I have been currently biased on the Dhimmi article. But will get back to the criticism of islam article soon. Thanks again. --Aminz 09:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right! --Aminz 00:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Phippi, there are "some" benefits for us from parts of this article. Sorry for being late, but I am very sleepy now. I'll get back to you soon. (BTW, Germany is doing a good job!) Take care, --Aminz 09:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Phippi, I think criticism, by nature, is not a bad thing. Some criticisms can be quite helpful (but not all of them of course). All our progress is because of criticisms. I think our understanding of a religon will not become complete unless we see how people have criticized it. There is a lot of hateful nonsense, misunderstanding there. True! But there is a positive side to the matter as well. Some people criticize another religon to satify their own hateful feelings. But the criticisms can help us trying to see/find other authentic interpretations of the religion that makes life happier for themselves and others in some aspects. These articles also supports conversation among people from different religons. All this world needs, I think, is a place in which people talk to each other and share their view points with each other. But aside this, the articles like "criticism of ..." save many people's time who are trying to find more unbiased religous dialog. That's what I think --Aminz 23:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems we were writing for each other at the same time :) my laptop is running out of battery. Take care, --Aminz 23:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thank you

Dear Thomas,

Thanks so much for the barnstar. It was very kind of you. It makes me work harder! Wish you the BEST my friend, --Aminz 09:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khalifatul Masih article

Hi, thanks for your comments.

My most recent edit to the Khalifatul Masih article was to add it to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community category as you can see here [1], it had nothing to do with The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement.

The link to the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement was added to the "See Also" section in December 2004 as you can see here [2]

I believe it makes sense to mention the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement in the "See Also" section since reference is made to the differences in beliefs between the two parties in the body of the article.

I would welcome any further comments you may have.

Best regards, Nazli 13:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Feedback

Dear Phippi46, do you have any feedback on my work here [3] ? Thanks --Aminz 07:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the correct link [4] --Aminz 07:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No longer active

Dear Thomas,

I don't have anything on the top of my head but will search for it and get back to you soon.

I am also no longer active in wikipedia. I now rarely check my account. Sorry for my delay in getting back to you. --Aminz 07:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your VandalProof Application

Dear Phippi46,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that not enough mainspace edits. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. Computerjoe's talk 11:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey. You need 250 edits in the article namespace. You only have 78 at this time. Computerjoe's talk 14:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments to Aminz

Hi Thomas

I often read the comments you make to Aminz and it is nice to read things written in such a friendly way and a good spirit of enquiry. Good side of Wikipedia! Itsmejudith 20:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thomas, you are very kind to me. Thanks man. It shows your kind heart. I wish the best for you. BTW, I haven't read Mr. Fred Donner's book myself. User:Zora suggested that to me. And also, many editors helped with that guideline. Many thanks to them as well. I have something for you coming soon :)--Aminz 21:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
The Kindness Barnstar, awarded by Aminz to Thomas for having a kind heart. ** Aminz 21:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Thomas. Thanks for your message. I have only had a chance to look at your contributions to Crop circles. It is a good article and your attitude is the right one. I don't think you should spend too much time discussing the statements of those who still believe crop circles have an extra-terrestrial origin. You will never convince them. I hope you continue to enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. If there is anything specific you would like me to comment on, I will be pleased to do so. Best wishes. Itsmejudith 18:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islam in Pakistan

Your additions to Islam in Pakistan about Human Rights report about minorities in Pakistan are more appropriate in Religion in Pakistan page. I have removed those comments. You should add them in Religion in Pakistan. Also please wikify your additions. ArsalanKhan 15:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and its sects

