Talk:Qadianism

message: Please note that it was Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad [Mian Mahmud Ahmad], son of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who declared mainstream muslims Kafirs AFTER Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had died. Also please note that the Ahmadiyya movement split because of this (among other reasons). The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement does not subscribe to this belief. Please visit their repective website for more details. Thank you. Nazli 12:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is link to one web page that will provide additional references in this regard http://aaiil.info/misconceptions/other/takfir.htm Nazli 01:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declaring "mainstream" Muslims to be "Kafirs" 

message: Although I think that what the article currently says is probably true, without looking into it in more detail - but it doesn't sound very NPOV. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is an alleged heretic - alleged by who exactly? I think it's okay to mention allegations of heresy but they need to be more substantial. Squashy 13:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  npov dispute 

message: Statements like:
*"We have summarized here some of the differences between Qadianis and Muslims."
* "It should be obvious that most of the beliefs instructed by Mirza Qadiani contradict verses of the Holy Quran -- not to mention hundreds of authentic Hadith and Islamic doctrine."
* "It is unfortunate that many of the people are unaware of this aspect of the Qadiani doctrine."
are not WP:NPOV or encyclopedic.  The article has external links, but does not indicate if they are its references, and if they are the specific assertions still need specific citations. Not being Qadiani or Muslim I have no opinion as to the validity of the claims, except to point out that this article seems to be an WP:POVFORK.  Criticism of the Ahmadi should be in that article, provided it is NPOV and sourced.  It should not be shuttled off to a separate article.  If the criticism there grows so extensive that it needs its own article, so be it, but even then a brief summary of the criticisms should remain as well as a link to the new article. Esquizombi 03:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV and sources tags

message: The list of factual errors is too long to be presented in full. However following is a partial list of gross factual errors and POV issues with the article:
1. The term "Mirza Qadiani" is coloquial and is only use by some Muslims groups when refering to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in a derogatory gashion. It is not a term in universal use.
2. Sentences such as "It should be obvious that most of the beliefs instructed by Mirza Qadiani contradict verses of the Holy Quran" have a POV bias.
3. The paragrah starting with "It is unfortunate that many.." is completely biased towards a specific view point.
4. The article menstions that "Qadianism is based on the belief that Mirza Qadiani was an improved second reincarnation of Prophet Muhammad." Ahmadis do not claim him to be in "improved" re-incarnation of Prophet Muhammad but rather a reflection of the prophet as per sufi tradition.
5. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's revelations are revered by Ahmadis but are not on the same platform as the Quran etc. The books are being transalted freely. Please see http://www.aaiil.org/index.shtml
6. Only Ahmadis from the Ahmadiyya Muslim community declare other muslims to be non-mulsims. Lahori Ahmadis do not subscribe to this.
7. virtually every bullet point has a POV or factual issue.
Siddiqui: please address these POV and factual errors. Thank you. Nazli 07:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Problems with the Qadianism page 

message: Since Siddiqui is not interested in responding to the naming issues, repeatedly highlighted by me on this talk page, I am reverting back to what I believe to be an more NPOV version of that article. Nazli 18:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No response from Siddiqui 

message: Point to note: ALL the links at the bottom of the page are Negative POVs. Im sure you could have at LEASt included the alislam.org page...AT LEAST--AeomMai 03:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All three primary Ahmadiyya pages (Ahmadi, Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement, Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad)have links to anti-Ahmadiyya websites. In the interest of maintaining a neutral point of view it is only fair the the Qadianism page has links to website from both pro and anti Ahmadiyya points of view. Also since the topic is directly related to the Ahmadiyya movement, it makes sense to add internal an link to atleast the Ahmadi page as a minimum. What are your thoughts on this Siddiqui? Nazli 03:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  links 

message: I found this page redirecting to Ahmadi, a redirect page that points to Ahmadiyya.  I changed this page to also redirect to Ahmadiyya.  If I have done something insensitive or terrible in editing to dodge this double redirect, chalk it up to the fact that I didn't know what I was doing and have no clue as to any distinctions between Ahmadi and Ahmadiyya.  I don't see that the dispute here has to do with these, which seem to me to be variant transliterations into the Latin alphabet.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Smerdis of Tlön, your edit should not cause any problems, the entire contents of the Ahmadi page were moved to Ahmadiyya recently - thanks for correcting the double redirect. Nazli (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit to protected redirect page 

message: Since there exists a page by the name Qadiani, this page deserves to be redirected to Qadiani. Peaceworld111 (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do you one better, I've unprotected the page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   00:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.Peaceworld111 (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: different redirect