This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Islam: Ahmadiyya Mid‑importance This article 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Ahmadiyya task force (assessed as Top-importance). Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Both Ahmadi factions like to refer to themselves as "Ahmadi Muslims", and are quite sensitive about this. It may be unfair to use this term only for the members of the Lahore party. Nazli 06:44, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Are you referring to the last sentence? The way I read the current version, it actually implies exactly what you are saying—that some Ahmadi Muslims, the Lahori group, do not agree...—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 07:49, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

One party is currently refered to as: "Members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community", while the wording for the second party is "Ahmadi Muslims belonging to the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement". My feeling is that members of both factions would like to be called Ahmadi Muslims. Personally, I am fine with the text as it is, but some memebers of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community may object.Nazli 11:14, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Let me see what I can do. Or you can.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:15, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Though now that I look at it, the main article on Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is even worse on this count.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:19, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

How is it now? I am hoping that working on this will help define an approach that can be used to NPOV the two main articles on the two (sub-)sects.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:35, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Looks fine now.Nazli 02:26, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Anybody that gives any honorable status to Mirza Qadiani whether as prophet, nabi, or mujadid, messiah, mahdi, etc, is follower of Qadianism. You cannot believe in Mirza Qadiani in any shape or form and be a Muslim. The Lahoris are also followers of Qadianism.

Siddiqui 07:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may or may not be the case. From a Wikipedia standpoint it is immaterial - Its one point of view. You are free to perpetuate it, however not at the expense of opposing povs. Your point of view receives full attention and time in all articles related to Ahmedism/Qadianism. It it only fair that the opposing point of view be given as much importance.Nazli 08:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[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 19:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources like "Alislam.org" are not reliable. According to a user FreeatlastChitchat's requirements: Firstly this is an encyclopedia, we try our best not to put in what the subject thinks about himself/herself, for example we dont put in Mr XYZ think that he is the king of the world. Secondly we are here to make sure that 'promotional' adjectives and words are deleted from an article to make it neutral in weight and NPOV.... So basically you need to provide 'reliable third party' sources if you want to put this sort of stuff in, and even then it will have to be heavily copyedited. [1]

Thus, all unreliable sources on this page are subject to removal. There is also a lot of puffery in breach of NPOV. All promotional advertisements need to be removed from this page. Code16 (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeatlastChitchat, I will point you to WP:BRD, WP:TALKDONTREVERT, and WP:EW. Stop reverting justified deletions arbitrarily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Code16 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, Google is showing Mirza Masroor Ahmad as a current caliph of Islam. When we search "who is the current caliph of Islam" then it shows Mirza Masroor Ahmad as Rich Snippet. And, this is the quoted text from where Google finds the answer "The 5th and current caliph is Mirza Masroor Ahmad." This sentence "The 5th and current caliph is Mirza Masroor Ahmad." in Wikipedia should be changed to "The 5th and current caliph of Messiah is Mirza Masroor Ahmad." (Even Muslims do not believe Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as Massiah but Qadiyani do). Mirza Masroor Ahmad is the current caliph of Massiah not of Islam, according to Mirza Masroor Ahmad page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MatiUlHassanChattha (talk • contribs) 17:03, December 13, 2020 (UTC)

@MatiUlHassanChattha:, not our monkeys, not our circus. Google snippets have a reporting mechanism that we are not involved with. This article already clearly states in the lead: Since the Ahmadiyya is widely viewed as a heterodox movement by the mainstream of Sunni and Shi'ite Islam, most Muslims outside the movement do not recognise Ahmadi claims to a caliphate as valid. If you have a problem with what Google shows when you ask it that question, take it up with them. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MatiUlHassanChattha, I have added the full formal title for accuracy, and in the hope that Google will stop making this mistake. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 Yea, that was the real concern. Thank you for talking prompt notice of it. I hope it will be solved as Google's Bot will re-index this page and will stop showing wrong snippet. And, is it appropriate to add a bit more detail so that Google may not find it confusing. If you can add one more sentence like "According to Islamic Caliphate, there is no current era Calipha" — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatiUlHassanChattha (talk • contribs) 08:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can't do that as we don't use our own articles as sources. --Doug Weller talk 13:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong information please correct the information

Maani96 (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This need to be correct by google and wikipedia that there is no more caliph for muslims now ahmadiyya is a different religion Thanks Maaden ksa (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maaden ksa: complaining about Google showing inaccurate results should be done to Google. The Wikipedia article does not state there is a 5th Caliph for Islam. The current reliable secondary source sshow a firm consensus that Ahmadiyya is considered part of Islam. All of this is in numerous other discussions on this page alone. Please do not post a duplicate comment like this when it is in others. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A popular YouTube has decided to share this article with his audience because he doesn't understand Google's search mechanisms. Edit: Currently, 9 out of the top 30 trends (including number #1) on Pakistani Twitter are talking about this.

