Talk:Mirza Masroor Ahmad/Archive 1

Untitled
Please do not delete this talk page even if the article is deleted! Since the article keeps getting recreated, the comments here are useful even if the article does not exist. Thue | talk 06:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a valid link to a portrait of the named Mirza Masroor Ahmad, why deletion????


 * Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. If you want to write an objective, factual article about Mirza Masroor Ahmad, feel free. But a link is not a suitable Wikipedia article. --Diberri | Talk 16:18, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * These days, it's a copyvio. Currently in the process of reporting it ... - Vague | Rant 08:58, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Including the last report, this has now been reported and deleted as a copyvio 6 times, plus speedy deleted once. Thue | talk 09:18, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * And again... Thue | talk 08:20, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And yet again Chiacomo 03:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Again--Duk 08:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Again. RedWolf 04:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Again! I speedied the copyvio and I am protecting this page. If somebody want to create a non-copyvio version of this page then ask for the page to be unprotected at administrators noticeboard. Thue | talk 17:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to assume the copyright violator has wandered off, and this looks like a legit topic, so I'm removing the protection and {deletedpage}. CDC (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Copyvio again... Thue | talk 07:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Again. I have the page on my watch list for the same reason... Thue | talk 06:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * when will be this page free for editing with original contents... phippi46 13:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Might as well delete the current page now as a repost, to make way - edit away! Thue | talk 19:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Further Copyvios
I've deleted several revisions of this page that were created from copyright violation text. This issue has not died off. alphachimp 19:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just delete word "islam" from this article and no body will report against this article for deletion. BilloBaby (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Non-copyvio version
The current version seems to not be a copyvio. Thue | talk 21:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ahmad.png
Image:Ahmad.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

add
old He married Amatul Subuh Begum, daughter of Amatul Hakeem (daughter of the second caliph).

new He married Amatul Subuh Begum on 21st January 1977, daughter of Syed Daud Muzaffar Shah and Amatul Hakeem (daughter of the second caliph).

