This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Islam: Ahmadiyya This template is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles This template is supported by the Ahmadiyya task force.

The image used in the template is representative only of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. If an image needs to be used at all, it should represent both branches of the movement. Nazli 04:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The colourized image used in the box is not a true representation of Promised Messiah (as). I understand that the Lahore Ahmadiyya use this image in their publications, but a majority of Ahmadis (AMC) are opposed to using the image. There are photographs available which are of better quality and true representation of Promised Messiah (as). Kindly use these images to provide a more authentic addition to the info. box. Thanks. sk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SaifullahKhalid (talk • contribs) 12:09, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Hope it looks good and has enough info for now. We need some help from Ahmadis to make their articles better, they're really lacking right now. I'm surprised they haven't come earlier, since they're especially active in the English-speaking world. Everything here seems to be written by their detractors with only some non-partisan parties lightening things up. --Enzuru 19:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dr. Basharat Ahmad is not mentioned because he was the father in law of Maulana Mohammad Ali. This fact is incidental and was mentioned as part of his biography summary.

Dr. Basharat Ahmad is mentioned because of his prominence as an Ahmadi scholar and companion of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. He is notable for his comprehensive biogrpahy of Ghulam Ahmad's life as well many other intellectual contributions. Please see Dr. Basharat Ahmad for links to many of his famous works. Nazli 03:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

His work doesn’t appear substantial to mention his name in template. Writing a book or two should not be criteria to declare someone substantial. Someone is trying to impose his/her POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik07 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree. Please note he has not written only "a book or two". He has been a consistent contributor to Islamic literature for decades and like Maulana Mohammad Ali has has personal contact and interaction with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad - hence his importance. Nazli 03:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still does not qualify. A lot of nuts will qualify for writing a few books under "Islamic literature". General acceptance on importance of work and credibility is relevant. Unless he is a personal friend of yours and you know something what not many else know.

Actually he does qualify based on "General acceptance on importance of work and credibility". Please see [1], [2], [3]. Nazli 03:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are just trying to artificially add up numbers for them against the mainstream Ahmadis. Are you Lahori? Those mentioned from mainstream Ahmadis are well known even outside Ahmadiyya circles owning to their various contributions, political or philanthropic or due to controversies. Not the same with people you are trying to sneak in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik07 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't quite understand what you mean by "sneak in". Both Dr. Basharat and Naseer Ahmad are widely known and respected for their contribution to Islamic and Ahmadiyya literature - is evident from their well documented intellectual contributions. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazli (talk • contribs) 03:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are imposing Lahori POV. This site is Lahori. Are you Lahori too?

Including the names of some widely respected and significant personalities is not an imposition of POV. Nazli 03:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What widely respected and significant personalities? Are you Lahori? As only you seem to know him. Is he widely known and respected outside Lahori community, a community which is pretty small on its own? Quit adding POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik07 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both personalities are known internationally for their scholarly contributions to Islamic and Ahmadi literature. Adding them to the list in not POV pushing. However repeated removal of these names from the list may indicate a bias against the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement. Nazli 06:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have given only one Lahori site reference and claim they are known internationally? By how many people? You and who? If anyone is biased its you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik07 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here are some more references from sites not related to the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement. Library of Congress [5][6][7] . Ahmadiyya Muslim Community [8] [9]. From an anti-ahmadiyya site [10]. Miscellaneous references [11]. Nazli 04:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is everyone okay with the redesign? I didn't know exactly how to put Lahori people, nor if we should, because they simply do not have the same importance to Lahoris with the Caliphs have to the Muslim community. --Enzuru 19:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Enzuru, its breathtaking brilliant. Thanks for doing it. Malik07 20:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Malik07, the over all design and formating is well done. However I have a few issues:

1. The Lahori party is strongly opposed to the concept of Ahmadiyya Khalifat. In its current form the template seems to imply that the the khalifas are also associated with the Lahori party.

2. I agree that the Lahori party does not revere its prominent personalities in that same manner as the Rabwa group. However scholars belonging to the Lahori party have as much importance for them as the caliphs of the Rabwa group.

3. I believe that if we are going to mention personalities other than Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, then both sides of the sect need to be represented to maintain NPOV.

Keeping these issues in mind I it may be fair to incorporate this information into the template.