You asked a very good question. The first thing to understand is that what is the core. It includes the Qur'an and Sunnah. There can be difference in interpretation of Qur'an but Qur'an essentially is the same all over the world. The Sunnah is a contentious matter. I follow this opinion that Sunnah is only what the Muslim nation adapted and transfered to us through perpetual practice. For example, I don't believe that beard is the Sunnah, because religion never made it a subject, but people think it a part of religion because they think all prophets had beard, so we should also have a beard. But I do believe that trimming of Mustaches is a Sunnah, which is known to all Muslims without any exception. What is Sunnah and what is not, I like this article on this issue:[5]. Cheers! TruthSpreaderTalk 14:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that propaganda against Islam is not only coming from west, but also coming from our own scholars. The example you gave, is a very typical example, and I must say that traditionally Muslims have been thinking this way. I am of the opinion of Ghamidi that Apostasy was punishable only under certain conditions, for which Itmam al-hujjah is essential. Hence, without the Prophet or without his companions who also were witnesses in front of the world, no one has this prerogative. TruthSpreaderTalk 15:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Kindly see:Javed_Ahmed_Ghamidi#Jihad. Cheers! TruthSpreaderTalk 15:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
John Esposito says about Ghamidi that:He is frequently labeled a modernist for his insistence on the historical contextualization of Muhammad's revelation in order to grasp its true moral import. And I think Johnny is right. TruthSpreaderTalk 16:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I think conversion is a complicated process. Different people convert for various reasons. It may also include the social aspect, so people tend to follow that particular type of Islam, with which they get themselves aquainted when they were non-Muslims. As many people also ask me about Islam and I normally tell them the first important thing is that you should not accept any thing against nature. As Prophet Muhammad, when he used to make something part of the religion, he used to say that this particular thing is in nature. So theoretically, there is no difference between Islam and human nature. Islam stregnthens human nature and gives humans a set of rules and philosophy that is best to train oneself to follow human nature (although this is a very Muslim POV). So this is how I learned the religion, that if you think that something is against your nature, either you should find a reason for that or you should abandon it. Nature can never have a conflict with a true religion. Second, very important thing is that nobody is 100% right. Keep your mind open, listen to everyone, as the ultimate objective should be to follow Prophet Muhammad and not these clerics. TruthSpreaderTalk 16:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edit to the Ahmadi article

Hi, I have reverted you addition to the Ahmadi article because it was ambiguous and may be misleading. Your sentence read:

"Pakistan has declared Ahmadis to be non-Muslims. In 1974, the government of Pakistan amended its constitution to define a Muslim "as a person who believes in finality of Prophet Muhammad". [4] As a result, Ahmadis have been the target of many attacks led by various religious groups. [5] Although the Ahmadies claim that this is not there belief at all"

Does this mean that the Ahmadi's do not believe that the hate attacks took place? i.e. that attacks are a fabrication?

Or does it mean that the Ahmadi's do not believe that a Muslim is one who believes in the finality of Prophet hood? If this is the case the statement is inaccurate since the Lahore party does believe in the finality of prophet hood.

I would appreciate it if you could please explain what you wanted to add to the article and in what context so it can be done so in a appropriate manner.

Thank you and best regards.

Nazli 18:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for the clarification. The article already clearly states the point of view you wanted to put forward, as is evident here [6]
Nazli 04:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Vandalism of Ahmadi articles

Yes you can request protection for an article, but to the best of my knowledge this can only be done if the vandalism by anonymous editors is a regular feature. Best regards Nazli 18:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you can try to ask protection for the pages, but my feeling is that the vandalism has to me much more intense that what it is these days to warrant such action by an administrator. Regards, Nazli 03:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eid Mobarak

Thanks very much for greeting. Eid Mobarak for you too. --Aminz 00:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have problem in understanding that sometimes God gives his Messengers some miracles, but I think Isra and Mi'raj was definitely a dream. It is a later development that Muslims started refering to it as a physical journey. TruthSpreaderTalk 12:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Neither the Qur'an nor the hadith literature put splitting of moon as a miracle. It was a cosmological event that was even seen by Indian raja (see Splitting of the moon). Qur'an only says that even the moon has splitted, so you will not believe in the day of judgement even now. It has no other significance. Secondly, definitely God created all the physical laws, but for example, when all the magicians in front of pharoah saw the miracle from Moses, they knew imadiately that this is different and not a trick (a physical phenomenon that can be explained). TruthSpreaderTalk 12:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly we have completely opposite views. I look at the miracle of Moses above physical laws and splitting of moon as no miracle but a cosmological event, see [7][8] for details. TruthSpreaderTalk 13:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Can I know the relavant verse to God's laws, so that I can comment in a much better way. TruthSpreaderTalk 13:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The verses you quoted are simply talking about our observation of nature, and it doesn't rule out miracles which are above physical laws. But this verse is addressing to the addressees of prophet Muhammad and to the best of my knowledge, (except Badr and battle of trench) I cant' think of any explicit miracle of prophet Muhammad, unlike Moses whose nation even took the oath under the lifted mighty mountain of Toor. TruthSpreaderTalk 13:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I would strongly disagree in equating God's miracles to defection in God's creation. TruthSpreaderTalk 14:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adam and eve