Friday Sermon of 30th January 2009
new On the 30th of January 2009, Mirza Masroor Ahmad gave a polemic sermon addressing the Bahá'í Faith in which he repeated an earlier call to avoid members of the Baha'i community made by Mirza Tahir Ahmad whom Mirza Masroor referred to as 'Huzur' stating, 'Huzur concluded we should always avoid these people...' Daniel De Mol (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I understand that this is unclear, out of context and inaccurate. The full picture isn't given and completely random. Peaceworld111 (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peaceworld111, 1. It is clear. 2. It is in context 3. The full picture is given 4. There is nothing random about it. 5. I call on you to fill your heart with the unfettered fear of God and then either leave it in the article or justify your statements. In this regard my blog http://danieldemolsblog.blogspot.com/ may assist you to determine if anything I have stated is innacurate. Daniel De Mol (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, again. I have no intention to argue you over your blog as this is wiki, but note the English rendering is only a summary of an hour or so long Urdu sermon. But with regards to your edit, I have already justified the reson behind the removal - I have checked the reference carefully and have come to know that by just editing a phrase as you did sends out the wrong message. If you wish to keep it please edit the summary behind it, otherwise I shall remove it in one or two days. Thank You. Peaceworld111 (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact here is the actual 18 page Urdu sermon - I just noticed. Basing your edit on the English summary will be quite inaccurate. So, infact I shall remove. If you have an over-riding argument, present your point - so we can discuss it before anything is added. I will remain neutral. Thanks, once again. Peaceworld111 (talk) 10:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peaceworld111, 1. I did not edit the quote, i copied it across directly from the English translation published on the official Ahmadi website www.alislam.org 2. Regardless of whether that was the whole sermon or only an extract which wasn't stated on the website, if only the sections polemic to the Baha'i faith were published, then it requires only a minor edit to say that the section of the sermon addressing the Baha'i faith in a polemic manner was published, deleting the section under such circumstances is clearly unwarranted. 3. If you have no intention to discuss this with me it leaves me with no choice but to go to wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Daniel De Mol (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, again. First of all notice that you are quoting with speech marks from a summary page. Those are obviously not the words of the speaker. Anyway, it seem you have misunderstod me. You said I did not edit the quote, i copied it across directly from the English translation. When did I say you edited the quote. What I have been trying to say is that you have not given the background with which that phrase was said. I don't know if you misuderstood or you are ignoring me. If you are ignoring me, I feel that your intentions are just to give a bad light to Ahmadiyya community. So please, either make the edit neutral, or remove it. It simply cannot stay in its current situation. Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I tried to bring the article to neutrality. If you still disagree please mention. From your edit to my edit, there is a world of difference in the meaning precievied by reader - it follows the reference much more accurately now. I hope your satisfied.Peaceworld111 (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peaceworld111, 1. Word 'always' added before 'avoid these people' 2. Quotation marks widened as appropriate 3. Word 'polemically' added before word 'addressing' 4. Section further edited for neutrality Daniel De Mol (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, removed word 'alleged'. Evidently these experieces weren't fake. Bye then Peaceworld111 (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peaceworld111, 1. If the Baha'is said those things to Masroor then prove it. Do you have a recording of the conversation? If not then it is an alleged conversation. Think about it. Why would Baha'is say that monogamous Abdu'l-Baha made His second wife a sister when He never had a second wife? Please see section titled 'family life' in above link to Abdu'l-Baha article if you are in doubt concerning His monogamy. 2. There are many faith communities in which the Ahmadi faith has been denounced whilst the authors of such denunciations have avoided what Masroor would percieve as faults found within their own faiths. Examples of this are orthodox brands of Islam, Hindus such as Arya Samaj and others, Christians and so on. From amongst the above mentioned faiths some have even setup anti-Ahmadi pages in which they have spoken in a derogetary manner about the Ahmadi faith. Although the Baha'i community has not authored anti-Ahmadi pages it is this community which has been singled out from amongst all others for avoidance, why not avoid Hindus, Sunnis, Shias, Christians etc etc if this is really about Mirza Basheers interfaith experiences? 3. 'allegedly' has been re-added, removing it again until you can prove the Baha'is said these words given their highly unlikely nature is wiki vandalism. Daniel De Mol (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I am not here to discuss all those issues, that require pages upon pages of arguments. But with respect to the word 'alleged', I think your argument is taking it too far. Equally it can be said that the 'Alislam.org' website is an 'allegedly' Ahmadi website, as there is no tape recorded evidence. It can equally be said that thousands of references all over wikipedia is 'alleged' with respect to the 'events' - as there is no tape evidence.
 * What I'm trying to say is that why do you trust half the stuff in the reference and half you don't trust. You should be looking through the perspective of the reference. Within the confinement of the reference it is not 'alleged' or is it? For now ill revert your edit - I think this way it remains a more neutral article. Thanks. Peaceworld111 (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've been thinking over this issue again over the last few days. Does it really deserve to be in this article? Re-opening the issue, I don't think that it belongs here. It does not seem deserving to be mentioned here. Initially I think that it is only one person's pure interpretation, i.e. you and second of all it seems to me that it has been given undue weight.Thanks. If you disagree please discuss.Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I also think that this mention is out of context and unnecesary here. If someone insists then i can provide a book published by the Bahai Publishing Trust Pakistan which is specifically targeted against Ahmadies (Bahai Mazhab or Ahmadiyyat-Ek Taqabuli Jaiza), and is full of slander to say the least, as it believe neither that book deserves any mention on the Bahai faith page nor this deserves mention here, because the topic of Ahmadiyyat & Bahaiyyat is a long one and to provide one statement from a lengthy topic is unfair and unnecesary. I can give references if someone asks. Thanx Sohebbasharat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Any source?
Mirza Masroor Ahmad had two brothers: Mirza Idrees Ahmad and Mirza Maghfoor Ahmad and two sisters: Amatul Qudoos and Amatur Raoof.

Signature
Assalam-O-Aleikum Peaceworld111, the signatures of the Kulufa are selected from books and letters of the Khulufa. How can you say that those were fakes? --Ceddyfresse (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Because I have the signatures of khulafa and I know that they do not match. For evidence, please give the name of books that you have recieved the signatures from and I will check it up.Peaceworld111 (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

