Jump to content

Talk:Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Spelling of name

Why has the spelling of Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri's name been changed to Mohammad Tahir ul-Qadri. His books are published under the name of Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri. The majority of the sources refer to him as Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri. The spelling needs to be rectified urgently. Hasseniqbal192 (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Article must be moved back to Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri. Article move on 15 January was vandalism. Hasseniqbal192 (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Lack of suitable citations need to be noted. There are too many references from one source (minhaj.org) The article contains too many lists, it needs to be concise and better summarised to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Hasseniqbal192 (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Canadian national

Can we add the fact that Sheikh Tahir ul Qadiri is a dual national. I feel this is an important fact that is missing from his page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.114.241 (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Reference: http://tribune.com.pk/story/495741/qadri-summoned-by-royal-canadian-monitoring-police-for-violating-oath/ "while he was issued the Canadian passport about six months back." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.56.68.214 (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Living miracle

I have recently come across an old video of Tahir ul Qadir in which he makes miraculous claims. He claims that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) came in his dream and asked him to start the Tehreek e Minhaj ul Quran. In the same video he claims that he was diagnosed with an incurable heart disease and New York based doctors told him that he would die within three to six months period. Later on he requested the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to get his life extended. So with the intervention Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) he got his life extended and Azrael (the angel of death) sent back. I am new to wikipedia so thought if this information might be included in his biography. I am linking the videos here,Video Part 1,Video Part 2 Rafiullah (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The point is not to glorify him. The point is that he makes non-sensical, metaphysical, unverifiable claims while at the same he is deemed, by some, a religious scholar and has been very popular in US and Canada. Such an information is necessary to appear in his profile may be as a critique. So that people don't get mislead and be cautious before buying his arguments or religious interpretations. Anyway but if doesn't qualify the wikipedia standards is fine.

Rafiullah (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a Muslim base

Dr Tahir qadri got his basic study (related to wikipedia) in catholic school, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.116.94.233 (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Subcategories

This article needs to be subcategorized. We try to keep individual articles out of "Writers" and use the various subcategories otherwise "Writers" gets overwhelming. I previously changed "Writers" here to "Pakistani writers" and someone reversed it. I will now change it to "Muslim writers." If that is still not acceptable, change it to whichever subcategory is acceptable, but please don't just leave it at "Writer." Also, many researchers find national categories useful, so you may want to reconsider the "Pakistani writers" category. Thank you. — scribblingwoman 16:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Most muslims do know about him and his organisation. He has appereared on many english TV channels like QTV, Unity TV, PTV Prime and even Islam Channel are going to begin showing his lectures in June. His students are also well-know such as Shaykh Ramadan Qadri from the UK. People like Abdul Hakim Murad and Hamza Yusuf have met him and honoured him, and Shaykh Asad as-sarghaji who is a great islamic authority in Syria accepts him as his teacher. Hasseniqbal192 16:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Mrizwan.pu (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC) It should not be removed because he is:

1 - Dr: He is a doctor as mentioned in his education section.

2 - Shaykh ul Islam: It is not necessary that we call people by name only. We can call them by prefixes which is a very common thing in general. If it is not the case then why to use prefix Quaid-e-Azam with Muhammad Ali Jinnah name ?

Removal of Shaykh ul Islam Professor Dr.

Article like that of Hamza Yusuf and Abdul Hakim Murad and others include the word shaykh as they are commonly known by that name. Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri's article should include his full title like the other articles. So please don't vandalize the page as he is commonly known as Shaykh ul Islam Professor Dr. Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri. Hasseniqbal192 01:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

see: WP:HONORIFIC#Honorific_prefixes - this isn't the place to disseminate honorifics, and in accordance with our policy on neutrality, such adulation is out of place. ITAQALLAH 17:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
What about the articles which I mentioned above, shouldn't they be bound to the policy??? Hasseniqbal192 20:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
yes they should, and i invite you to make the necessary changes. what if we went around referring to all sorts of characters and religious leaders with `His Holiness`, `His Eminence`, `Professor`, and so on? the standard practice is to refer to the person's name in a formal manner. ITAQALLAH 17:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Tahir ul Qadri used to be a professor at the punjab university and is the chief executive of the minhaj university (A suitable reference will be added soon). Dr. Tahir ul Qadri is shaykh ul islam as he has met all the qualifications for that title. He has delivered technical speeches about Fiqh, Hadith and Tasawwuf (references will be added). The word Shaykh ul Islam is used around the world and is similar to titles such as shaykh, priest, bishop etc. Hasseniqbal192 15:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
regardless of whether or not he truly is a shaykh ul-islam, we refer to people by their names, not by their titles. even if one is a professor, we can say they are verifiably a professor in a certain subject, but we don't refer to them as professor in the article. ITAQALLAH 16:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this whole article is self projection by his own IT team and all the links point to own minhaj sites. it doesnt deserve a noble person of such things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakilahmed (talk • contribs) 13:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Whole article contains secondary references from external websites. only Qadri's own books /Published Works are cited from primary references.ServingIslam (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone add information about his education, i.e if he is a doctor from where he did MBBS or Doctorate in philosophy etc.Mkashifafzal (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

