Talk:Mujaddid/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

The Position of Mirza Gulam Ahmad

Ahmadi religious group is making mess with this article as they are insisting to keep the name of Mirza Gulam Ahmad in the list of possible mujaddids. Well, Ahmadis have been officially declared non-Muslims in several Muslim countries like Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Virtually all the significant Muslim denominations including Sunnis, Shi'as, Salafis, Brelvis, and Deobandis and agree that Ahmadis are not Muslims and that Mirza Gulam Ahmad was a Kazzab (Big Liar). Of course, like every religious group in the world Ahamdis are free to believe and practice what they like to but they cannot force their own religious understanding on the Muslim tradition. If some Ahamdi fellows intend to put the name of Mirza Gulam Ahmad in the list of possible mujaddids, they better qualify the inclusion something like this: "For Ahamadis Mirza Gulam Ahmad, too, is a mujaddid."Haqju (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for Wikipedia to label Ghulam Ahmad as a "Big Liar". That is the very definition of POV as the Ahmadiyya believe he was either a mujaddid or the Mahdi (depending on the group). Legal decisions in Pakistan are irrelevant. Ogress smash! 07:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right, it would not be in line with the wikipedia pov policy to declare anybody as a Kazzab (Big Liar). I am however not giving my own judgement here, positive or negative. I am only stating the position of mainstream Muslim community. You cannot censer different viewpoints in the name of POV policy.

As has been stated above, our controversy can easily be resolved. You may put Mirza Gulam Ahmad's name in the list but with the qualification that he is believed a to be mujaddid by the Ahamdi community, and not by the Muslim tradition.Haqju (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's status as a non-muslim in the eyes of most Muslims, has been stated in no uncertain terms. There is no censor of any point of view. Nazli (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

In the light of our discussion, i have made minor fixes in the article which i hope you would find fair.Haqju (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, the article is balanced and neutral now.124.109.36.88 (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added a few names from the Lahore Ahmadi website linked at the bottom of the page. They have one or two names at every century-mark; before, we missed some. It appears that some names have been attached at the wrong dates: noticeably Ghazali, whom I have listed at the right century-mark, too. This will take A LOT of work! J S Ayer (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I wana add that Mirza Ghulam has made so many statements that he is undoubtfully controversial identity. He claimed to be Mehdi than Misal Massiah than Prophet and now Mujaddid. Abrar Ahmed 18:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is considered to be a "Kafir" by main-stream Muslims. However his did claim to be a "mujadid" was serious enough to warrant attention at the level of the national assemblies by some of the largest Islamic nations. The claim continues to be the source of many emotional discussions. To understand the controversy it is essential to mention him in the list. It would be against the npov policy not to do so. His status as a non-muslim should ofcourse be clearly highlighted.Nazli 13:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Mirza G A Qadiani was not a Muslim thus he does belong in this Muslim article. If we allow all non-Muslim religious person then Jewish, Christian, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. shoould also have to be added.
Siddiqui 11:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad may or may not be considered a Muslim. This is a point of view. The fact is that he was the first person of the last Hijri to claim to be a Mujaddid. As I have stated before his claim was required attention at the level of nation assemblies of some the largest Islamic nations. The issue has continued to be the source of heated debate for decades. The very essence of the dispute regarding the institution of Mujaddid in the last century hinges around him. How can you not mention him in this article? Also since you know very well that this is a contentious issue, you need to discuss this issue before repeatedly making the same changes.Nazli 12:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
This article is about Muslim Mujaddids. Please create Mujaddid for your religion.
Siddiqui 14:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
You are not getting my point: You consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be a non-muslim. This is YOUR point of view. It is not a NEUTRAL point of view. This is an encyclopaedia with a neutral point of view. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's inclusion in the list is desirable for the reasons I have repeatedly stated above. Any encyclopaedia article about Mujaddids would be incomplete without reference to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. The article already clearly states the issue of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's Non-Muslim status. Nazli 14:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

He founded a new religion, like Sikhs Guru Nanak. In who`s book alot of poetry is from Baba Farid. Now should one also consider Nanak as Mujaddid? There are around a billion Muslims, the Ghulamiyya cult is hardly "mainstream". Mhas. 28 March 2008.

The assertion that he founded a 'new' religion is a point of view. The fact that he is considered a non-muslim by may other muslims is clearly stated. He claimed to be a mujaddid and claimed to be a muslim - in fact he was 'officially' declared to be a non-muslim by only one country a that too decades after his death. His importance lies in the fact that he generated tremendous controversy and attention and was well received by many prominent muslims of his time and his claims continue to be believed by a large number of individuals who consider themselves muslims. Whether you consider him a muslim/mujadid or not is a personal/group point of view - this does not however impact his inclusion in this article. Guru Nanak did not claim to be a mujadid or a muslim - no it will not make sense to include him in the list. Nazli (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Identifying some candidates as "the only claimant" seems to be more biased and opinionated than is appropriate. The issue of who is *actually* the mujaddid for a given century is a theological question which wikipedia shouldn't really be a reference for. The most one should really say is that the identification of certain candidates as mujaddid is held by a larger group of Muslims. I got a lot of the names from other webpages (which are listed in the reference section on the bottom) or from wikipedia entries for those individuals. For each person listed, there is *some* non-trivial group of Muslims which identifies them as a mujaddid.

This page is in DESPERATE NEED FOR IDEAS!!!
Salam all...
This page is crying for help! It needs attention! Since an expert is not coming any time soon :D we should work together to make it better. Let us remember one thing...
WHO EVER IS BROWSING THIS IS SURELY LOOKING FOR KNOWLEDGE ON THIS TOPIC!!! WHETHER IT'S A MUSLIM, NON-MUSLIM, POTENTIAL MUSLIM, ACADEMIC, OR SOME COLLEGE DUDE TRYING TO GET A PAPER DONE ON TIME :D
I did some fixing up on the page and I think it still needs more...I will explain what I did in a few days...until then...I want to see some good ideas here..! Abo 3adel (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A Mujaddid as per the Sahih Hadith states that " a person or a group who will remove all evils that have invaded the religion in its pristine form" or " a person or group that will renew the religion to its former and true self". Either ways- the focal point is to renew the religion or to remove the evils or misunderstandings that have come into a religion. Religion as preached by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) has clearly stated that he was the last Prophet. This has been quoted in the Holy Quran, there are various Sahih Hadiths to this effect. Hence, keeping this simple yet main point in mind- NO ONE can insert Ghulam Mirza as a mujaddid because all of his claims were against the Quran and the Sunnah of our Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). He did not renew the religion but he created a new religion. He claimed to be a Prophet- which is against the religion of Islam as per the Quran & the Sunnah & the overall agreement of the Muslim jurists. He claimed to be Mahdi, the Messiah which also goes against the Hadith as there will be 2 people-separate- one will be the Mahdi & the other will be Isa (AS). Hence, again this disputes the basic tenets of faith. He was a controversial figure whose name in this list has no foundation whatsoever as per the references present. In encyclopedia content- references and sources and logical reasoning is required. Since the Hadith regarding a Mujaddid claims that he will renew the religion & not add to the religion- hence this entirely obliterates Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. In regards to the Qadianis or the Ahmadi's putting his name & claiming that as per their belief he was a mujaddid- that is not correct at all. For Islamic purposes- The Quran & the Sunnah are the origianl points of reference backed up by the majority of the Ulama or the Islamic Jurists- which in the case of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is not there- hence he is not a mujaddid.--Peerbaghdadi11 (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahamadis believe Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's claims were in keeping with the Quran and hadith. The difference is in interpretation. Therefore, in their view he did not start a new religion but simply revived Islam and devoted his life to defending it which is one of the tasks of a Mujaddid. However he is as controversial to mainstream Muslims as Jesus was to the Jews. This is a matter of opinion and if this list is neutral then he should be included. The title of the list is "claimants and possible Mujaddids". He was at least the first claimant of the 14th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cal186 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Cal186 (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Cal186