What signatures do you have? --Ceddyfresse (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

the last two khalifas and so the rest are also likely to be fake. I cannot find the signature of Mirza Tahir Ahmad (but I do have it) and I know that his signature isn't in arabic (KHUDA TALA).For Mirza Masroor Ahmad, I have the signature right in front of me. Just provide evidence and Im ready to accept it, i.e. books and page numbers. Peaceworld111 (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

well I have two letters in front of me of the 5th Khalifa and they do look the same ... i was searching for a old letter of the fourth khalifa but i only find one with the signature of the private sectary... but i am searching.... well the signatures i have uploaded were from the khilafat-jubilee 2008 essay "Jamaar-e-Ahmadiyya aur Nizam-e-khilafat" which got the 7th place in Pakistan. it has been published on 27 may 2008, Lahore, Nashr: Sheikh Tariq Mahmud Pani Pty. The book begins with pictures of the khulufa and than it follows with the headline "Tabarakat" and then there are listed the signatures. --Ceddyfresse (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Now i know what i have made wrong. I cut the wrong half of the picture look her:



thanks for recognicing it! --Ceddyfresse (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The signature for the 5th Khalifa still doesn't match to the 'many' letters that I have - so i'm not going to accept any of them. The evidence that you have provided cannot be checked, I tried searching and could not find anything. I would like a real proof that I can check - preferably from a Ahmadiyya website - (as there is a lot of anti-Ahmadiyya wrong details on many websites). Furthermore it seems as if all the signatures are there to depict something negative about the Khulafa of the Ahmadiyya. E.g. initially 'Khuda Tala'in arabic for the 4th Caliph and a 'Moon' shape for the first Caliph. Peaceworld111 (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a scan. I also have many letters by the fourth and fifth caliphs. The signs of the fourth caliph show great variation but they do match! If you have counter evidence produce it! As long as you dont provide counter evidence please refrain from editing and ascribing bad intentions to others! Dawoodmajoka (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not difficult to produce fake scans. Please provide evidence that is available in websites - preferable Ahmadiyya websites. If I scan a modified page with a signature of any world leader, say Barack Obama, will you accept it, no. What evidence will there be that those scans are true. How can I produce a counter evidence if you have not even provided any evidence. Simple, just give a website link - not hard? Peaceworld111 (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is wrong attitude. Ceddyfresse has provided exact reference. With name of publisher and date of publication. That is enough evidence. You also do not have scans or links to all the other books quoted here. If you have counter evidence, well and good. Else, you can not insist. Same rule shall apply to all quotes and references. Dawoodmajoka (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

But this is a controversial issue that has been raised - all the signatures seem to depict some sort of negativity towards the Ahmadiyya Khulafa as I have explained earlier. Please don't ignore what I'm trying to say - provide evidence that can be checked to such a controversial issue, i.e. a website link to an apprpriate page. Which books have not been given reference to - please provide evidence and i'll try and clear that up too. As I have explained earlier that it is not difficult to provide a fake scan even a date and name associated with it (i.e. publisher date and name - made up). I am not asking for a difficult task - only a simple link. Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I thought, why would you say, that you have not the same signature of the 5th khalifa while I have the same and than I recogniced, that you meight have a letter of the private secretary?


 * Is this the reason for the misunderstandings? Refrence of singnature of Hazur from website of the Jamaat:
 * khuddam.de
 * I hope you believe me now, that the signature of the 5th Khalifa ist right -.- Ceddyfresse (talk) 11:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I dont read anything negative in the signatures of 1. or 4th Caliph as well. Dawoodmajoka (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The signatures are not exactly the same. e.g. look at the the right side, i don't see a triangle shape on the website and on the left side, I don't see lines separate and although the signatures do look slightly similar, I have to say they do not look the same. If you wish to put a signature on, I would ask you to replace with the one on the website. Thank You.

However, I must say the signature still doesn't match the signatures that I have on letters and other things.Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Also you stated the source of your signature from an essay and in the actual source stated to the signature is Makhzane Tasweer - two completely different things. But remember to replace it. Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I am done with you. If you still cannot accept, that it is likely that signatures vary, than I feel sorry for you. If you have something to show that show it. I have given enough evidences. --Ceddyfresse (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And now pleace regard carefully:

--Ceddyfresse (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * nuuruddin 04/2006
 * nuuruddin 01/2007
 * nuuruddin 03/2007


 * I am still at total loss, as to how he/she can read what he/she read in the signature of 4. caliph??? Enough evidence has been provided by now. As he/she does not bring counter evidence, no need for further debate. He/she has been already warned by the german wikipedia admins due to edit war. Dawoodmajoka (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The signature that I have matches the letter that is on the left in the second link rather than other letters? Maybe because it is a letter in English rather than Urdu. I'm sorry for the long debate, but at least it got me somewhere. Now that solves the problem. The signature that I had was the other one. Sorry once again, for using too much of your time. Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