He Got the Title of Shaikh Ul Islam from the Scholars of Jamia Al Azhar (The World's 2nd oldest and Authentic Islamic University According to Wikipedia. (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Al-Azhar_University). Shaykh al-Islām (Sheikh ul-Islam, Sheikhul Islam, Shaikh al-Islam, Şeyhülislam) is a title of superior authority in the issues of Islam. Refrence:(https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Shaikh_ul_Islam). If the Scholars of Jamia al Azhar (Egypt)gave him the the title of Shaikh ul Islam then Wikipedia should also include this Title in his Auto-Biographical Article: Shaikh ul Islam Mohammad Tahir Ul Qadri instead of (Mohammad Tahir ul Qadri.) References are here: ( Lecture of Shaikh ul islam at Jamia al Azhar "AlMazhab ul Mukhtar fi Hukm el Hadith Al Za'eef on October 21 2012" where they (Scholars of Jamia al Azhar) mention him by the Title of Shaikh Ul Islam. link:(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgonxaheXUU)and (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=441142452670380&set=vb.100003238863287&type=2&theater) For more satisfaction Read his book "Al Minhaj-us-Sawwi" Chapter "Al Taqdeemat" where the Mufti of Syria "Asa'ad Mohammad Saeed As'saghar jee" called him by the Title of Shaikh u Islam.. Haseeb v30 (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseebv30 (talk • contribs)

Ijazas commentry wrong

Says he has "Given" the ijaza but in fact he has "Received" ijazas from the ulema listed. I've changed it AN-MEL 19:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No he has given the Ijazas to the following muslim scholars, if you get a chance to meet them, you can ask them. It is common knowledge now.Hasseniqbal192 16:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Shaykh ul Islam Dr. Tahir ul Qadri is the possessor of a sound chain of narration that links him to Imam Sahih ul Bukhari. His degree of knowledge and his ability to make simple the most complex of matters to event the most illiterate of people is evidence alone of his superiority as an Islamic scholar from whom others TAKE ijaza (User:Minhaji)

Further, all the ijazas of "Europe" are unsubstantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AN-MEL (talk • contribs) 19:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No they are not, those scholars publicly received the ijazas and this is commonly known.Hasseniqbal192 16:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
All the ijazas of "Europe" ARE substantiated. it is common knowledge (User:Minhaji)

Minor changes

I have edited the introduction from "unique amongst Muslim scholars" to "prominent" - as being multi-lingual is not something that can be claimned is unique to Dr Tahir ul Qadri. The definition of unique implies standing alone in a skill, something that is untrue. Therefore this serves as fawning and advertising, not particuarly encylopedic.

I have made these minor edits before but someone vandalised them back - presumably a follower of said Dr. Please, do not revert it this time. On the issue of being multi-lingual, most sub-continental scholars are able to speak both Arabic and Urdu, most of the Pakistani ulama in the UK are able to speak Arabic, English and Urdu - and even a significant number (such as Shaykh Abdul Hakim Murad and Shaykh Muhammad Saqib Iqbal Shami) are able to speak Persian in addition - so there is not uniqueness.

I believe that "prominent" stands as both a respectful and encylopedic analysis of the situation. MuhammadYusufAttari (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I have removed the stories regarding dreams and vision from the page, and narrations about pious ancestors. This is not encylopedic content, and should not be included in this section, as it is a tale. Please insert a seperate section regarding "Dreams Surrounding Dr's Birth", making it clear that this is a story, told on the account of family members and re-written by the Minhaj ul Qur'an press team. [1:54:33 PM] Malik Muhammad Umar Awan(www.learnalquran.com) says: LEARN AL-QURAN INTERNATIONAL ONLINE ACADEMY

