Talk:Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

Wikipedia has a neutral POV that must be maintained, that is why I have reverted the article. DigiBullet 07:20, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

About the birthdate: I don't know enough to be any authority on the subject, but I'm not sure we should state it without some qualifier, like a question mark. What exactly is the evidence for the date? Do we know that Ahmad himself recognized that day as his birthday? Lots of generally reliable English language sources say he was born in 1839, without giving a certain day, so I'm hesitant to bluntly contradict them without some fairly good reason. Everyking 19:55, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The date is based on authentic biography of A R Dard Imam of the London Mosque, 1948. { He states that the references are drawn from the writings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad et al.} CORIN 30 Nov 2004

The Birthdate is clearly supported from Biographies and original sources. I do not understand why so much fuss is made over this point. The Article is likely to be considered as POV because of the anamosity towards the Community and its substantial growth in recent years - the information is supported by biographies and materials provided by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Movement and Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha`at Islam, not mere opinions of opponents. The article is likely to be uncomfortable to both Christians and Muslims, but the facts given cannot be disputed as Ahmadi. It cannot therefore not be controversial. Every effort has been made to avoid bias over the 1914 split. CORIN 2.12.2004 09.19

All right, all right, there's no fuss, I know little about him, but I just didn't understand why sources like Britannica weren't giving that date. It's no problem, I believe you. By the way, could you convert your chronological list into standard prose (I assume you were the one who added it) and integrate it into the rest of the text, or at least add bullet points so it's neater? Everyking 10:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

mubasher: (1) there is tremendous controversy regarding the status of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as prophet. It would be unfair to label him as such in the opening paragraph of the article without reference to the dispute. (2) most of the material regarding the authenticity of his claim has a one sided point of view: it may be better to link to it rather that make a part of the page.Nazli 01:52, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

== Headline text

Headline text

His claim was not only of a prophet but the one foretold by Prophet Mohammad (saws) i.e. second coming of Jesus son of Mary and second coming of Prophet (saws) himself as mentioned in holy Quran.The arguments Mirza gives are very convincing as regards the death of Jesus.I am perticularly impressed by the analogy he gives from Trdition in which Prophet explains verse of Al-Jumma "wa bilaakheriena l'm yelhako b'him" narrated by Abu Huraira. Generaly muslims donot believe that Jesus's second coming will not be as a prophet but in this perticular hadis Prohet(saws) has addressed him four times as prophet.I will be greatful if sopme one can download the original hadis and explain.thanks.Yassiah Yasser.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's Grand Prophecy / Stern Warning

Mubasher: it may be best to mention the prophecy in a line or two and then link to the material, rather than presenting it in detail and making it a significant portion of the Wiki article.Nazli 04:45, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Grand Prophecy / Stern Warning

Nazli: it is not best to mention the prophecy in a line or two because to understand his claims and thoughts you have to read it the intact prophecies but here I am just quoted one of them so please take this matter to the public and you are not the moderator of this free Encyclopedia if you want to say any thing you can discuss on the talk page but please for the sake of understanding and information don’t delete his prophecy and web site link, thank you.

Mubasher, this article is not a forum for promoting Ahmaddiya teachings. Readers will not want to and do not have to read extremely long quotes to "understand". If it's more than a short paragraph, it should become a link to a Wikisource or an external website. Nazli is not the moderator, nor am I, but I think we represent the vast majority of Wikipedia editors when we say that huge chunks of quoted text do NOT belong here. Zora 22:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mubasher: I agree completely with Zora. I do apologize however for inadvertently deleting the external links in my last edit.

NPOV clearly not in play

The table of events clearly shows that NPOV is not being followed. "# 1907 Dowie dies in utter disgrace." "1893 Prophesy disgrace of Pandit Lekh Ram.". These "disgraces" are clearly intended to promote Ahmad's ideology. While statements like the above do not necessarily violate NPOV, on their own, without context, cannot be viewed as anything but as an attempt to proselytize. --GNU4Eva 13:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response to the above comment "NPOV clearly not in play"

[Tariq Rasheeduddin: rutariq@gmail.com] REGARDING DEATH OF DR. JOHN ALEXANDER DOWIE: A worse picture of pain and misery cannot be imagined. Dowie's death was an object-lesson, a Sign for the people of the West. Many newspapers declared that the prophecy of Hazrat Mirza Sahib had been fulfilled. I quote some of the newspapers of those days:

Ahmad and his adherents may be pardoned for taking some credit for the accuracy with which the prophecy was fulfilled a few months ago. (Dunville Gazette, June 7, 1904)

The Qadian man predicted that if Dowie accepted the challenge 'he shall leave the world before my eyes with great sorrow and torment. ' If Dowie declined, the Mirza said, 'the end would only be deferred; death awaited him just the same, and calamity will soon overtake Zion.' That was the grand prophecy: Zion should fall and Dowie die before Ahmad. It appeared to be a risky step for the Promised Messiah to defy the restored Elijah to an endurance test, for the challenger was by 15 years the older man of the two and probabilities in a land of plagues and famines were against him as a survivor, but he won out. (Truth Seeker, June l5, 1904)

It is quite true that Hazrat Mirza Sahib was much older than Dowie. So there were more chances for Dowie to survive Hazrat Mirza Sahib.