Mainstream Muslims vs ALL Mainstream Muslims

There is a significant perrcentage of so called "maintream" Muslims all over the world who have either not heard of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad or have no particular opinion about him. It is mostly in Paksitan, Bangaladesh etc where there is more awareness of this issue. I would be a violation of a neutral point view if every single "mainstream" muslim on earth was included in the blanket statement proclaiming ALL main stream muslims to be in agreement on this issue. I have thus softened the statement by removing the world "ALL". Nazli 06:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, point taken- your edit is considerably better. Tanzeel 16:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

accuracy issues and possible bias

It looks like the references listed are all Ahmadiyya sites, which is by no means a mainstream sect of Islam. Are there no other sources that back these claims? If not, it should be clearly noted that this is the Ahmadiyyah perspective and does not represent Islam as a whole. Furthermore, I cannot see how this is anything other than pure speculation and fail to see the merit of it.

rima 23:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot display Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as "Big Liar." Different sects have different viewpoints of the list. People cannot enforce their personal opinions here. Therefore, using a color coded table would be more appropriate. Messiaindarain (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Wahabi and Qadiani "Propaganda"

The list constitutes the names of possible mujadids - there does not appear to be any issue of propaganda. Removal of the names would be based on a pov and hence a npov policy violation. Nazli 05:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Salafist point of view

Salam. As a Salafist, I will keep this page under close watch in order to make sure that the Salafist point of view is available for anyone who wishes to read about it. I will not interfere with any other point of view, and if it appears that I do then I apologize. This is an encyclopedia and all points of view must be given in an objective manner for all to see. Abo 3adel (talk) 08:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said above, whoever reads this page is looking for information. It is our job as writers to provide it. That's why I think that every opinion of every sect of Islam that believes in this Hadith should be mentioned. Be it sufis, ahmady, baha'ay, or salafy like myself. If you think that a name is not accepted by other groups, write that down next to the name and give references. Don't go deleting names like this anonymous user did 82.23.87.253. Abo 3adel (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The Mujaddid of the 13th Century is Ahmed Raza Khan, whose tomb is located in Bareli of India and whom many Muslims considre as a saint and mujaddid. Kindly ensure that his name remains enlisted.

That sounds good. Different groups will have different conceptions of who is a mujaddid. What this page needs most right now is reliable sourcing citing which groups believe what. gren グレン 22:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Great to finally see some response to my call :D. I will try my best to get some references for Ibn Taymayah and Muhammed bin Abd-al-Wahab. Abo 3adel (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Every time I come here I find that someone has removed some names with out giving any reasons or mentioning anything on this page. The way I see it, all points of views must be mentioned. If you think a name should be added, feel free to add it but don't remove other names just because you don't like the Salafi or whatever, give reasons, discuss, anything!!! Abo 3adel (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

All know that Gulam Ahmed Kaidani and his followers are even not considered as Muslim by the Ijma of Scholars of all the Muslims be they sunni, deobandi, shia or ahle-hadis, how far his name can be added in the list of muslim scholars, when he himself and his followers do not follow tenets of Islam and they are not muslims. "Arr-rumi"

Current additions

The recently added names and their designations are a case of duelling banjos. This is not the place to delineate sectarian/partisan arguments; I also question the use of a Pakistani law case as a cite in regard to Ahmad Ghulam, as Pakistan does not equal "all Muslims". The whole Deobandi-Barelvi rivalry issue is irrelevant as well and their venomous and vituperous debates should not be included in a general discussion of mujaddids. Ogress smash! 11:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent reversion

Please do not revert the entirety of this page to an older version. Wikipedia guidelines do not allow us to treat this page as a hagiography (giving persons elaborate titles and blessings) nor to include POV weight to any one group. Ogress smash! 18:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Does the List of "Possible" Mujaddids make a Sense?

I believe that the list of possible mujaddids, or claimed mujaddis, at the end of the article is quite unneccessary for the purpose of understanding the notion of mujaddid. For one thing, according to my knowlege no classial or contemporary source on Islam contians such a centurywise list of mujaddids and we know the fact that Wikipedia is not a forum to introduce original research. From this article, a reader less familiar with Islam can get a wrong impression that sources of the Muslim tradition enlist mujaddids for every century, which is not true.

Secondly, the list has generated a pointless editing war concerning the inclusion or exclusion of certain names. Such claims and counter-claims are hardly constructive or informative.

Therefore, it is proposed that either any of the editors find a good citation which proves that such list(s) of mujaddids is/are found in reliable source material on Islam or we agree to remove the list. Please share your views.Haqju (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please put new comments at the bottom of the page. Ogress smash! 08:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with removal of the list of Mujaddids. Possibly a reference to the widely acknowledged "mujaddid alif sani" could be made in the main text as an example. Nazli (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the list should be removed entirely. It seems obvious that each name entered into the list should provide a reference supporting that person's position as a mujaddid. This would reduce the list to a mere fraction of its current size as well as providing editors with grounds on which to remove the more absurd suggestions. I have never even heard of half of the people on the list - it seems some people are nominating their local heros without any justifiable grounds to do so. Supertouch (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont think the list should be removed as this is used for referencing and hence gaining more knowledge which is the main objective of an encyclopedia. But I do suggest that any additions to the list for the last century and the current should be backed up by references- this is a must. As just because I consider the Imam of my local masjid a hero and a mujaddid- his inclusion in this list makes no sense at all. A mujaddid as per the Haidth has to have done major work in streamlining the religion to its former original self & this should be widely accepted by a majority of the Ulama & the Islamic jurists of that time & later times. Hence, I suggest a team that would check all referencing provided by the people and their additions to the list. This should be immediately adhered to in my opinion.--Peerbaghdadi11 (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree, the list should be removed altogether, as even with references, there's still an edit war occurring. And people's favourite local sheikh is being added, with a link to his own website as supporting evidence (like mirza)! - Qadri fan (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

AHLE SUNNAH WA AL-JAMA'AH

Why is this phrase written in all caps after the majority of names in the list of possible mujaddids? For a good deal of the names this terms is apllied to it seems to have been done so rather loosely. Perhaps the term 'sunni' would be more apparopriate as its present connotation implies reference to someone who is not shiite - the manner in which the previous term seems to have been used. Shouldn't there be a requirement of some documentation for each claim instead of leaving open the very real possibility of people simply adding their personal favorites to the list? Just a suggestion... Supertouch (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Shia Point of View

I have added the names to the list of Mujaddids according to the Shia Ithna Ashari perspective. These can be found in the transcript of a lecture delivered by Shaikh Sadiq Hasan, a prominent Pakistani Shia aalim, on the life of Shaikh Kulayni as part of a series on the great scholars in Shia tradition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.52.254.145 (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The list