Removed advert --NotedGrant Talk 17:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a platform to disseminate folk tales.MuhammadYusufAttari (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do not accuse members of vandalism. I do not mind if you change the word unique to prominent or remove stories of dreams etc. but you have vandalised the page and made a statement biased by saying that Dr. Qadri "only" sent out a referendum so I reverted the whole edit. You have also reciently vandalised the page by removing the names of the Yemeni scholars who recieved Dr. Qadri's Ijaza including the pictures and this is a clear form of vandalism so before accusing other members of vandalism do not vandalise the page yourself. What I did was clearly not vandalism as I only reverted your edit and any changes you made and brought the page back to its previous form. So would you first kindly read the rules of wikipedia and find out the definition of vandalism before accusing experienced users. You are still new to wikipedia I'm afraid and you need to learn how it works and the different rules of wikipedia before making any further edits. Hasseniqbal192 (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Reverted edits, we have not written that the dreams happened we have written that it is REPORTED by Tahir ul-Qadri's father the following story and it is SAID that they were pious persons and this is allowed, genuine and encyclopedic. Hasseniqbal192 (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of the phrasing, this dream is a folk tale and definitely NOT encylopedic. MuhammadYusufAttari (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

most of the links in this article point to own resources ie, minhaj etc. writer should learn how to write an unbiased neautral and fact based article, some title may be used well in Pakistan to project well but this is an international site, should confrom to normal set of standards. so remove such things please or i will report this to wikipedia personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakilahmed (talk • contribs) 14:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

this is not true. most links are from other sites .ServingIslam (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Shakilahmed, majority of article contains secondary references. for his books & Published Works obviously one has to use primary references. ServingIslam (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate?

The article says "...Sayyid Rasûl Shâh Khâkî of Chakwâl who had died at the age of 130 years." when the oldest living person ever to live is 122 years. check this wiki for more info http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Oldest_people#Oldest_verified_people_ever_.28top_10.29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.45.37 (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

See also

I've removed internal links from see also per [1] and a few internal already present in the article --NotedGrant Talk 17:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

A reference will be added to the Online Quran Project that includes the Urdu and English Quran translation by Tahir al-Qadri. Furthermore a external link with the specific URL will be added. Good job people! --Imdkzmaa (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is clearly hagiographic and all the references cited are propagation websites patronized by the subject person or his followers.In its present form this is not an encyclopedia article. that is the longest ever RECORDED living person, that's not to say no one lived longer! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.242.121 (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

most of article contains secondary references. for his books & Published Works obviously one has to use primary references.this is not longest ever RECORDED living person in fact his contribution & work demands a lengthy article. ServingIslam (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Language

I suggest some one improve the language in this article (stylistically), one can find some *odd* constructions. I'd do it, but I'm not a native speaker myself. In addition, the article reminds me of a fan site. Peace 213.47.144.254 (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality

It is of concern that the article as of present (May 2010) is far from NPOV and particularily in light of recent days editing with the article now containing over 70% primary references (selfpublished) as they are all leading back to Minhaj ul Quran and Tahir Qadri is Minhaj ul Quran (his notability). This clearly violates both wiki policy on editing WP:BLP as well as referencing/sources. Unless reliable secondary references are added shortly to back up the primary, much of the content could be removed especially as the scope goes beyond basic biographical details but rather indulge in POV. The misleading edit summaries or just lack of don't help the matter either. Fragma08 (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I strongly agree with Fragma08. If there's anything I can help out with i.e. copy-editing etc., do let me know. ----  Dhulfikar  chat?  22:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Fragma08, majority of article contains secondary references. for his books & Published Works obviously one has to use primary references. ServingIslam (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

The entire section falls short of the requirements for inclusion in wikipedia in general, and a biography of a living person in particular, for the following reasons:

  1. The "criticism" is entirely by the wiki editor in his/her opening paragraph; this violates WP:NOR. The passage quoted from Miss Sumaira Rafaqat Kahloon's essay in support of the editorial criticism simply describes Tahir-ul-Qadri's actions without reporting or suggesting criticism.
  2. The facts cited in Miss Sumaira Rafaqat Kahloon's essay, of which the wiki editor is critical, cannot be verified because the essay does not identify any reliable sources for the facts. WP:V requires that anything stated in wiki must be verifiable, and WP:BLP amplifies this.
  3. Neither the Minhaj-al_Quran website, nor Miss Sumaira Rafaqat Kahloon, meet the standards of WP:RS in their own right.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Timberframe (talk • contribs) 10:06, 12 August 2010

Why are his views on an Islamic state removed as POV when they are direct quotes?

I'm talking about this section:

Views on an Islamic state

In “Islam – the State Religion” – found online on ul-Qadri's website[1] he has said the following: “there is a fundamental contrast between an Islamic state and a secular state. The authority of a secular state derives from the people themselves. Religion plays no obligatory role in its functioning. But the authority of an Islamic state derives from the Almighty Allah”.... “Islam is the basis of polity in an Islamic state”.