>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 17:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Taimoor Ahmed:, at least some are aware; see above or the Help Desk. You wouldn't happen to know which YouTuber this was and what they actually said, would you? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eggishorn, here (starts around 07:00). I don't know what he's saying though, I don't speak the language. It has since spread to Twitter and TikTok, but is mostly under control by now. Blablubbs|talk 18:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: Sorry for the late message, for some reason I didn't get a notification - my username is 'Taimoorahmed11' - The YouTuber is known as Waqar Zaka (even has his own Wikipedia) and he has been known to have stated ridiculous things against the Ahmadiyya group and pretty much thrives on any fame he can get. @Blablubbs: To summarise what he said, he pretty much doesn't understand how Google and Wikipedia works and has called for his fans to go over and change Wikipedia pages so that upon searching "Who is the Caliph of Islam" Mirza Masroor Ahmad doesn't come up. Due to this, there has been a rush in vandalism on Ahmadiyya-related articles even on the Urdu wikipedia, which luckily the admins have been reverting (on high-profile pages at least).
link to tweet. :
>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 19:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's been disruption everywhere - an edit filter to combat this was rolled out in record time, it's continuously going off. I've just added a RPP for this talk page, just to let you know. Pahunkat (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Taimoorahmed11: Also, it isn't even our fault - It's Google's. I think they tried to fix the featured snippets bit but now it just quotes another section of the article. Pahunkat (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn:, @Pahunkat: I am aware that this is Google's fault, Thanks and just for the update: Currently, the top 3 trends in Pakistan on Twitter are talking about this. I expect the vandalism to continue for at least a week or two, continuously. :
>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 20:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Taimoorahmed11: Wow, even worse than I thought. If any of you use RedWarn I've released a template that contains a message that can be posted on talk pages. I'd say a week or two is a bit optimistic, but it's hard to tell since the first incidents came yesterday. Per WP:DENY, you can use Template:Collapse to remove soapboxing/meatpuppetry or remove it entirely - for example, see Talk:List of caliphs. Pahunkat (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taimoorahmed11, thanks for the info; the Twitter trend part is worrying, though from looking at English-language channels, it appears that the attention has shifted towards Google somewhat? For now, we have it more or less under control, at least more than a few hours ago. Blablubbs|talk 20:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need some way of tracking users involved in this, maybe putting them into a category and reverting any problematic edits - it appears some of them use random articles. Pahunkat (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the editors we've seen are hit'n'run one-timers and using a large pool of IPs. So collecting the usernames is likely to have limited impact. This is a WP-wide problem, so it would be useful to discuss it (especially tools) on ANI or somewhere rather than here on the talkpage of a single already-protected article. DMacks (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Just FYI ArbCom and the functionaries are very aware of this and have escalated the matter to the office and asked them to reach out to Google. Given the fairly cozy relationship between the WMF and Google, hopefully this will be resolved soon. Hang in there. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Users excessively posting about Caliphs of Islam at help desk, by the way. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Khalīfatul masīh al-khāmis.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is not the present caliph of Islam. This information is incorrect. 2601:441:8700:40EF:D34:CF2B:E367:A0BE (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CALIPH ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article doesn't say that anyone the present caliph of Islam. This article concerns the caliphate of Ahmadiyya Islam, not other branches of Islam. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The present caliph of islam is not Mirza Masroor Ahmad. He is a qadyani (a refuser of khatm e nabowat). He is not a muslim. Danger344 (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The present caliph of islam is not Mirza Masroor Ahmad. He is a qadyani a refuser of khatm e nabowat. Danger344 (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: See WP:CALIPH. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And @Danger344: Before you complain on this talk page, you should actually read the article you are complaining about. Nowhere does this Wikipedia article say he is the caliph of Islam. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Danger344: Complain to Google. We have no control over how Google (ab)uses its search engine, and we as a community have complained to them multiple times to absolutely no effect. If you want it changed, then you need to convince other Muslims - and lots of them - to join you in a concerted email campaign to get Google to change its results to be more in line with what its competitors (whose own Knowledge-Panel equivalents are considerably more accurate) say. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 02:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfornately, the results from the search engine are not always accurate. The results come from websites.Cwater1 (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged this article for additional verification since it is hugely overreliant on a religious website that I assume is associated with the Ahmadiyya movement. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the last sentence of the introduction, please remove "as valid". Simply saying "don't recognise X" means "don't acknowledge X as valid" in all situations aside from visual recognition ("I don't recognise that person there..."). This means that "as valid" is a little wordy. 120.21.59.182 (talk) 09:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ~ Eejit43 (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]