The list of possible mujaddids is getting out of hand. People are simply adding their favorite Islamic figure to the list - some are getting Wikipedia accounts and making their sole contribution the addition of their local 'saviour' to the list. There really has to be criteria put in place - the three mentioned in the Dihlawi quote are a sound example for how this process should go. Supertouch (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


Someone has to add Shaikhul Islam Ibn Taymyah since there many known scholars who agree that he is a mujadid.--74.57.85.149 (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mrghazi411, 12 April 2011

Remove Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from the list, both Sunni and Shia Muslims believe he was a kaffir and an imposter

Mrghazi411 (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

OPPOSE. This is not the place to delineate sectarian/partisan arguments. Ogress smash! 03:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Ogress: the point isn't whether or not he was a Mujaddid, but that he claimed, and a wide number of people believed, that he was a Mujaddid. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I also concur with Ogress and added a note after his name to clarify. Doc Tropics 18:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the note.If this note is kept up then ALL of these men will be getting notes for each and everyone of them have been called many degrading terms including apostate by many different people. Anyone who wants to study the stance of mullahs can click the name and study the wiki page. This is a list and should remain just a list. Please do not add details on the list, feel free to edit the pages of relevant personages.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Ibn Abdul-Wahhab

Although not liked by many, particularly the Pakistani, he is nonetheless considered by majority to be a mujaddid. After all, Arabia peninsula is what it is because of this man - he revived the religion and directed people from worshipping rocks / stones / superstitions back to the worship of the One God. Added and backed with references. - Qadri fan (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the talkpage to engage. The first reference you provided, an article attributed to ibn Baz, isn't ideal because it lacks any references or footnotes of its own. However, it does seem to meet all less stringent standards for a reliable source and could reasonably be used in the article; personally, I'd accept it. The only real issue I have is that after reading through it I can't actually find any use of the word "Mujaddid" in relation to Wahhab, nor mention of who considers him to be one to be one; can you help point out this info? It's possible that "Mujaddid" may have been translated as "reformer", a term which does appear in the text; is that the case?
The second reference looks less reliable, largely due to its format; it appears to be a simplistic religious tutorial rather than a scholarly document. Like the first reference, this one does not explicitly refer to him as "Mujaddid" and it does not claim that his followers consider him to be one (unless I missed something?). As such, this reference doesn't seem useful and could be removed.
The third ref, unfortunately, is a YouTube video which is specifically not a valid reference in this context according to [our policy on self-published sources].
In short, the third ref must be removed, the second should be, but I will happily work with you to strengthen the remaining ref and ensure that the material is secure. Thanks, Doc Tropics 13:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Qadianis should make a new page: titled - Mujaddid of Qadiani Religion

I ask all the followers of mirza ghulam qadiani to stop tampering with this page. if you are so insistent to present him as mujaddid, do so in a new page titled mujaddid of qadiani religion as he does not belong to islam.

Secondly, mujaddid does not claim to be a mujaddid. it is the guestimate of contemporary scholars of the time who anticipate probable mujaddids of that time. if for example, i make a claim of mujaddid tomorrow, would you also include my name on the list.

Thirdly, if Pope Benedict claims to be a mujaddid, or his followers declare him mujaddid, would you include his name on this list??? surely in this case they would have to make a new page titled mujaddid of roman catholics.

Last but not least, founder of this Qadiani cult is considered as apostate like the founder of Bahais, Druze etc. Like Mormons are not christian, similarly Qadianis, Bahais, Durze are not Muslims.

27th feb, 12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.249.126 (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The information has been restored, along with a note which explains the situation clearly: Ahmadiyya Muslims consider him a mujaddid, most other Muslims do not. This appears to be the most neutral and accurate way to present the information and is backed up by reliable sources. Please note that there are over 10 million people who fervently believe that he was a mujaddid; this is the appropriate factor for judging inclusion, not the number of people who don't believe. Doc Tropics 19:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


you dont seem to understand the arguement. if 10 million people believe he is a mujaddid or a prophet, they should make a separate page for it. why are you insistent on including him with muslim mujadids. secondly, muslims consider qadianis to be outside of the fold of islam, and same goes for the qadianis who believe that anyone who doesnt believe in mirza qadiani is outside of the fold of (their) religion. when both parties agree over their beliefs being completely different they are two completely different religions. as for mirza qadianis claim of being a mujaddid and a prophet, and 10million people supporting his claim, there should be a separate page for the mujaddid and prophets of qadiani religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.249.126 (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand the argument thoroughly and completely, but it is not a valid argument on Wikipedia. This excerpt from the Manual of Style explains why: because WP uses Self-identity to define groups and individuals; we describe people the way they describe themselves, whether Muslim, Jew, or Atheist. According to their own definitions, Ahmadiyya are Muslim. They say they are Muslims and we take their word for it. We let people and groups identify themselves. Since the Ahmadiyya identify themselves as Muslims we treat them as Muslims in all WP articles. The view of outsiders (non-Ahmadiyya) may be noted (as was done in this article), but outside views are never used to define a group. So it doesn't matter how many people claim that they aren't Muslim, we go by the Ahmadiyya definition for themselves, and treat them as Muslims.
On a seperate note, I was initially puzzled by use of the term "qadiani" as it doesn't appear in this article or any of the closely related works. I eventually found that the term is usually used as an insult when referencing Ahmadiyya and isn't really appropriate in this venue. Even for talkpage discussion we prefer scholarly terms, or at least neutral ones. Calling people naughty names because you don't like their beliefs does nothing to bolster your case. Doc Tropics 15:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
After revising the case, it appears that Ahmadiyah have appropriated the term Mujaddid for themselves whereby in reality it is in total abrogation to what the term denotes. Mujaddid is classically defined as "a person who appears at the turn of every century of the Islamic calendar to revive Islam, remove from it any extraneous elements and restore it to its pristine purity." however it is misused heavily to instead honour influential people or famous celebrity status icons however this is not what qualifies a Mujaddid. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad "claimed that he was the Mujaddid (divine reformer) of the 14th Islamic century, the promised Messiah and Mahdi awaited by Muslims." however people can claim what they wish, the fact is this individual did not return Islam "to its pristine form" as what Mujaddid denotes, he instead founded his own ideology, religious tradition and so on. I hope you understand the reason I have removed him from the list, I am considering created a section for "Mujaddid claimers" for persons throughout history who has supposedly been seen proclaiming reviver.Sakimonk talk 00:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Splitting into 2 separate lists, one titled "Recognized Mujaddideen" and one titled "Disputed Mujaddideen" isn't going to work. That type of separation is called a POV fork and isn't allowed. Since millions recognize Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a mujaddideen he needs to remain on the list. Thanks, Doc Tropics 13:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Honestly Ahmadiyah are a unique sect unto Islam in comparison with Sunni Islam, I very much think it is appropriate to have a secondary section prehaps discussing the recognition of MGA as a mujaddid in ahmadiyah tradition as opposed to Sunni Islam which certainly does not since he is regarded as an "outright heretic" to quote in the lightest terms (please note this is not a personal attack).Sakimonk talk 01:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I've added ahmadiyah tradition at least to denote he is regarded a mujaddid by their standards but distinct from Sunni IslamSakimonk talk 01:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Semi Protection from Vandalism

I propose a protection for the lines "Mujaddid of 14th Century", which is under constant abuse and vandalism.