Hello! Thank you for contacting and considering me good enough to give your advice. The first thing is that Qur'an says that they were in a Garden. There is no need to assume that they were in real paradise which all successful people on Judgement Day will get. Hence, to the best of my understanding, that Garden was on this very world. As at another place (I forgot the reference), the God says that Heaven and Hell will be created from what you see in the sky, hence, the Garden in which Adam and Eve were present, it wasn't the paradise. To answer the second part, the concept of coming to earth because of sin is a Christian concept which they call, Original sin. This concept has also penetrated in some of the Islamic literature, but Qur'an doesn't seem to support it. For example, Qur'an says that when Adam and eve (both were equally responsible) ate the fruit out of temptation, they became naked and they tried to cover themselves up. Hence, they felt their sexuality a temptation for the first time. Secondly, they repented and God accepted their repentance. After learning the lesson of sexuality as a temptation, they left the Garden. The second sin was done by his son. Who killed his brother. He, unlike his parents, didn't repent but tried to hide his sin and finished up burying his brother. Qur'an presented both stories at one place together for a comparison of attitudes. A good person when does something bad, he repents and God accepts his repentance. When a bad person does something bad, instead of repentance he hides his sin. This is the whole story to the best of my knowledge. If you want, I can give your references. TruthSpreaderTalk 12:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at:[9] and [10]. These article should give you all the answers (I hope so). Both of these were published in Renaissance.com.pk. Cheers! TruthSpreaderTalk 04:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry if I disturbed you. But I am a believer that prophet Jesus died and then his body was ascended. But I just thought that the meaning of ayat was too much subjective. And I also beleived that if we need to put such a ayat, we need to put a secondary source with it as well. Because, if you put any ayat, that even seems to allude to this thing, can actually make the case in the eyes of a reader quite weak. Cheers! TruthSpreaderTalk 13:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The reason why I wrote it a "far-fetched" conclusion was because ayat says that nobody lives permanently, which even proponants of Jesus' second coming believe that it would still imply because he will come back and will die a normal death.
I am of the opinion of Ghamidi and Islahi, which I have already mentioned in the source. TruthSpreaderTalk 13:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
You're right! TruthSpreaderTalk 14:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

Thanks for your message Phippi46. As you can see from the history and talk page I have trying to put my point of view across. However on an open platform such a wikipedia things are not likely to remain static the best we can do is to try to maintain a npov in the article. I have been trying and will continue to improve on the article. You can help by editing obvious pov issues. We can't expect the article to remain as it was since others have as much right to edit it as we have. The degree of conflict currently does not require arbitration (my point of view ofcouse), let's see how things develop. I will be adding more material to the article over the next few days as and when I get the time. Best regards and keep in touch. Nazli 03:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reading different point of views

Dear Phippi46, I don't know if you could read urdu or not. Some times we get disturbed by new information which seems to be different than what we have been given throughout our lives. The quotes and references which I gave in the Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's article are all from his original writings in urdu. Please go through them if you can, otherwise go through the translations from given sources. It will never harm to know all point of views. And if you have access please ask the elders of Ahmadiyya community why haven't they uploaded the pdf versions of origional texts of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Why in most of the cases they have only uploaded excerpts at least as I know now. The sources which I gave in the article are all from origional text published by Ahmadiyya community. Please check if they have uploaded them unedited. If not ask them to upload their own books published by their own people. with Best regards, --Babbarshair 04:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Dear, Make sure you know WP:AN/3RR. Because you can be blocked. keep it up. --Mastiboy 14:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR block

You are blocked from editing wikipedia for 24h for violation of WP:3RR.--CSTAR 21:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prophecies by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