Nazli 03:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much for your kind words, everyone. Alright, under what such header can we unite and organize the Lahori leaders? What title unites them? And whom shall we include? --Enzuru 04:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The uniting factor for prominent Lahori personalities would be the importance of their their scholarly output (to both Islamic as well as Ahmadiayya and Lahori) literature. I propose including the 4 personalities in the old template. Nazli 05:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made the edit. Tell me what you think. --Enzuru 05:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes that is much better - greater neutrality. If we could somehow indicate on the template which sub-sect the personalities (khalifas and the Lahori scholars) belong to we would be all set. Nazli 05:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I changed 'Scholars' to 'Lahori Scholars'. It'll be difficult to point out the Khilafut Masih part, because it'd look sorta bad and most "Muslim Community" Ahmadiyya reject being called Qadiani or Rabwa and so forth. For now, I think this is the best we can do, unless you have another idea. --Enzuru 06:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a great design. Just a minor correction. Tafseer Kabeer should be mentioned above Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge and Truth. Wasssalam. SK 08:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaifullahKhalid (talk • contribs)

Enzuru: yes this should do for now - more detail is likely to spoil your layout. Let me think about alternative ways to present this information.... Regds. Nazli 10:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just an update, brother Sufaid made some recent changes that we already disagreed upon because of aesthetic issues. I've invited him here for further discussion. I'd like to begin that with this statement. On the Ismailism template, we have included a section called "Early Imams" which consists of Imams that all branches do not necessarily accept (ie, Hassan, Nizar, and so forth). However, there is a clear link that lists all the Imams and the status of the various branches of Ismailism regarding his canonity. Similarly, I do not feel it would be too misleading to do the same here, however, I can certainly understand the concern. Tell me your thoughts. --Enzuru 23:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I apologise for having made the changes before seeing the discussion page. However, I still stand by some of the changes and would like to discuss them here. Before doing that it must be borne in mind that while aesthetics are important, presenting correct information must take precedence as Wikipidea is more of an information portal rather than an art project. Having said that I would like to appreciate the great work done by Enzuru as the template looks great aesthetically and we should keep it that way to the extent possible.

1 - Calling the two groups as branches is highly misleading. Simply untrue. I propose "organisations" 2 - In terms of the Ahmadiyya only Noor-ud-Din is accepted by both the groups. After that the leadership is distinct. So it should be possible to make this fact clear on the template. Also the Kilafatulmasih list lists the leaders of the AMC community and the Lahore Scholars mixes leaders and scholars of the LAM. This is a lack of consistency. I propose leaving the Khilafutulmasih list as it is, and making a new list titled "Emirs" listing the leaders of the LAM. A 3rd list tilted "Scholars" can list prominent scholars from both groups combined.

Sufaid 09:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much for coming here to discuss with us, dear brother. First, can you define why they should be 'organisations' rather than branches? Elaborate on it, I only have a hint of where you're going with it. As far as the Lahori lack of consistency, I somewhat agree, however it was brother Nazli who pushed this point till we could reach a better form. I think these changes would work, but will however await Nazli's opinion on this. --Enzuru 13:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on my (limited) knowledge I believe that the following points need to be considered:

• 1. Khalifas have very important spiritual significance for the AMC which does not have a direct counterpart in the LAM. From AMCs pov it is important to include them in the template.

• 2. However the LAM is strongly opposed to the concept of ahmadiyya khalifat based on genetic lineage, hence it is important present the kahlifas in a way that disassociates them from the LAM.

• 3. The Emirs of the LAM are elected leaders, who no doubt exhibit spiritual eminence, but are not revered in the same manner as the the kahlifas of the AMC.

• 4. Eminence and spiritual importance in the LAM is based on the individual's literary and intellectual contribution to the cause of the movement (to the best of my knowledge)

Keeping this in mind, if may be unfair to the LAM to present a list of only their Emirs (some of whom are less significant than non-Emirs as far as their intellectual contributions are concerned).

A few ideas: (1) group LAM personalities under a generic term ("Eminent Personalities" or words to similar effect). (2) Take Sufaid's suggestion and group leaders separately and scholars together. (3) eliminate all personalities other the Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from the template.

Nazli 04:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with the point that in LAM, the emirs are not revered in the same manner as the AMC Khalifas and that some personalities who have not been elected emirs are accorded a higher status owing to thier individual intellectual contributions to the cause. However, for the sake of consistency I would go with still having a seperate list of LAM emirs, perhaps calling them "elected emirs", to differentiate them from the AMC Khalifas (who are not elected), and then definitely having a list of personalities who are highly revered inspite of not holding any elected office. Sufaid 08:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this is a bit too much. Templates don't need to tell you the nature of leaders. I mean, we can put Lahori Emirs as a title, or Jamaati Caliphs as a title, but we don't need to point out if they're elected or not. That's what their respective pages are for. Templates just need to link to everything in an organized matter. As far as what we should do. I still don't exactly know what to say. From Nazli, (1) would work (2) would be a bit too elaborate, and (3) would just be lacking important information. --Enzuru 22:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about calling the list (presently called Lahori Scholars) "Emirs and Scholars" and adding to it the names of the missing emirs. Also branches implies that LAM and AMC are branches of one main organisation; which they are not. They recognise the same spiritual leader and founder, but differ radically over the interpretation of his teachings and are two distinct organisations Sufaid 10:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like I forgot to save my previous comment. Yes, I made that change, great idea. Now, I disagree with you about the 'branches' part. In fact, organizations makes it seem like they're two organizations in the same religion or aqeedah. To see elsewhere how we've used branches, check the Shia, Ismailism, and Twelver templates. --Enzuru 19:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would actually say that the word branches connotates the meaning that you are ascribing to organisations. Any how, before we discuss that further, I would suggest to remove the word "lahori" from the list title. Its a colliquial term and as khalifatulmasih list does not have any attached word qualifying it as specifc to AMC, the emirs and scholars list should not have a term qualifying it as specific to LAM. Sufaid 06:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was purposeful. Emirs and Scholars could apply to almost any branch of Islam, as they are vague terms. Khalifatul Masih however is a concept and term that is only and exclusively used in the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. --Enzuru 08:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A minor correction, Khalifatul Masih is a term used for Hakeem even by Lahoris. My reference is this Lahori website: http://aaiil.org/ahmadiyyat.shtml --Enzuru 02:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made some minor adjustments - hopefully this will sort out the issue of distinguishing between the personalities from the two parties. This way we don't have to use the term "Lahori". Nazli 04:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made a few changes on top of yours. I'll need to check it on Internet Explorer, however. --Enzuru 05:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Khalifa's in AMC are elected, the last election took place on 22nd April 2003, as Mirza Masroor Ahmad following the demise of Mirza Tahir Ahmad.Thetruebelieve (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)Reply[reply]