Mujaddid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Drali1954 (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)



--Drali1954 (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -- TOW  talk  17:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Nafaji

@Nafaji, you are requested to read the talk page here discussing why it is unacceptable to blank the claim of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a Mujaddid.--Peaceworld 19:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Peaceworld, please respect the views of majority Muslims around the world. You are intentionally including Gulam Ahmed in this list. Download the latest version www.themuslim500.com/download, go to page 28 and also read the fatwa. Gulam Ahmed claimed himself Mujaddid, Masiah, Mahdi and Messenger. Because he claimed himself a Messenger, for this reason, are you going to include himself in Prophets and messengers in Islam.

@Nafaji, Have you read the discussion above such as this Talk:Mujaddid#Qadianis_should_make_a_new_page:_titled_-_Mujaddid_of_Qadiani_Religion?--Peaceworld 20:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
@Peaceworld, Yes I have read this. Listen, Mormons believe Joseph Smith as their Prophet. There number is more than a million. Are you going to include his name in Prophets of Christianity?
@Nafaji the list is of claimants and possible Mujaddids. --Peaceworld 21:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
@Peaceworld, I have sent an email to wiki volunteers regarding this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nafaji (talk • contribs) 21:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Pushing Sectarian POV

Hi user:BiKaz, your edits are pushing sufi only viewpoints and also enabling non muslims to vandalise this page by placing qadiyani people as mujaddids which is incorrect academically. Stop removing the original text of this article, you're spamming the edit history and I will have to report you for edit warring soon. Sakimonk talk 23:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

What about you? Your not pushing salafi only viewpoints? its like the pot calling the kettle black. Misdemenor (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I've included both sufi and salafi, he is removing all salafi scholars and only putting sufis; I've only removed Qadiyani people from the list because they shouldn't be listed under Islam, it's like listing the Pope or the Cheif Rabbi as a mujaddid. Sakimonk talk 00:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The qadiyani's believe they are muslims and should be listed as such. This is why it is important to have NPOV editors. As for Bikaz he has a love and hate relationship with salafis. Misdemenor (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Qadiyanis are NOT muslim and this is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL edit, no reliable source in the world considers them as muslims. They are the same as Nation of Islam in the US or Sikhism or Bahai etc. which are religions which have been influenced by Islam but are novel fabrications and nothing to do with the actual islamic faith. Sakimonk talk 00:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes Qadiyanis are not muslim and neither are the Salafis but the good thing is I know not to inject these beliefs on wikipedia articles. As that would be considered POV. I will attempt to prove you wrong when you say no reliable sources exist that consider them muslims. Just give me some time. Misdemenor (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The term "Qadiani" is a religious slur and should not be used on a Wikipedia talk page. If you mean Ahmadiyya you will see from the article on them that it is well sourced that they are an Islamic movement. That mainstream Muslims may disagree is irrelevant to how they are described on Wikipedia. DeCausa (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi DeCausa, they are not part of the religion Islam according to any sources at all. They are as relevent to Islam as the Nation of Islam is or Jim Jones' religion is to Christianity lol. I challenge you to find any text that regards them as part of Islam anywhere. Qadiani isn't a slur it is the name given to people who follow this religion because the only people in the world (about 99% of them anyway) who follow it live in the town Qadian where their leader Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was born - the religion Islam however has nearly 2 billion followers accross the entire globe. Sakimonk talk 22:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, if shias don't even bother listing their people on this list, why should a totally different religion be listed on here. Sakimonk talk 22:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Also qadiani is literally the only term people EVER use when discussing them, the term ahmadiya is only ever really used by people who follow that religion. Telling us not to use qadiani is an absolute joke. For some more information (since you claim to be a lawyer) look at this official Pakitani government document, it is used in official Pakistani documents Pakistan Penal Code Chap. XV "Of Offences Relating to Religion" pp. 79–81 Sakimonk talk 22:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Here's a quote "(1) Any person of the Quadiani group or the Lahori grou (who call themselves 'Ahmadis' or by any other name who by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation- " Sakimonk talk 22:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sakimonk, you are being very parochial and narrow in your perspective. There is a world outside Pakistan. When you say "the only term people ever use" you are talking about people in Pakistan and the rest of the sub continent and the Pakistani diaspora . It is not a term used elsewhere, and when it is used it is considered derogatory. We do not use derogatory terms about any group in a Wikipedia talk page and anyone continuing to do so will find themselves at ANI. As far as the quote from the Pakistani government is concerned, are you not aware that Pakistan is subject to strong global criticism of its attitudes and treatment of the Ahmadiyya? Returning to the main point, we do not base Wikipedia on Sunni and Shia views on this, or at least certainly not exclusively. Firstly, we go by self-identification. Secondly, we go by the WP:NPOV balance of WP:RS which includes western and non-muslim sources. As you can see from the Ahmadiyya article consensus is to describe them as an Islamic movement, but noting that most muslims reject this. Here are some sample sources:

  • Valentine, Simon (2008). Islam and the Ahmadiyya jamaʻat: history, belief, practice. Columbia University Press. p. xv. ISBN 978-0-231-70094-8
  • Morgan, Diane (2009). Essential Islam: a comprehensive guide to belief and practice. Greenwood Press. p. 242. ISBN 978-0-313-36025-1

This is how they are referred to across Wikipedia: look at Islam#Denominations, Muhamad (notes 1 and 2 in the lead) and the Ahmadiyya article itself. DeCausa (talk) 07:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that they aren't muslim, the term mujaddid means "reviver" - this is a term used for people who "revive" - breaking off from Islam and inventing a different religion isn't reviving, that is separatism. Also if you go my self identification, what about people who have self identified as the mahdi (which happens very frequently) or the nation of Islam self identifying as muslim even though they literally have nothing to do with islam what so ever. How can you classify a religion followed in two towns (qadian and parts of lahore) as part of Islam just because they name themselves as Muslim. It's literally like classifying Black hebrew israelites as Jewish just because they call themselves Jewish. Sakimonk talk
have a read of this [1] it shows how far away from Islam these people are. Sakimonk talk 17:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Your Salafist Fatwa website is not reliable. DeCausa is right. Misdemenor (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
You should get peaceworld's opinion on the matter since he isn't a muslim but a qadiani ahmadi. Sakimonk talk 21:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected the page

I have locked the page for three days to stop the edit warring. Several of the editors at this page are in danger of getting blocked. Remember that edit warring is forbidden regardless of whether you are "right" or not; you can get blocked for continuously reverting the other person, even if you are sure your version is correct and theirs is wrong. You have three days to work out your differences. First you need to stop insulting each other and discuss things in a respectful manner. --MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi user:MelanieN, in simple terms:
  • Disagreement: others disagree but my edit is clearly the most in line with WP:NPOV as it has all the different legitimately recognised movements of Islam included (Sufi, Salafi etc.). Bikaz's edit removes all salafi people form the list and some Sufi and all Deobandi people form the list which violates WP guidelines.
  • Agreed: Everyone here agrees, and according to all authoritative texts on Islam, that mirza ahmed is a kafir and shouldn't be listed here as he is an icon from the religion known as Ahmadiyya. Just as the louis farrakhan is a kafir and head of the religion Nation of Islam - it is a common misunderstanding due to nomenclature but both are nothing to do with the actual religion Islam.

