Talk:Ahmadi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Links and articles section 2 Views of Mainstream Muslim section 3 Mirza Mahmud used the term "outside the pale of Islam"... 4 Summary of multiple edits 5 Sunni?

[edit] Links and articles section

Most of the links in the "Resources on other sites" section plus the all the links in the "Articles" section can easily be identified as being Anti-Ahmadiyya. I've moved these links to the "Anti-Ahmadiyya External links" section. 67.168.108.126 08:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Anonymous

[edit] Views of Mainstream Muslim section

This Artical was created to present information about Ahmadies. So it should be contain strict Ahmadi general information, the section "views of mainstream muslim" is not related to this artical. so in my view should be removed, and can be put in other, more related artical. phippi46 17:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to present information from a neutral point of view. The fact is that Ahmadi beliefs are source of great controversy among many Muslim groups. It would be a violation of the npov policy not to mention so called "mainstream" Muslims views. Nazli 03:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Nazli how can a belief creat controversy among muslim. if they want that, then its possible, however this is long discussion, my suggestion is only that we put this section more related artical like criticism on Ahmadiyyat, where only this nature of information is presented. no body is talking completely removing from wikipeida. phippi46 13:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes having a separate article for criticism of ahmadiyyat could be done. However even if this is done there will need to be a summary of "main-stream" views in the Ahmadi article with a link to detailed information in the main "criticism" article to maintain a npov. If you feel strongly about this go ahead create the article on anti-ahmadiyya views. My feeling is that given the controversy surrounding ahmadiyyat we will end up replicating detailed anti-ahmadiyya information in both the Ahmadi article as well as the new “criticism” article. Also the anti-ahmadiyyat article will end up being a soap box for radical extremist views that will be difficult to monitor for pov edits. Nazli 04:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mirza Mahmud used the term "outside the pale of Islam"...

Mirza Mahmud Ahmad of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has clearly stated that he considers Muslims who do not believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be “Kafirs”, he then goes on to use the term “outside the pale of Islam”. The following translation of his words is taken from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's own website:

“(1) that I propagated the belief that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was actually a Nabi; (2) the belief that he was 'the Ahmad' spoken of in the prophecy of Jesus referred to in the Holy Quran in 61 : 6; and (3) the belief that all those so-called Muslims who have not entered into his Bai'at formally, wherever they may be, are Kafirs and outside the pale of Islam, even though they may not have heard the name of the Promised Messiah. That these beliefs have my full concurrence, I readily admit.”

(from the English translation of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s book A’inah-i Sadaqat, entitled The Truth About the Split, pages 55–56, http://www.alislam.org/library/split/part1.html#refute)

Nazli 04:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Nazli I read this page on the address you mentioned, but you forgot to write the title of this paragraph and it is clearly mentioned there "Alleged Innovations", if read the other paragraphs, it will be clear what he meant with it, I think it is not fair just to take one small chunk of large discussion. phippi46 12:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly it is not one small chunck of a larger discussion - these are three solid statments defining his beliefs. The discussion later on is an elaboration of his beliefs. In the latter discussion he essentially reaffirms his statement in a round about way:

"As for the question of Kufr (unbelief) of non-Ahmadi Muslims, my belief is that Kufr really arises from a denial of God. Hence, whenever there comes any revelation from God of such a nature that its acceptence is obligatory on every man, a rejection of the same leads to Kufr. Belief in such a revelation, however, presupposes belief in the bearer of the revelation. Hence it follows that a belief in the bearer of such revelation is a necessary part of one's faith. The man who rejects a prophet thus necessarily becomes a Kafir, not because he denies the truth of any particular prophet X or Y, but such denial will necessarily lead him to reject a revelation of God."

He essentially wants you to believe in all prophets. Since he believes that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a true prophet any non believers in him are hence Kafirs according to him.

From the perspective of presenting information for a neutral point of view and to be fair to "main-stream" Muslims, the fact that the term "Kafir" and the statement "outside the pale of Islam" was used Mirza Mahmud Ahmad to refer to other Muslims is of paramount importance. The article does mention the context in which these terms were used.

Nazli 13:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes he cleared his position in later part of this discussion. However, one thing is intesting, there are not many versions of this story, there are only two of them, and I think you will agree with them. i) Because so called Main-stream Muslims belief there will be no Prophet after Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) so its give them right to declare Ahmadies Non-Muslim ii) Mirza Mahmud Ahmad is telling that "if Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani is a true Nabi in sence, what he cleared.. then it is necessary to take him as one, and not doing will put label of Kafir .." I hope you understand my meaning.. regards phippi46 16:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is not clear. The crux of the matter is as following:

(1) It is confirmed that Mirza Mahmud used the term "Kafir" for non-believers in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's qualified/modified prophethood.