2010 Ground Zero Mosque Contraversy
Does anyone which Sermond Hazoor said the following: ''If a mosque is built at the proposed site, then the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community would like to see churches, synagogues, Hindu places of worship and places of worship of all other religions also built near Ground Zero. That would be a good example of how from an act of evil and terror has emerged unity and peace.'' I've taken a quick look through the Friday Sermon summarys but can see it. Khurramchaudhary (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Mistake
I think there has been a mistake under the section "Family,marriage and children".Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad's brother Mirza Maghfoor Ahmad is not deceased. He is a practising surgeon in US. Can some one kindly rectify this mistake, I will be really greatful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.45.48.99 (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No need to write the whole excerpt from Review of Religions
Mentioning a whole excerpt from Review of Religions about the thanksgiving money is too excessive. I feel it is not necessary. I am removing the passage. If you think otherwise, please discuss here first. Thanx

Letters to World Leaders
I think that the letter to world leaders section contains intricate and redundant details. I propose that all the subheadings be removed and converted into a paragraph. like in the heading of "letters to world leaders", it can be mentioned briefly what was the purpose and what was mentioned in the letters and then mentioning the people who were sent the letters instead of mentioning each person as a heading and writing similar things beneath them. Please discuss this idea here. I dont want to change it before discussing


 * Yep, I agree. Go ahead. --Peace world  19:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Key Speeches
This needs some major trimming. As it stands, there's almost nothing about the content of the speeches and a lot of WP:PEACOCK about what terribly important guests attended. Pepper Beast   (talk)  23:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The same applies to the letters he wrote. If nobody answers, they are not of great relevance.Derim Hunt Derim Hunt 09:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, I agree with you.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  17:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hazrat-Mirza-Masroor-Ahmad-724x1024.jpg
 * Replaced with a free file. Praxidicae (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Religious title
Qadanis are not Muslim because they do not follow the teachings of prophet Muhammad (S.A.W) So why Wikipedia has written them muslim Anonymous 13310 (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , because they say they are. There's no reason for us to take sides in this debate so we don't. If you are here to deny the way they self-identify you'll be blocked for violations WP:NPOV..  Doug Weller  talk 19:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * They we declared non-muslims in 1973. First go and do some research. I am Pakistani and I know them better than you. What if a Christian say that he is a Muslim will you believe? Anonymous 13310 (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , the Pakistani government's opinion on the matter isn't particularly important with regards to someone's self-identification. Stop the NPOV violations. PohranicniStraze (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If he is Muslim then he is not a caliph. In Islam a caliph means a person who rules the province of Hejaz which is in Saudi Arabia. So he can't be a caliph. Please make changes or stop writing him a caliph. He is not a ruler of Hejaz now so how he is a 5th caliph Anonymous 13310 (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * See List of Caliphs. I'm well aware that most sects/denominations within Islam reject this, but Wikipedia treats Islam the same way it does Christianity. Many sects/denominations within Christianity reject others and say they are not really Christian, but we ignore them. The main difference is that there are no Christian states where the church has the power to outlaw other Christians. Doug Weller  talk 13:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Quick warning for anyone here: muslims on twitter want this page to be removed so beware of vandalism on this article and this talk page. • • rslashthinkong (User page) (User talk page) 14:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion moved into standalone section & reformatted for ease of reading Darren-M   talk  14:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

He is caliph of 20 million Ahmedeya, but 24 percent of the world population (Muslims) don't agree on that. He can never be a caliph of Islam. Raja.cj (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And? The article doesn't say he's the Caliph of Islam.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  11:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