It would be nice if the admins took a review of the edits. Sakimonk talk 21:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Er, "evreyone here agrees...that mirza ahmed is a kaffir and shouldn't be listed here". That's not quite true is it! And btw, Admins can't involve themselves as admins in content disputes eg adjudicate. MelanieN's role, if she chooses to be involved further, would only be in relation to dealing with further poor behaviour. DeCausa (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: Sakimonk's edits are disruptive. After you explained to the users that Qadiani is a religious slur, instead of refraining from using that term, Sakimonk re-edits that page here. Secondly he/she repeatedly relabels Ahmadiyya as a seperate religion such as here and here.--Peaceworld 11:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Peaceworld111: Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah (God) and His blessings. Hi dear, I would like to know your opinion about my version, and if you have a better idea?! Your suggestions would be highly appreciated and your cooperation intents would be welcome, thanks!

First Century (after the prophetic period) (August 3, 718)

Second Century (August 10, 815)

Third Century (August 17, 912)

Fourth Century (August 24, 1009)

Fifth Century (September 1, 1106)

Sixth Century (September 9, 1203)

Seventh Century (September 5, 1300)

  • Ibn Daqiq Al-Eid (1228–1302) Considered by Jalal-Al-Din Al-Suyuti. Taj al-Din al-Subki maintained that the Muslim community had agreed that Ibn Daqiq al-'Id was a mujtahid as well as a mujaddid. Ibn Daqiq "was a mujtahid mutlaq with complete knowledge of legal sciences" (Tabaqat, VI, 2, 3, 6).
  • Ibn Taymiyyah Considered by Salafists. Ibn Taymiyya and his disciples such as Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya faced critcisim by their Shāfi'i contemporaries such as Taqi al-Din al-Subki [d. 1355] and Taj al-Din al-Subki [d. 1370].

Eighth Century (September 23, 1397)

Ninth Century (October 1, 1494)

Tenth Century (October 19, 1591)

Eleventh Century (October 26, 1688)

Twelfth Century (November 4, 1785)

Thirteenth Century (November 14, 1882)

Fourteenth Century (November 21, 1979)

@BiKaz: Thank you for your prayer. Perhaps if you could have a list of people you want to add and a list of people you want to remove with WP:RS, then it'll be easier to discuss it through. Peace.--Peaceworld 15:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Peaceworld111: Thank you so much for your kind support and understanding. YES, I have RELIABLE sources! :) As for Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni, Moinuddin Chishti & Ibn Arabi: have FAKE sources! But even if there are reliable sources for them, reliable sources are not enough, there must be a CONSENSUS of opinion among all Muslims around the world! The opinion of the majority is decisive, and of primary importance, and resolves any conflicts. And as for Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi & Mirza Ghulam Ahmad they are NOT accepted by the majority of Muslims worldwide, and they were NOT born in the fourteenth century! Anyway, this is just my humble opinion, as a moderate Muslim. Salam (Peace).--BiKaz (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

No, Peaceworld means you need to produce your sources for other editors to review to see if they satisfy our reliable sources criteria set out in WP:RS. No names will be added to the article without a reliable sources citation. DeCausa (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Ahmed Barelvi is not accepted by muslims worldwide? Why then do the barelvi claim over 200 million members? Please research more on the topic before posting. Misdemenor (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
@BiKaz: @Misdemenor: there is no requirement for such and such to be recognized by a consensus of Muslims. As long as the individual is notable and has declared himself to be Mujaddid and/or is considered by a significant group of people to be Mujaddid, that person should be placed on the list. What is lacking is WP:RS.--Peaceworld 08:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I suppose you want to add Jim Jones to the list too right? Sakimonk talk 14:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Neither you, Sakimonk, nor BiKaz appear to have any clue how Wikipedia works. We don't go by "Muslim consensus" or "Muslim majority opinion". It's as simple as that. If you don't like it I suggest that there are other websites that might suit you better. DeCausa (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Sakimonk:, @BiKaz: I've reverted your edits back to the version protected by MelanieN. I predict you're both heading for a block if you continue like this. Don't make any changes until there is consensus on the talk page. And BiKaz, regarding your edit summary, as previously explained to you the test is not tge consensus amongst Muslims. We must reflect the opinions of reliable sources and that covers non-muslim sources. DeCausa (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This is an absolute joke and heavily academically flawed

The two "mujaddids" of the fourteenth century are both extremist and heretical sectarianists who are rejected by the majority of sunni muslims. The rest of the actual mujaddids are all removed from the list because for some reason my edits are censored. Why is this? My version lists every single school of thought and it is the most accurate. The current one is a POV car crash and embarrassing to even look at. Shame on you admin User:MelanieNfor enabling such an abuse of the WP:BRD and violating WP:NPOV guidelines. Sakimonk talk 21:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh it might get you banned. Raza has 200 million folowers and your saying he is rejected by the sunnis? Why are they extremist? Is it because they reject the heretical Salafist brand? Misdemenor (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
200 million followers? No he doesn't. It just happens the parts of Pakistan controlled by the British didn't let sunni madrasas get founded by Deobandis until recently. The muslims just followed whatever was the norm and it happened to be braelvi'ism but most pakistanis are now getting educated and leaving it. Sakimonk talk 22:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The source on Barelvi article says it has 200 million followers. Dont tell me its a conspiracy etc. Your theories are all original research and does not reflect the academic position. The reason Salafism is growing is mainly because the gulf countries have enough wealth to spread it. Barelvi and other traditional brands of Islam are not getting any external support from gulf countries. Your edit puts Barelvi on par with Qadiyani which is ridiclous. Barelvi are not forbidden from doing hajj unlike the Qadiyani. Misdemenor (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
No I don't think brelvis are anywhere near qadianis.The vast majority of brelvis I believe are Muslims inshaAllah and just ahlus sunnah who are uneducated and fall into many mistakes (like doing acts of bid'ah). It's only the senior brelvis which are very dangerous and need to be warned against. I.e. people who worship graves, call upon other than Allah, slaughter for other than Allah etc. The idea of believing that Muhammed SAWS is everywhere and knows the unseen is also extremely heretical. Brelvis need to learn proper hanafi fiqh and learn the aqeedah of Ahlus sunnah and understand tawhid and what shirk is. The biggest problem is hindu influences that lead many brelvis to imitate them. Sakimonk talk 02:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Instead of attacking Deobandis you should genuinely learn from them how they pracitce Islam. Better yet, proper salafis who are in touch with proper orthodox sufism like Sheikh Maghamsi. Sakimonk talk 02:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I have neutralized the language about Imam Ahmed Raza. I have written with reliable sources about his actual followers who accepted him. Though there was no need to prove it but Majority of south Asian Muslims who are more than Arab Muslims follow him as Mujadid and a great Sufi master. Sakimonk, you may need to study his actual faith and belief from his original writings not from Wikipedia which displays sometimes POV of those who don't follow. He was against doing Sajda at tombs and opposed many practices through his Fatawas. He was accepted as such through out Arab world. read here ScholarM (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind listing him so long as its made clear he is only a mujaddid in the eyes of sufis / brelvis and not mainstream muslims. Also if you are going to list sufis why are we not listing salafi mujaddids like Muhamed ibn Abdul wahab who actually fulfilled the role of a mujaddid by reforming the whole of arabia literally. This is extreme POV to only list sufis. Sakimonk talk 17:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2015