He also claims that the first constitution of Madinah “declared the state of Madinah as a political unit”. He also mentions that the constitution declared the “indivisible composition of the Muslim nation (Ummah) and "its total and unquestioning submission to the will of God”[2]

He mentions that “In the Holy Quran God Himself has categorically expressed the concept of two-nation theory. There are those people who belong to the (Muslim) Ummah and there are those who are outside it” [1]

He also believes in the “Supremacy of Islam over other systems of life” and that “a state is Islamic only when it recognises the constitutional and political predominance of Islam”.[1]

With respect to constitutions, Tahir ul-Qadri says “since the constitution itself is a document of law, it has to derive its validity from Qur’an and Sunnah”, and modern political rulers have the “religious and moral responsibility to implement the “revealed laws””. He rejects secular rule stating that “a constitution is a man-made law and by no means it can be declared superior to a God-made law” and that “no authority in the land can suspend enforcement or curtail the implementation of Shariah”[2]

He believes in the Sovereignty of God’s law, that Shari’ah equates to State law, that it is a political duty for Muslims to create a political entity that reflects that. Tahir ul-Qadri sees Islam as a political ideology, he does believe in democracy and human rights, but these rights are defined by Islam. Hudood prescriptions are core issues in the law which must be implemented unless there are societal reasons such as famine or lack of education to do so.

In the 1980s Tahri ul-Qadri also supported much of General Zia's Islamisization of Pakistan, which included hudood laws, blasphemy laws, and the rule on apostasy being death.[2]

You put the view of a book from his website, not his view. Therefore it is reverted. You must include a link of him utering those words in a reliable source to be included in Wikipedia. WP:RELIABLE CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
See this clip, 04:18, where al-Qudri states his view that blasphemy against the prophet Muhammad should be punished by death: [3] . His views on blasphemy should obviously be included in the article. 129.240.19.75 (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c The Islamic State
  2. ^ a b The Constitution of Madina

File:Tahir-ul-Qadri-at-GeorgeTOWN.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tahir-ul-Qadri-at-GeorgeTOWN.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Tahir-ul-qadri-at-global-unity.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tahir-ul-qadri-at-global-unity.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Tahir-ul-Qadri-at-USA-Peace.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tahir-ul-Qadri-at-USA-Peace.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section (again)

I see that this has been discussed a couple of times above, but, just to reiterate, this section violates WP:BLP and WP:SYNTHESIS. You cannot take a quote from his book and a quote from the Quran, then declare that there has been criticism. We need reliable sources that state the criticism, not use original research to find them. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 03:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the clarity, I was a little afraid of that :(. What about citing forums / blogs in BLP articles?
Also, as stated above "this whole article is self projection by his own IT team", it is massively biased and majority of the links are self-published by Minhaj / Qadri - Wikipedia is being used as an advert for the guy with no neutrality! What do you suggest with regards to this? -Qadri fan (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
No, forums and blogs can't be used. We need published sources with a history of fact checking, like a reputable newspaper. I believe that you may have a point about neutrality (I removed a lot of WP:COPYVIOs copied straight from primary sources), but unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with the subject to be much help. Your best bet would probably be the WP:POVN. If you have on-wiki evidence of his IT team editing the article, you can use the WP:COIN, but you have to be careful about WP:OUTING. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 13:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you once again for your kind help :) -Qadri fan (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

good job by removing criticism ,that was actually not a criticism but false accusations lies & fabrications . majority of the criticism is coming from extremist groups who appose Dr. Qadri's Fatwa on Terrorism ServingIslam (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

SubhanAllah, what a thing to say! "False & Lies"? Here is Qadri speaking: Intercession/intermediation through the dead (like our beloved Prophet(saw)) in which he calls Muslims to polytheism (shirk), refer to this if you want to know how this is shirk.
Who's opposing his fatwa? That fatwa is a copy of what Muslim scholars have already stated before Qadri was born - refer to the works of Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah,[1] and countless others, such as this and this and this and this and this, etc.
Tahir-ul-Qadri may be a nice guy with the right intention, and I'm sure you're a nice guy too :) And that's why I would like you to watch this to clear up some misconceptions - culture vs Islam. -Qadri fan (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Qadri fan stop acting smart here. you are quoting wahhabi salafi references, Qadri is sunni hanafi, unlike wahabies & khwarjities he doesn't declare other Muslims as Mushrik or kafir.Dr Qadri is not forcing his sunni beliefs to any whaabies so same should be a response from wahabies too. Live & Let live ! ServingIslam (talk) 08:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there should be a section on all his claims about Prophet (pbuh) as well proper discussion for the failure of his long march. I am not adding the dreams part as I have not done enough investigation on it. However, what I have heard is disturbing and people deserve to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.153.145 (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ibn Taymiyyah's fatwa on terrorism