How is him Caliph of Messiah??? The world knows one Messiah that's Jesus Christ but according to Ahmadiyaa beliefs it's none else but Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadyani... Isn't it ??? Please respect others and keep the Wikipedia safe of ambiguous statements. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 12:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The article states that he is Caliph of Messiah according to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, which I believe is correct. Majavah (talk!) 12:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Druth.... this article is ambiguous and isn't clear on Messiah plus it also states this person Caliph or Islam and Amirul Momineen. Since when has he been made to the position of Amirul Momineen ??? You know as per Islam Amirul Momineen is a political position and apolitical like stated here. In short this article has problems and need to be made clear for the Wikipedia users. Instead that dubious tags are removed, people threatened and reported for edit warring without any reason. Isn't it ??? Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Content
The word "islam" should be removed from this article because its a new religion. As violence is spreading due to this article in India between ahmdiya muslims and Islamic Muslims, because on searching "current caliphate of Islam" google answers "This personality". While, caliphate system had been endend since couple of centuries ago. BilloBaby (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not Google. Issues with the search results are a matter for Google, not us. Ahmadiyya is sufficiently sourced as part of Islam; that will not be changed. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Please don't remove dubious tags
Removal of dubious tags without answering my query won't help. Please make sure these tags are only removed after Messiah is explained here for general public who isn't Jesus Christ but Mirza Ghulam Ahmed according to Ahmadiyaa beliefs. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The article states that he is the current and fifth leader of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (emphasis mine). Also the words Fifth Caliph of the Messiah are linked to Ahmadiyya Caliphate, which in turn is linked to Messiah. I personally don't see how that could be confused with the Christian meaning of the word. Majavah (talk!) 12:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You may think it's not confusing but others may not agree. Better atleast leave here.  For christians Messiah is Jesus and for Muslims also but for Ahmadiyaa Messiah is Mirza Ghulam Ahmed so please better if Ahmadiyaa belief is pointed to here. It would make it unambiguous. Regards  Azmarai76 (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Secondly, please don't remove dubious tags without discussion there are other people who fake care of these tags one by one after scrutinizing each. You need not to do it yourself nor everything should be taken as edit warring. Edit war is something when I had fiddled with the text of the article. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , there is absolutely nothing dubious about the statement that His official title within the movement is Fifth Caliph of the Messiah; who that messiah is is irrelevant for the statement you are trying to dispute here. There is also nothing dubious the fact that Ahmadiyya is a sect of Islam. was entirely correct to remove those tags. I agree that this article needs work, but the official title and the fact that Ahmadiyya is – whether people like it or not – a sect of Islam by virtue of the fact that they consider themselves one and are widely described as such, are not amongst those problems. Blablubbs | talk 13:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Good so you agree with me that honirifics like Amirul Momineen and Caliph of Islam isn't what should be mentioned here??? Amirul Momineen is a term used for leader of the whole Islam not only one minor sect. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Similarly, why not explain what Messiah is according to Ahmadiyaa beliefs... not Jesus Christ. Else is this personality can have nothing to do with Jesus ??? Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * third, how can threatening anyone of blocking over Wikipedia be justified for only putting dubious tags??? Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , Honorifics should not ideally be used in running text without explanation, however I agree with Users and  above on the misplacement of tags. There is nothing wrong in using titles or styles in the infobox which usually lists them for personalities as used within specific religious/political or other contexts on Wikipedia, especially when linked to their respective articles. The articles on Ottoman Caliphs (see: Mehmed V for example) gives similar honorific titles, including Amir al-Mu'minin, the use of which was/is equally if not more vehemently contested by Wahhabi/Salafi and shia Muslims. And one would be hard-pressed to find anyone who confuses Kayser-i Rûm ("Caesar of the Romans") as used for Ottoman emperors with pre-Islamic Roman emperors. -- Sirius86 23:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * K5IntlBaiat.jpg

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2020

 * Official Ahmadi Community Caliph website
 * Official Website of the Ahmadiyya Community
 * Preaching peace and tolerance in the face of persecution
 * Pakistani parliament declared the Ahmadis Quadiani as non-muslim Muhemmedasfandyar (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ No, we're not removing the words "Muslism" and "Islam" from the external links. FDW777 (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2020 (2)
mirza madroor ahmed is not a Muslim. he belong with ahmedi religion, and ahemdis are worst enemy of Islam. so please remove this information from wikipedia. Mr.urfi (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌ FDW777 (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 December 2020
37.111.128.58 (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC) Abū Bakr, also called al-Ṣiddīq (Arabic: “the Upright”), (born 573—died August 23, 634), Muhammad’s closest companion and adviser, who succeeded to the Prophet’s political and administrative functions, thereby initiating the office of the caliph.Of a minor clan of the ruling merchant tribe of Quraysh at Mecca, Abū Bakr purportedly was the first male convert to Islam, but this view is doubted by a majority of Muslim historians. Abū Bakr’s prominence in the early Muslim community was clearly marked by Muhammad’s marriage to Abū Bakr’s young daughter ʿĀʾishah and again by Muhammad’s choosing Abū Bakr as his companion on the journey to Medina (the Hijrah, 622). In Medina he was Muhammad’s chief adviser (622–632) but functioned mainly in conducting the pilgrimage to Mecca in 631 and leading the public prayers in Medina during Muhammad’s last illness.