Thirteenth Century (November 14, 1882) Muhammad Rashid Rida (1865–1935) Mahmud Shaltut (1893–1963) Muhammad Abu Zahra (1898–1974) Muhammad Al-Tahir Ibn Ashur (1879–1973)

Fourteenth Century (November 21, 1979) Muhammad Metwally El-Shaarawy (1911–1998) BiKaz (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have locked the article again due to the POV edit warring. Please use this talk page to work out what the article should say - not to argue about who believes what. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources and not on our own beliefs. I suggest you use this section to propose the actual language and references you believe should be in the article, and others can discuss it based on whether the sources are reliable and neutral as Wikipedia requires. Ideally the sources should be scholarly, rather than praising or condemning any person or practice, or promoting any particular religious point of view. If you cannot agree, you could take it to WP:Dispute resolution or seek some other neutral referee. But please keep the conversation here strictly about what wording should be in the article, not to attack each other or to argue about religious beliefs. --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

What I am saying is list ALL OF THE MUJADDIDS FROM ALL OF THE SECTS. I personally only regard the sunni ones as mujaddid and reject the rest but I am happy to list all of them according to NPOV so long as each is made clear about who regards them as mujaddids. Sakimonk talk 17:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
So what you are suggesting is that controversial names - such as people that are recognized by some branches of Islam but not others - should have a parenthetical note with a reference. I would strongly advise against any derogatory comment like "but not recognized by other Muslims". Example:
  • "Name of person (recognized by Sunni Muslims)<ref>" or possibly *"Name of person (recognized by Sunni Muslims only)<ref>"
What would the rest of you think of language like this? --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that would be a reasonable way forward if properly sourced. DeCausa (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Jami' At-Tirmidhi Ibn 'Abbas narrated that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: "Allah's Hand [i.e. divine aid, help and support] is with the Jama'ah."

The word Jama'ah means the main body of the Muslims, the majority group or the consolidated majority of the community.

Extended quotations from hadith
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Chapter: What has been Related About Adhering to the Jama'ah (the general community of Muslims)

Ibn 'Umar narrated: " 'Umar delivered a Khutbah to us at Al-Jabiyah. He said: 'O you people! Indeed I have stood among you as the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) stood among us, and he said: "I order you (to stick to) my Companions, then those who come after them, then those who come after them. Then lying will spread until a man will take an oath when no oath was sought from him, and a witness will testify when his testimony was not sought. Behold! A man is not alone with a woman but the third of them is Ash-Shaitan. Adhere to the Jama'ah, beware of separation, for indeed Ash-Shaitan is with one, and he is further away from two. Whoever wants the best place in Paradise, then let him stick to the Jama'ah. Whoever rejoices with his good deeds and grieves over his evil deeds, then that is the believer among you.'"

Chapter: What Has Been Related About The Splitting That Will Occur In This Ummah

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr: that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: "What befell the children of Isra'il will befall my Ummah, step by step, such that if there was one who had intercourse with his mother in the open, then there would be someone from my Ummah who would do that. Indeed the children of Isra'il split into seventy-two sects, and my Ummah will split into seventy-three sects. All of them are in the Fire Except one sect." He said: "And which is it O Messenger of Allah?" He said: "What I am upon and my Companions." Sunan An-Nasa'i Chapter: Seriousness of Fighting for a Cause that is Not Clear It was narrated that Abu Hurairah said: "The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'Whoever parts from obedience, and splits away from the Jama'ah and dies, then he has died a death of Jahiliyyah. Whoever rebels against my Ummah, killing good and evil people alike, and does not try to avoid killing the believers, and does not pay attention to those who are under a covenant, then he is not of me. Whoever fights for a cause that is not clear, advocating tribalism, getting angry for the sake of tribalism, and he is killed, then he has died a death of Jahiliyyah.'"

Sunan Abu Dawud Chapter: Explanation of the Sunnah

Abu `Amir al-Hawdhani said: Mu`awiyah b. Abi Sufiyan stood among us and said: Beware! The Apostle of Allah (PBUH) stood among us and said: Beware! The people of the Book before were split up into seventy two sects, and this community will be split into seventy three: seventy two of them will go to Hell and one of them will go to Paradise, and it is the majority group. Ibn Yahya and `Amr added in their version : “ There will appear among my community people who will be dominated by desires like rabies which penetrates its patient”, `Amr’s version has: “penetrates its patient. There remains no vein and no joint but it penetrates it.”

Chapter: Fighting Against The Khawarij

Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri ; Anas ibn Malik: The Prophet (PBUH) said: Soon there will appear disagreement and dissension in my people; there will be people who will be good in speech and bad in work. They recite the Qur'an, but it does not pass their collar-bones. They will swerve from the religion as an animal goes through the animal shot at. They will not return to it till the arrow comes back to its notch. They are worst of the people and animals. Happy is the one who kills them and they kill him. They call to the book of Allah, but they have nothing to do with it. He who fights against them will be nearer to Allah than them (the rest of the people). The people asked: What is their sign? He replied: They shave the head.

Sunan Ibn Majah It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: “There will come to the people years of treachery, when the liar will be regarded as honest, and the honest man will be regarded as a liar; the traitor will be regarded as faithful, and the faithful man will be regarded as a traitor; and the Ruwaibidah will decide matters.’ It was said: ‘Who are the Ruwaibidah?’ He said: ‘Vile and base men who control the affairs of the people.’” http://sunnah.com/urn/1341710

It was narrated that Abu Dharr said: "The Messenger of Allah said: 'There will be people among my Ummah (nation) after me who will recite the Qur'an, but it will not go any deeper than their throats. They will pass through Islam like an arrow passing through its target, then they will never return to it. They are the most evil of mankind and of all creation.' " 'Abdullah bin Samit said: "I mentioned to Rafi' bin 'Amr, the brother of Hakam bin 'Amr Ghifari and he said: 'I also heard that from the Messenger of Allah.'" http://sunnah.com/urn/1301740

Chapter: The great majority

Anas bin Malik said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) say: ‘My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.’”

The majority of Muslims through history to today are Ash'aris and Maturidis. ALL the mujaddids (reformers) through history were Ash'aris and Maturidis.--BiKaz (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Lol Sakimonk talk 05:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
BiKaz, I've hatted your quotes from Hadith because they are completely irrelevant to a Wikipedia discussion (as well as being too long). It's irrelevant how you interpret them, see WP:OR. The only sources that will be relevant here are preferably modern secondary scholarly sources that specifically state "X is considered to have been a mujaddid". By "scholarly", I don't mean a religious source advocating a particular religious point of view. DeCausa (talk) 09:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment

MelanieN, I see that you have removed the "Note" which was against "Ahmad Raza Khan" even though it was sourced to RS. I'm sure you have your reasons, perhaps as an admin you wanted to restore to a version when there was no edit warring. However leaving a derogatory note against the name of only one person is akin to censoring of Wikipedia and highly highly POV. Perhaps you can remove the note that is still present. To be frank there should not be any notes like this which say "who rejects him". There should be notes saying "who accepts him".