I've given them the rationale. We'll see what happens. --Enzuru 14:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have reverted [12] the latest changes to the template for the following reasons:

1. The new image is not representative of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement 2. References related to the differences in two branches of the movement (specifically their leaders/scholars) had been removed.

Nazli (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure That's fine with me, but please change the colors and partial caps; they are a real eyesore. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I apologize, I was not thinking of the colors / caps - please go ahead make any changes that you feel will look better. Nazli (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the designer of this present day mutant, I have taken out the smallcaps and faded the blue colour. --Enzuru 08:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestion

With a parameter and a switch inside the template, the image may change. So you can have two indipendend images. --Ahmadi2 (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made major changes in layout. If there are any issues please discuss.Thanks.Peaceworld111 (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Peaceworld111: Why the change of colors from the official ones of the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam to the new ones?!--Nawabmalhi (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Black is the colour of the Ahmadiyya flag, not sure if that means that it is the color of Ahmadiyya, nevertheless the reason why I changed the colour is because a sharp dark colour looks excessively dominating on a page and so I wanted to change to a light background. There was no particular reason why I chose a trace of blue as the background other than readability and this. Moreover, the current design, which I also changed, is more simplistic. Thanks.--Peaceworld 09:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Humanity First' is, according to the following judgement, an equal part of the organisation structure as the 'Shura', 'MTA' and 'Jalsa Salana'. This is my judgement, you may differ in opinion. Feel free to present contrary facts.

• All four organisations have members of the Community as permanent staff, and all four were founded by the Caliphs.
• All but MTA have institutional international conferences held by the current Caliph. ^[1]
• All but MTA and Jalsa are run by the Community all year round.
• The Ahmadi community raises money for Humanity First charity projects year round (through flagship annual events). ^{[2] [3]}

In fact, Humanity First is therefore classed, by the community's own actions listed above, as above the MTA and Jalsa in the structure.

Considering that I have previously failed to leave enough evidence, I hope this evidence helps.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PYoung550 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PYoung550: Thank you for bringing this to the talk page. Being an organisation of the Community does not necessarily mean that it is part of the Community's organisational structure (or Nizam-e-Jama'at). Humanity first cannot be equated with the 'Shura', 'MTA' and 'Jalsa' because they are primarily for the Community and are religiously affiliated with it. The 'Shura', in fact, is exclusively for the Community members only. By contrast, although Humanity First was founded by and is run by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, as your evidences above point to, it is not religiously affiliated to the Community in the way other institutions or auxiliaries (Khuddam, Lajna etc.) which make up the Community's organisational structure are. Humanity First has always been secular in nature and was specifically set up to serve, not just Ahmadis or Muslims, but all humankind without any distinction. Relief convoys go out as representatives of Humanity First and not of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. An article about its foundation from the Community's official website here clearly states that Humanity First was established as a "non-political, non-sectarian" and "non-religious" charity. It is also notable that the official Humanity first websites here and here do not even mention the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in contrast to how the websites of the various auxiliaries of the Community do. If it was a part of the Community's organisational structure it would at least mention it on its offical websites would it not?. I still think it's more appropriately placed under Miscellaneous. -- Sirius86 19:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add the following articles to the template, under the "United Kingdom" heading:

• Baitul Futuh Mosque
• Islamabad, Tilford (or to be replaced with Mubarak Mosque, Tilford

Order should be Fazl Mosque, Baitul Futuh Mosque, Islamabad, Tilford, Mubarak Mosque, Tilford. HolyArtThou (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added Baitul Futuh Mosque and reordered the list. Mubarak is already in the list, has a prominent link to the Islamabad, Tilford article, and covers much if the same detail. So including it seems like duplication. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]