(2) It is confirmed that Mirza Mahmud used the term "outside the pale of Islam" for non-believers in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's qualified/modified prophethood.

(3) It is confirmed that Mirza Mahmud considered belief in all prophets essential to be called a Muslim.

(4) It is confirmed that Mirza Mahmud considered Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be a true prophet in every sense of the word except that he did not bring a new law.

(5) Hence according to Mirza Mahmud anyone who does not believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet is a "kafir" and "outside the pale of Islam"

(6) It is also confirmed that Mirza Mahmud declared all such people to be "kafirs" and "outside the pale of Islam" even though they were not even aware of the existance of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

(7) The fact is that many Muslims today do not consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be a prophet. Also many Muslims believe that he was a apostate. Also many Muslims may never have heard of him.

(8) Hence According to Mirza Mahmud all these people are "kafirs" and "outside the pale of Islam"

The issue here is not whether Mirza Mahmud's point of view is right or wrong, or wherether Mirza Ghulam Ahamd can be considered a true prophet or apostate or metphorical prophet.

The issue is that an edit was made to the Ahmadi article which added the following sentence:

"However main-stream Muslims saying the Kalima are referred to as "Kafirs" (but not Non-Muslims) in the context of their non belief in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet, the Mahdi and Promised Messiah."

This sentence is factually incorrect as is evident from the statement "outside the pale of Islam" made and verified by Mirza Mahmud. Hence my edit to revert this addition to wikipedia.

Nazli 03:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have removed POV statements from this artical. Wikipedia is not a platform to called some one heritical, it is against the wikipedia policy. phippi46 13:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of multiple edits

I have reverted some recent edits for the following reasons:

1. The two Ahmadiyya movements claim to be within the fold of Islam. The fact that many Muslims consider them to be non-muslims is clearly stated in the article. It would a NPOV violation for Wikipedia to make a judgement on this by removing the term Muslim / Islam realted to the movents.

2. The official / legal name of one of the Ahmadiyya movements is "The Ahmadiyy Muslim Community". Deleting the term "Muslim" from the name of the organization is absurd.

3. The Ahmadiyys movement's claimed objective is the revival of Islam. You may or may not agree with it - however the fact remains that the movement claims this as it objecive and since this article is about the movement it makes not sense to delete this sentence.

4. The fact that Ahmadis have been persecuted in many countries is a well established documented fact. Why would one want to remove references to this from the article?

5. Ahmadi beliefs with reference to alleged abrogation of the Quran, precedence of Hadith over Quran etc are well documented. It is absurd to remove references to this from the article.

6. Replacement of the term "Main Stream Muslims" or "Orthodox Muslims" with only "Muslims" is a NPOV violation. This implies passing a judgement on the status of Ahmadis. Also many Muslims have no particular beliefs regarding Ahamdi's or are not aware of the issues involved or harbour beliefs similar to Ahmadis in some respects. Using the blanket term "Muslims" would be unfair to them.

Nazli 18:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

With reference to the reply by Yusaf465 to the above issues [1]

1. At no point does the article say that Ahmadis consider other Muslims to be "Main Stream Muslims". Rather the term "Main Stream Muslims" is a term in general usage to refer to the a Majority of Muslims with closely linked beliefs. There are many splinter groups that do not subscribe to some of the "Main Stream" beliefs but are still legally Muslims (even in Pakistan). Thus you cannot include them with other Muslims (for the purpose of this article at least). Hence the usage of the "Main Stream" to refer to those Muslims that harbour the exact beliefs stated in the article. (more on this issue in point number 6 below)

2. No issue here.

3. Please do let me know if I can clear up misunderstandings on this issue once you have given it some thought.

4. The fact is that even though there was physical persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan / India / Bangaladesh before the law was passed, the volume and intensity of persecution increased after that. Persecution in the Ahmadi's work environment (i.e. promotions being denied etc) really came into effect after the law as in place. Despite these well established facts, at no point does the article blame the Pakistan government or the law.

5. In the late 1800's and early 1900's there was widespread belief among most Muslims groups that certain verses of the Quran were abrogated by other Quranic verses or by Hadith literature. (a belief still prevalent among some groups today). Mirza Ghulam Ahmad at that time put forward his belief that no verses of the Quran could be abrogated and that in all matter of fiqah the interpretation of the Quran had precedence over hadith. This was one of the main agendas of his movement. Hence it is vital to mention this in the article. The article clearly states that these are Ahmadi belief with out making a judgment on the beliefs of other Muslims. It does not make sense to remove this vital issue from the article.