  1. Ahmad Raza Khan:(**** to ****).(citation/ref)Accepted by Barelvi's(citation/ref)
  2. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad:(**** to ****).(citation/ref) Accepted by Ahmadi's(citation/ref)

If a decision is made just to leave a note on one person and remove it from other, or a decision is made to add notes which are not the exact same, I'll be forced to take this to DRN, and Arb. I mean come on, even a blind man can see that leaving a "note" on only one person is against NPOV. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: You are right that I left that because it had been there for a long time, but you are also right that it is inappropriate to specify who doesn't accept him - along the lines that we were discussing above. How about something like this? It has too many references, but I don't know which ones to leave out. If we can agree on this wording and reduce the number of references, I will put it into the article in place of the current entry. --MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

*Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835–1908)[1][2][3] (recognized by Ahmadi Muslims[4])

  1. ^ Rippin, Andrew. Muslims: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. p. 282. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ "The Promised Messiah". Al Islam.
  3. ^ "Claims of Hadhrat Ahmad". Al Islam. Chapter Two
  4. ^ "British Government and Jihad" (PDF). Al Islam.


@MelanieN: I don't want to sound like a a whining POV editor here, but I think we should remove the note altogether, there is only one "note" and that too was added without getting any consensus on TP. Secondly if we are going to put in a note with him, there should be one with "Ahmad Raza Khan" too, with the same wording because they are roughly the same i.e accepted by thier followers but not accepted by their opponents. Thirdly, if a note is a 'MUST HAVE' then the text you have is quite NPOV. Removing the last ref and putting the first two refs at the end ought to make it look better. I hope my reply is not too overbearing, just wanted to get my point across. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean that you whitewash everything. NPOV means you provide both sides of the argument. The vast majority of Muslims consider ghulam mirza to be an outright heretic, a kaafir, an apostate, a false prophet, a minor dajjal, one of the human shayteen, a puppet for the british colonialists of the era, champion of kufr and atheism and so on (these are not explicitly my words but I am just setting the context). Some people in lahore consider him to be the hindu god krishna and hence they worship him and consider him their prophet. Other ahmadis consider him to be a messiah (mahdi) and consider him to be a prophet who is equal in footing to the actual prophet of Islam Muhammed (SAWS). Others consider him to be only a messiah but consider ghulam mirza to be a mujaddid. Sakimonk talk

OK, you are right that there should not be just one name with a "recognized by" note. So I will remove it for now. Hopefully we will be able to get agreement here about what names need such a note, and what additional names could be added with such a note. I gather you agree that a "recognized by" or "accepted by" format would be the way to go, without any "...and not accepted by..." comment. --MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@MelanieN:. Yes, I agree with you on that. If there is going to be a note then it should show who accepts them. However, I am against such notes to be frank as they introduce POV. But that is my personal opinion and other editors have all the right to disagree with it, I'll leave it upto you to decide if consensus has been reached on insertion of notes or not. Ty for removing the POV note btw. Cheers. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hadrat Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates the Noble Prophet (upon him peace and blessings) said:
  • “Allah shall send for this Ummah at the head of every hundred years a person who shall revive their Deen for them”.
  • I support the pre edit warring position that is much neutral and with out any bias. More over Imam Ahmed Raza was accepted Mujadid by pre Wahabi Ottoman era Arabian scholars who were belonging to Shafi, Hanafi, Maliki and Hambali.
  • Shafi’I Imam of Masjid al-Haraam Shaykh Salih Jamal al-Layl Makki (d.1320h/1884) greeted him and said: “I swear by Allah, I can see the light of Allah shine in your forehead” and presented Ijazahs to him.
  • The absolute Shaykh of all teachers” by Shaykh Ismail Makki.
  • “The encyclopedia of all sciences” by Shaykh ‘Ali bin Hassan Maliki, Mufti of Makkah city
  • “A giant Imam and well learned man who is an expert in the sciences” by Shaykh Yusuf Nabhani, Mujaddid of Sham & Mufti of Lebanon. ScholarM (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
That's your POV mainstream Muslims however do not agree with many things he and his followers introduced. Sects like brelviism are represented so why aren't wahhabi or deobandi?Sakimonk talk 08:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Its your understanding. Factual position is that Barelvi is just a name given to traditional south Asian Muslims who believes in Tawassul, Dhikr, Ziarah and in Mawlid. Ahmed Raza was only a reformer like other Sunni reformers. South Asian Muslims (Barelvi) accepts all Sunni authorities except authorities of Wahabism and Deobandis. ScholarM (talk) 09:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This discussion will be a lot more effective if we can all stop using POV/exclusionary words like "mainstream Muslims" and "heretic". Let's just present the facts. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Very apt comment, User:MelanieN. What individuals believe is or isn't mainstream, or even what they believe is or isn't majority - as no survey of the doctrinal views of 1.5 billion Muslims has ever been taken nor is it likely possible - isn't important here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • FACTS: Fire does not mix with water. Clay does not mix with gold. Hypocrisy does not mix with honesty.--BiKaz (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

MelanieN posted this in the above thread:

So what you are suggesting is that controversial names - such as people that are recognized by some branches of Islam but not others - should have a parenthetical note with a reference. I would strongly advise against any derogatory comment like "but not recognized by other Muslims". Example:
  • "Name of person (recognized by Sunni Muslims)<ref>" or possibly
  • "Name of person (recognized by Sunni Muslims only)<ref>"
What would the rest of you think of language like this?

Could people please comment specifically on this (rather than making sectarian remarks or posting from hadith or the Qu'ran quotes which they think justifies their position - both are completely irrelevant. DeCausa (talk) 08:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support the proposal (and both options). Seems a reasonable way forward. DeCausa (talk) 08:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support first proposal "Name of person (recognized by Sunni Muslims)<ref>" or simple name of person. ScholarM (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • High Support (As a Last resort, not as norm) I don't like to waste talk page space by saying the same thing again and again, but my previous comment may not have been read by all. I am against inserting notes altogather. It creates POV. This is my personal opinion. But if notes are a must then Melanien's text is appropriate. I Highly support it if notes are a must. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I think anything like this needs a proper RfC so that other interested parties can comment, as it isn't an issue related only to this article. In fact, it really should be done at Wikiproject Islam. Doug Weller (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
This is what I originally suggested but no one wanted to listen. If we want to stop edit warring just make sure that anyone who is considered a mujaddid is listed but with a disclaimer. Like the very appropriate one for followers of the ahmadite religion, their prophet is listed but it is made clear that it's only accepted by certain people. Sakimonk talk 01:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

why was my edit reverted now?

I did exactly as requested by the admins yet FreeatlastChitchat reverted it again with the pseudo claim of it being 'endorsed by editors'. I've not reverted it again because I don't want to edit war. Sakimonk talk 22:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It was reverted because you "sneakily" added different notes which were highly POV. remove the POV notes and feel free to add the text. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@Sakimonk: no admin reqested you to do this. Firstly, a content change should be made by WP:CONSENSUS of all editors, not just admins. Secondly, if you are referring to the above proposal (the thread I began) your edit is nothing like that. Thirdly, there is no consensus acceptance of that proposal yet. In fact Doug Weller (who happens to be an admin) has put forward the view that broader editor input is needed for such a proposal such as an RfC at the Wikiproject. DeCausa (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I didn't sneakily add any notes they were just carried over from the other version. Also I genuinely thought I was doing something in line Ruth the request. Sakimonk talk 13:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 September 2015

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mujaddid&oldid=680129958 BiKaz (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