Hi, Phippi46, thank you for your message. Yes there are many more prophecies. Since so much attention is being drawn to the allegedly failed prophecies it is only fair that attention be given to the allegedly fulfilled prophecies. I do plan on adding those to the article as and when I get the opportunity. Best regards Nazli 04:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked ? for one day

[edit] No hard feelings

Dear Phippi46, I know you are disturbed by some of my contributions to the article and you strongly disagree to them. I fully understand your emotions & feelings. But similarly their are 1.4 billion muslims who strongly feel about the personality of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed. They not only consider him imposter as stated in the first paragraph of the article but also a person who has caused great damage to the image of Islam and the its last prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Therefore we should not claim exclusive rights on the article and should be mentally ready to hear and see things which we might not have before and like. The only way forward is to present your points and let other present theirs and so all the points could gather in one article. But if you consider strongly about some things and want them either changed or deleted, conflict would arise and leave us only on a destructive path. I hope you understand this. Its is ironic that we have the image of prophet and imposter combined in Mirza Ghulam Ahmed. But this is a reality and is how different people or groups beleive.


We should not only open our minds but also willing to review our thaughts. What if we are wrong? What if? It is very hard thing but will give us new insight to the world. Any way I am getting too philosophic here, I didn't mean any harm to anyone. Its just that different people feel different about someone, and its natural. I just want that we don't have any hard feelings. If I have willingly or unwillingly caused you and anyone else related to this article pain, I regret it. Good luck, --Babbarshair 01:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

Hi, Phippi46, thanks for your message. I have tired to put across my point of view on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's talk page. I would appreciate your comments. Thank you and best regards, Nazli 06:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] un-civilised comment on Qazi Hussain Ahmad page

Your comments on Qazi Hussain Ahmad page are very bad. You said:

.. a Snake with two heads.. that what Jamat is..

Please refrain from making strong statements on discussion pages. See WP:CIV --Mujahidalam 22:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

This was your 3rd revert today. See WP:3RR for help. If I report, you could be banned. Please be careful next time. And give things time, every thing is resolved in the long run. I hope you don't make it a matter of your ego. --Pinake12 12:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  • you know before you write some comments to some one you should create an account so people can reply you phippi46 12:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Please don't make personal remarks. Check WP:NPA for help. --Pinake12 12:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you mean if I suggest you to make an account is persoanl remarks ? phippi46 12:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Its good if you check the details before putting new tags. NPOV is already their and people are working on it. Its clealy mention in the guideline. Don't skip the steps. --Mastiboy 14:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ahmadiyya and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad pages

Hi Phippi46. I saw your note about the Mirza Ghulam Ahmad pages. Please understand that my edits are a work in progress. I feel the other pieces that you mentioned should also be re-written into summary style, and moved into appropriate places. I agree that the whole article is quite POV, but I don't think cramming extra POVs is the right way to fix it. We need to present all the notable, verifiable facts as neutrally as possible. But please rest assured, I don't have an agenda about Mr. Ahmad except to make the article as clean as possible. I don't want to see the article unnecessarily vilifying, nor unnecessarily praising. It should be clear, concise, encyclopoedic. Regards. --Christian Edward Gruber 16:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement! I agree that the article on prophesies of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is terrible, but it was completely reproduced in teh main article and was too detailed for just a section. I think we should concentrate on finding citations and cleaning up the language of the main page and then systematically work through the sub-pages. I'll reply from now on on the Ahmadiyya or MGA talk pages so that others can participate in this discussion. --Christian Edward Gruber 15:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic view on Jesus' death

I replied to your comments on the talk page. A lot of it was hard to understand, but I replied anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Artichoke84 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Mirza Ghulam Ahmed

Please talk to me before reverting.
I have infact made it pov by giving the criticism part some considerable weight. And I did not add my own POV nor did I add any third person's POV but I have given the 'word by word' texts from the athored books of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed. What kind of POV is it where I am giving the unaltered reference from his own books? Can you call it unjustified or wrong? You must know that there is much more critism that I have not included so that it remains NPOV. But just giving onesided detail of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed and very tiny clue of critique is highly biased attempt to make it look as if the article was written by some of Mirza's followers. VirtualEye 14:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)