On Muhammad’s death (June 8, 632), the Muslims of Medina resolved the crisis of succession by accepting Abū Bakr as the first khalīfat rasūl Allāh (“deputy [or successor] of the Prophet of God,” or caliph). During his rule (632–634), he suppressed the tribal political and religious uprisings known as the riddah (“political rebellion,” sometimes translated as “apostasy”), thereby bringing central Arabia under Muslim control. Under his rule the Muslim conquests of Iraq and Syria began, although it is not clear whether he himself was aware of these military forays from the beginning.


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  17:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

He isn't Caliph of Islam but only Ahmadiyaa
The individual isn't Caliph of Islam at all but only leader of the Ahmadiyaa Community.

Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And that's exactly what the article says.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  11:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I wish it was ... please add who you mean by Messiah Jesus Christ or Ghulam Ahmed. Azmarai76 (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Majavah (talk!) 11:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Majavah He isn't Amirul Mumineen nor Caliph of Messiah but if someone thinks so he should explain that Messaih referred here isn't Jesus Christ but Mirza Ghulam Ahmed according to Ahmadiyaa beliefs totally in collision with Christianity or even Islamic understanding of Messiah. Secondly, don't threaten people of being blocked everyone here works for improvement of Wikipedia like you I assure you. Azmarai76 (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Azmarai76, I understand your concern however that's what the Ahmadiyyah movement claims so we cannot change the title based upon what other sects claim to be righteous ones because here we are talking about religion which for all we understand is interpreted differently all around Jibran1998 (talk) 09:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * They r not muslims Adildar7906 (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Plz remove this Adildar7906 (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources say otherwise. —C.Fred (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Remove this. Zaeemansarillb (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Change Picture
I think that we should use this Pic instead of that one used. 🤔 File:Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad.jpg

What are you saying ? Danish AMC (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I have flagged that image for deletion as copyright infringement, since it appears to be a web scrape of copyrighted material. —C.Fred (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok ! Thanks for Informing Me Danish AMC (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 December 2020
Its totally wrong information about caliph of Islam, Wikipedia sham on you. 192.142.195.68 (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 01:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)</small

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 December 2020 (2)
37.111.134.161 (talk) 07:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear wikipedia please remove this search results because it hurts Muslims emotions and In Islam there is no present Caliph.It is a wrong information you are spreading so its a humble request to remove it


 * Your search engine results are not a matter for Wikipedia, see WP:CALIPH. FDW777 (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

He is not the caliph of islam
Sir this is not the valid report plz change it Farwa93 (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The article does not say he is the Caliph of Islam.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  04:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The article doesnot say that but if we ask search engine that who is the present khalifa of Islam it shows directly the name of Mirza masroor which is not appropriate so kindly address it KaashifAyaz (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If it's not here then complain to your search engine, or use a different one. For further information see 2020 Ahmadiyya Caliphate information. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

He is not caliph of Islam Sami141 (talk) 13:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * We don't say he is. If your search engine does, complain to your search engine. FDW777 (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * They did: Pakistan threatens Google, Wikipedia over 'sacrilegious content' Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

External Link
Danish AMC (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , ? What do you mean this post?  Happy New Year! Asartea   Talk   Contribs!  09:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to add the Wikiquote Link in the External Links Danish AMC (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Done in this edit.  Happy New Year!  Asartea   Talk   Contribs!  10:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Reference to His Books
I just want to add this References to His Books in The Lectures, Sermons and Articles Section.