BiKaz, Did you not see that the protectected edit template says " Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus."? Neither are true in this case. DeCausa (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC) @Mr. Stradivarius:
For over a month, I have been waiting for the consensus!--BiKaz (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Which probably means you're not going to get it, and and your edit has been rejected. DeCausa (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Keep dreaming! :)--BiKaz (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
You're the one complaining that "for over a month, I have been waiting for the consensus". Who's dreaming? DeCausa (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: Just wait and you will see. "O you who believe! Seek help through patience and prayers. God is with the steadfast." [2:153] BiKaz (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmm...God edits Wikipedia? Excellent. DeCausa (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Mirza Ghulam is not Mujaddid

Mirza Ghulam is not Mujaddid, the Albanian scholar, Al-Albani deserves a spot in the list, I will try and find the source. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, try to find a reliable source and we will put Mr Bani on the list. Emphasis on the reliable part here btw. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
There is no reliable sources compiling modern Mujadids as far as I'm aware, usually they are based on top scholars opinion, I'm surprised Mirza Ghulam is included here, which I doubt he is a Mujadid, you have to be Muslim first, not Ahmadi Muslim. Albani and Deedat should be in his place in this article. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Alexis Ivanov well then your awareness needs to be remedied not this article. And you can doubt him as being a mujadid as much as you want, as long as RS says he is a Mujadid, he stays. You can see from this TP that numerous attempts to remove him have been met with utter failure and some have resulted in blocks for disgruntled POV pushing editors. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
There should be a controversy section in the article, like the Arabic Wikipedia, since many people object to him, not those who want to remove him from the article but other Muslim scholars. The Arabic Wikipedia have different people, which I'm looking at. Mirza, Ibn Taymiyyah and Razi are controversial figures. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Also in what way is Mirza a Mujaddid? Mahdis are not Mujaddid Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Almost every single person on this list has been called a heretic/kafir/non muslim and an all round bad guy by people who did not like him, that does not mean we start to include their Utter Bullshit in wikipedia articles. Furthermore this is the English wikipedia, not the Arabic one, so welcome to the free world. Also, your personal opinion does not matter on wikipedia, instead of starting a debate which has long been settled read the previous discussions. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Well that isn't the case if some of them have brought lots of people to question their eligibility of being a good Muslim especially on the level of Mujaddid. So it's better to have a section for those people at the end of the article.

that does not mean we start to include their Utter Bullshit in wikipedia articles.

We are simply compiling what people say, in some way Martin Luther calling Muhammad is Utter Bullshit yet it still exist in the Criticism of Muhammad article, it's no different than this one and countless articles about controversial subjects. It should be included or else it brings a false impression that these people are agreed upon that they are Mujaddid.

Furthermore this is the English wikipedia, not the Arabic one, so welcome to the free world.

Some Wikipedia languages are better than other languages, there is a German Wikipedia for an Indian knife but not for the English which I'm trying to create, Ukranian Wikipedia has better list of the Ukranian Cossacks than the English Wikipedia, and the Arabic Wikipedia has more people considered to be Mujaddid. So other langauge Wikipedia is good to look at.

Also, your personal opinion does not matter on wikipedia, instead of starting a debate which has long been settled read the previous discussions.

I will try to dispute that Mirza is Mujaddid in the near future, it is only references two things, a book, which I will try and acquire and an article talking about Mahdi and no mention of Mujaddid. and the controversial section is still important especially when the likes of Mirza and Ibn Taymiyyah are there. On the other hand Imam Shafi doesn't bring any controversy or at least as big as Mirza and Ibn Taymiyyah, even if you find someone hating on him it's not worth putting there. It will take finding sources and so on Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@Alexis Ivanov you can read the previous attempts to push POV, they are right here in the Talk Page. Even then, feel free to find a source which says that "Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib Alaih Salam is NOT a Mujaddid". Unless and until you find such a source, he stays in the article and you cannot remove him. YES, it may hurt your personal feelings, but we cannot do anything about that on wiki. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I will study the previous discussion,
Even then, feel free to find a source which says that "Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib Alaih Salam is NOT a Mujaddid".
Of course you will never find such thing. I will have to review the sources mentioned in the article, before moving
he stays in the article and you cannot remove him.
He can stay in the article but he will not stay as Mujaddid to all Muslims. There should be notes and his controversial aspect addressed, he can never be put on the same league as Imam Shafi and other Mujaddids.
YES, it may hurt your personal feelings, but we cannot do anything about that on wiki.
It doesn't hurt my feeling at all. Thousands of hungry and impoverished kids around the world make feel sad not words in the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis Ivanov (talk • contribs) 08:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@FreeatlastChitchat: The Arabic Wikipedia shouldn't really be a hindrance. The RS policies shouldn't be vastly different. I'm quite amazed that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is not listed there.--Peaceworld 19:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
It's because he is not Mujaddid, he is claiming he is one and calling himself Mahdi, various Mujaddid were called Mujaddid by others not by themselves. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: Wikipedia states in its guidelines on neutrality, see CONTENT FORKING. The article should reflect all opinions and viewpoints with fairness and impartiality, rather than emphasize one viewpoint.--TheDestroyer10 (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Pepperbeast: Stop deleting/reverting sourced content, please discuss it first. Thank you!--TheDestroyer10 (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@TheDestroyer10 your edit is not according to policy, neither does it adhere to any consensus. So you should stop FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani

Shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani (470/1077-572/1166) should be included within the section of the reviver of the sixth century. This man had a huge influence across the Muslim world during and after his lifetime, and is probably the most famous Sufi saint of all time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibnshaadi (talk • contribs) 18:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Le== "failed verification"? ==

User:TheDestroyer10 can you clarify your tags? And Cram101 kindle study guides fail WP:RS entirely. Doug Weller (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Excuse me, can you please explain why "Cram101 kindle study guides fail WP:RS entirely"? Anyway, this is not the problem here, I can find other sources. PLEASE check the sources of these names: Moinuddin Chishti, Ibn Arabi, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani. They may be great scholars, but they are not mujaddids.--TheDestroyer10 (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@TheDestroyer10: - We don't use self-published sources which these seem to be for a start. If you disagree with me you can always ask at WP:RSN. You haven't answered my question about the failed verification tags. Doug Weller (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: This is what is written on WP:RS: 

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

  1. The piece of work itself (the article, book)
  2. The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
  3. The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

As for your question about the failed verification tags, the answer is simply because their sources are FAKE, see Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes.--TheDestroyer10 (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@TheDestroyer10: Let's put it this way. You have 163 edits, I have over 145,000 edits, so it is likely I know more about our guidelines and policies than you do and don't need to be told about them. As for the book being a hoax or fake, it's published by one of most respected academic publishers so that argument is frankly nonsense (not an attack on you, just the argument). A failed verification tag is only to be used when the text is not backed by the source. If you think the source fails our criteria for sources, use {{vc}} or {{rs}} which add: [unreliable source?] but explain on the talk page why you've tagged it. You must only use it when the source clearly fails our criteria, et a self-published work. Doug Weller (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Stop edit warring!

The page is fine as it is user:BiKaz, user:DeCausa can you please explain to this guy that the page needs to contain an objective list that includes all sunni traditions including deobandism and salafism. BiKaz you keep deleting deobandi and salafi scholars because you don't agree with them!? Keep your opinions to yourself, you don't own this page. Go write a book if you want but this is a public source of information. Sakimonk talk 22:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

fourteenth Century?

I don't understand the two entries under Fourteenth Century (Nov. 1979) as their stated lives don't overlap that daye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.79.239 (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mujaddid/Archive_1&oldid=1136253050"