Dowie died with his friends fallen away from him and his fortune dwindled. He suffered from paralysis and insanity. He died a miserable death, with Zion city torn and frayed by internal dissensions. Mirza comes forward frankly and states that he has won his challenge. (Boston Herald, June 23, 1904)

These quotations from the American newspapers show that the prophecy made an impression not only on Christians but also on free-thinking editors of the American newspapers. They had been so impressed by the grandeur of the prophecy that they felt obliged to write about it. They were not able to deny its truth or its importance. Whenever the Sign of the death of Dowie is narrated before Western audiences, they will have before them the testimony of scores of newspapers, edited by fellow-countrymen and fellow-believers.

REGARDING DEATH OF PT. LAKHRAM The story of the murder of Lekh Ram is that some time before, a man with blood-shot eyes had come to him, wishing to be converted from Islam to Hinduism. People tried to dissuade Lekh Ram from entertaining him. But Lekh Ram did not heed. This man became Lekh Ram's trusted companion. Lekh Ram had appointed the fateful Saturday as the day of his conversion. Lekh Ram was busy writing. He asked for some book. This man, pretending to hand Lekh Ram the book slipped a knife into his stomach and turned the knife round and round so as to cut the entrails thoroughly. He then disappeared, according to the statement of Lekh Ram's family. Lekh Ram was on the upper floor of the house. Near the gate, on the ground floor, were many men; but no one saw the murderer come down and escape. Lekh Ram's mother and wife were certain he was still in the house. On a search of the house nobody was found. Where had he disappeared to? Into the earth or the sky? Lekh Ram died in great pain on Sunday. In my opinion this incidence is prophetic indeed.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's Claim to Prophethood was qualified

In his short work "Eik Ghalatee ka Izaalaa" Transl: A misunderstanding removed", Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has extensively qualified his claim to Prophethood. He has explained that it is his firm belief, that there is no possibility of a Law-Bearing Prophet like Moses (peace be upon Him) or the Holy Prophet of Islam (Peace be upon him) after the advent of Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). He has explained, however that there is one type of Prophethood, the doors of which are still open and that is a Prophet who is subservient to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sas). Thus he explains that the Prophethood which he (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) has been blessed with is the zilli Prophethood of the Holy prophet of Islam, i.e. His (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's Prophethood is a continuation of the Prophethood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sas). In a Persian Couplet, he has explained :

Hasst oo KhariurRusul Khairul anaam, Hur Nabuwwat Ra barau shudd ikhtitaam

"He (Muhammad) is the best of the Messengers and the best of Creation All Prophecy has come to completion with his advent"

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is very clear that the claim to Prophethood which he has made is not a "Permanant Prophethood"

Main Mustaqil Nabi naheen hoon

"I am not an independent or permanent Prophet"

"My Prophethood", he goes on to say is none other than the Prophethood of The Holy Prophet Muhammad, it is not separate from HIm!"

I think it is very important to qualify the Prophethood of the Promised Messiah (Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) as a Buroozee Nabuwwat (a reflection of the Prophethood of Muhammad) an Ummatee nabi (A Prophet from the Umma of the Holy Prophet Muhammad ) or a Zillee Nabi (A prophet who is the shadow of the Prophet Muhammad, i.e. one who follows the Prophet Muhammad like a shadow)

Navidul Haq Khan email: drnhkhan@hotmail.com

Islamic eschatology

I disagree...by listing him under this Cat he is simply associated with it, to his followers he is the mahdi so there so I see no issue. freestylefrappe 22:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Link farm?

Just wondering are there too many links at the bottom of the page? --GNU4Eva 20:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Love et cetera

Mubasher, if you redirect your talkpage there is no way of communicating with you directly. The info that you are adding is highly pro-POV and is more relevant to the Ahmadiyya page. freestylefrappe 02:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Chronology, Grammar

Can someone do something with the chronology list? It contains a lot of cryptic information not references in the rest of the article, making it often more perplexing than informational. Also I noticed some questionable grammar, a couple of typos and whatnot, but don't have time to go back through right now ... if anyone feels like proofreading, there's a spot or two that could use it. --72.25.8.86 00:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Controversy for controversy sake?

Under Controversy section, in relation to Abrogation, how does claiming that Quran is free of imperfection cause concern to Muslims? It is claimed that Muslims of his (Ahmed’s) time believed in abrogation (proof/reference?). How many of them believed this? Dose majority of Muslims (then and now) believe that Quran is imperfect? Isn’t it a case of trying too hard to find controversy in whatever Ahmadis believe?

This is also true to some extent regarding the militant version of Jihad. The fact that vast majority of Muslims living in both Muslim countries or otherwise are not up in arms does show that most Muslims consider militant Jihad to be an exception rather than norm. It seems to me that the point of view of a small extremist (but vocal) minority is being presented as the view of majority of Muslims and Hazrat Ahmad’s view being declared controversial merely for not going along with the militant minority. Pleasse see Jihad. Yahya 04:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)