 * True Love for the Holy Prophet
 * The Blessed Model of the Holy Prophet Muhammad and the Caricatures
 * World Crisis and the Pathway to Peace
 * Conditions of Bai'at and Responsibilities of an Ahmadi

Reference
Danish AMC (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2021
My suggestion is to remove the word "Muslim" from the entire article because this is Amadiya community not Muslim Amadiya community as this community not accept the pure norms of Muslims and are biased, using the name of Mulims to misguide people that they are also Muslims , this is unfair and misleading to write the word Muslims with them , please remove the word Muslim where ever in topic or allow me to do so. Mian gs (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -- Cabayi (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * They are Muslims, according to reliable references. Wikipedia does not take sides in religious disputes. FDW777 (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2021
its wrong information 37.111.128.127 (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pepper Beast    (talk)  11:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2021
there is no Caliphate of is islam. 37.111.134.64 (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 03:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2021
119.160.118.215 (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Majavah (talk!) 15:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2021
{{subst:trim|1=

This is l


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pahunkat (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

{{hab}}

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2021
Mirza Masroor is not caliph of Muslims.As ahmadies are not Muslims Also present verified by the law of Pakistan 175.107.205.23 (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Nothing to do. The article does not claim that he is caliph of all Muslims. —C.Fred (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 April 2021
He is not calipha of Muslims. 119.160.64.153 (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nor does the article claim that he is. Cabayi (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2021
Official title is Khalifatul-Masih Fifth. Engrmhkhan (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The Arabic title is shown in the article already. The English version is used primarily, since this is the English Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2021
Official title is Khalifatul-Masih V Engrmhkhan (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. bop34 • talk • contribs 18:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Quoting the intro: "Mirza Masroor Ahmad (born 15 September 1950) is the current and fifth leader of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. His official title within the movement is Fifth Caliph of the Messiah (خليفة المسيح الخامس, khalīfatul masīh al-khāmis)."[emphasis added] The title is already mentioned. —C.Fred (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 June 2021
Dear Admin Let me be clear to you that the false information is being spread through this article. There is no present calipah in islam right now. You are sharing a misleadign information. 2400:ADC5:105:2B00:94A8:CB4:3519:FCBA (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is sufficiently clear as it stands. Ahmad is a caliph within the Ahmadiyya community, as the article states. —C.Fred (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Objection
Ahmdis are not Muslim pls don't write Muslim with them. Just write ahmdiya community Arslanawan54 (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not happening. This has already been discussed extensively.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  20:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Request for Addition of an External Link
Hello there! I request you for the addition of a page link about His Holiness from AhmadiPedia, the Official Ahmadiyya Encyclopaedia, on the External Links section. The link: https://www.ahmadipedia.org/content/personality/161

Thank you. Danish AMC (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. The site is "an official publication of the Worldwide Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat, edited and managed by the Ahmadiyya Archive & Research Centre. It is a concise reference work on all aspects of Ahmadiyyat." —C.Fred (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * However, I'm not clear on what resources it adds beyond the links already present on the page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * K5IntlBaiat.jpg

Wrong Information
This information is wrong. Misguidence regarding Muslims. Request to remove the article. 103.140.30.245 (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * . Wrong venue. Articles for deletion is for proposing deletion of articles, but because you failed to provide any sort of rationale grounded in Wikipedia policies or content guidelines, your proposal will also fail. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

this is wrong
this is wrong there is no caliph of islam spend it your page 103.150.209.2 (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Did you read the article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong information
This is wrong information. He is not caliphate of Islam. 39.56.154.120 (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Cite your sources and make changes according to reliable sources if you feel this way. TY — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 17:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong infirmation
This is wrong information that mirza mansor in the presant caliph of islam kindly change this information 182.182.57.223 (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * That is a Google issue, not a Wikipedia issue. As the article states, he is the caliph of one community within Islam, not of Islam as a whole. —C.Fred (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

This is wrong fake information
This is wrong fake information 42.201.130.155 (talk) 06:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * What is right fake information? WP:CALIPH may be of help to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2023
204.87.74.12 (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC) He is not the Caliph of Islam. He has been even declared non-muslim by the supreme court of Pakistan. He has his own community group called "Ahmadiya" which has nothing to do with ISLAM.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~ Eejit43 ( talk ) 14:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a totally wrong information
This is a wrong information because Islam has only one last prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) and no one else after him. Theres no such caliphates of islam left. Ahmadis are different from Muslims, they are neither muslims nor accepted by any islamic country. So its highly commendable if you'll delete this ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.40.23.197 (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to contest Wikipedia's determination that Ahmadiyya is part of Islam, broadly construed. His title is Caliph, so the article is correct, that he is the Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)