6. As an example, take the "Main Stream" Muslim belief that Jesus was taken to heaven by God where he waits to descend down to earth (in the flesh) at the end of time. Ahmadis do not believe this. They believe that Jesus dies a natural death and will not return in the flesh. This was originally an Ahmadi belief but is now shared by a large number of people who are legally Muslims in Pakistan who subscribe to the belief propagated by the Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic Sciences [2]. This group is guided by Javed Ahmad Ghamidi who was until recently a member of Council of Islamic Ideology, Pakistan Government.

I hope the above clears up the confusion. I did not quite understand your example using Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah in the context of the Ahmadiyya Movement. I would appreciate it if you could please elaborate on that. Thank you.

Nazli 04:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

With referernce to Yusaf465's comments on my talk page [3].

I believe that there is a misunderstanding on your part. I did not say that I believe the Quran to be abrogated. Rather this was a belief which was widely held by Muslims until relatively recently. Even today some groups hold on to this belief. You asked for references in this regard. Wikipedia has a very extensive article on this which will help answer your questions: Naskh.

Regarding your comparison of AlQaeda and Hezbollah's denial of the term "terrorist" as applied to them, to the Ahmadiyya movement's use of the term "Muslim" as applied to themselves. I believe that the comparision is unfair for the following reasons: AlQaeda and Hezbollah are organizations which kill innocent people etc - an act which is unacceptable in all civilized cultures of the world. Hence using the term "terrorist" to describe these movements is entirely valid even though they themselves do not subscribe to it.

In comparision the Ahmadiyya movements do not pursue a policy of violence in any form and in contrast believe in a very peaceful definition of the term 'jihad'. Their personal religious beliefs are not universally condemned like those of AlQaeda. The commparision is hence unfair.

Regarding your statement about Ahmadis not being legally allowed to use the term "Muslims" for themselves. This law has only been passed in Pakistan. In most other parts of the world there is no such restriction. Also as you well know the decisions of the national assembly of Paksitan are subject to massive bias as is evidenced by it manipulation by every government to ammend the constitution of Pakistan in its favour. Hence they lack international credibility.

I am not denying that Ahmadi's are declared by Pakistani law to be non-muslims. What I do argue against is a blanket application of this decision as a basis of passing judgement on the Ahmadiyya Movements in Wikipedia.

Saudi Arabia does not allow people with Non-Muslim stamped on their passports to perform the pilgrimage. Since Paksitan issues such passports, Paksitani Ahmadis cannot perform the Hajj / Umra. However Ahmadis from other countires of the world do not face this restriction.

Regarding your definition of a Muslim being one who believes in the unqualified finality of prophet hood. If this is the case then members of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement have to be considered Muslims since they harbour this belief.

Regarding your belief that any group having beliefs similar to the Ahmadiyya movements needs to be evaluated to determine their status as Muslims. I respect your personal belief, however I don't see what that has to do with use of the terms "Muslim" and "Main Stream Muslims" in wikipedia.

Nazli 09:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

With reference to comments by Yousaf465 on my talk page [4]

Thank you for clearing up that your example regarding Al Qaida and Hezbollah had to do with how the media has portrayed their organizations. However I am still confused as to how this applies to the Ahmadiyya organizations?

There are multiple interpretations of Islamic law - also your reference to geo's islamic programs is a little confusing in this context?

The definition of terrorist may or may not include the US military, that is a POV - however what does this have to do with the Ahmadiyya organizations?

You have misunderstood my point regarding the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement. I was was not saying that they should be considered Mulims. What I was saying was that according to the definition given by you they fall within the fold of Islam.

Please elaborate on your statement: "About your point that LAH should be considred as Muslim then i would like to says if anybody today claim to deny holocaust then he is sent to jail so pl widen your knowlege and think of this example". How does some who denies the holocast relate to the Ahmadiyya movement?

Not all Muslims are followers of Abu Handfia.

Also with reference to your statement: "So how do you consider follwers of a condemmend person to be Muslims", Please try to understand that, as I have already explained above, I am not saying that any of the Ahmadi's are Muslims. I am merely saying that if one is use the straight forward definiton of muslims given by you: "muslim in this context is one who do testify in Finality of Prophethood", the issue of declaring someone a non-Muslims is not that straight forward, since if you use this criteria the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement would need to be considered as Muslims.

Nazli 17:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sunni?

Are the Ahmadi Sunnis? --Striver 11:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you could classify their belief as having Sunni characteristics. That is, they have no issue with the sequence of succession after the prophet's death. Nazli 13:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have removed some non-related info for this paragraph (In the start of the Artical), as the same information is clearly mentioned in another paragraph phippi46 21:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)