Political career

why my post removed from "Political career" Section? i have provided both primary as well as secondary references. ServingIslam (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Because they were copyright violations. We cannot copy and paste (or even closely paraphrase) copyrighted material into Wikipedia. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 11:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


I am surprised that my contributions (with references) were deleted. I added a very important section detailing the relationship between Sharif family and Tahirul Qadri. The wikipedia entry on Tahirul Qadri is the most lopsided article I have seen, it appears to be a part of Minhaj website.

I'd request Wikipedia to review the history of edits on Tahirul Qadri, figure out who keeps deleting objective contributions on Tahirul Qadri and make this entry more complete and objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.110.164 (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Your edits were NOT neutral and reliably referenced. They were partisan and poorly referenced. Yours sincerely, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Dispute

It is surprizing to see that nearly all the references of this article get traced back to Tahir ul Qadri's own books and youtube interviews. Remember folks, this is not Tahir ul Qadri's personal webpage, its Wikipedia. So please provide references back to independent resources instead of from his own books.

This article is defiantly not neutral. Without any disrespect, Tahir ul Qadri has been criticized a lot for his fake dream telling and making masses fool and giving fatwas out of line with Quran and Sunnah of Islam. So there needs to be a controversy section or you can call it criticism...but it needs to be there to show reader both sides of the picture.

This page needs not to have a political motive to promote him among masses in Pakistan... Let it remain Wikipedia and don't turn it into Tahir ul Qadri's personal web page.

I have added citations needed...so please provide independent verifiable information, otherwise please delete it.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.175.51 (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree with this.
With regards to references, this has been pointed out numerous times above.
With regards to criticism, again, previously pointed out and indeed many have tried to add criticisms but unfortunately, it appears Tahir Qadri is a western government puppet and thus it's unlikely you'll find a news website or other secondary source (not forums/blogs) criticising this scam artist. Also, as you may know, Wikipedia has strict rules concerning western government puppets (WP:BLP and WP:NPOV) which don't appear to apply to genuinely good people, like real shayookh (Ibn Taymiyyah / Zakir Naik / etc).
-Qadri fan (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

i strongly disagree. all references are from independent resources,this article is neutral dozens of secondary independent sources links have been provided in this article for example from US World Economic Forum,BBC,CNN,GEO NEWS,DAWAN,AL-JAZERA ,VOA NEWS,THE NEWS,Washington Times,Press TV,Guardian ETC. of course in his books section one has to provide direct link of his website. ServingIslam (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there any link with Tahir ul Qadiri's frequent changes of headgear and the titles he gaives himself e.g. Sheikh ul Islam titles coincides with his adoption of the tall headgear of Ottoman Sheikhs of the highest order — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.57.193 (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


Reading the notes by contributors, several people have come to the same conclusion, that Tahirul Qadri's disciples are wikipedia moderators for this page. Wikipedia needs to adapt a better moderation policy, that prevents partisan moderation of wikipedia pages. The current TUQ page seems to be a page on one his websites! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:5000:89F:A5B6:36ED:ABCB:63F7 (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Reason for POV tagging

Article is largely bias and not at all neutral. Please remove POV tag when article is neutral to an acceptable standard, please do not remove otherwise.  Dhulfikar  chat?  23:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Article is Neutral,All references are from independent resources, hundreds of secondary independent sources have been provided for example from US World Economic Forum,BBC,CNN,GEO NEWS,DAWAN,AL-JAZERA ,VOA NEWS,THE NEWS,Washington Times,Press TV,Guardian ETC. of course in his books section one has to provide direct link of his website.Islamicreviver (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not the editor who added the POV template, but I do agree that the page reflects a particular point of view, regardless of the many reliable third-party sources used. WP:NPOV is not the same as Wikipedia:Verifiability. I'm keen to see what other editors think. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Major cleanup

Unfair edits

  • Yesterday I added a section in which A Lahore High Court decision on Tahir ul Qadri and Views of Jamia Al-Azhar about him, and the whole part was referred from reliable sources, WHY THESE WERE REMOVED???????????? Umerali2204 (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for asking your concerns, the whole section was speedy deleted because of WP:copyvio, not the reliability of the source. You just paste the content to the section. If it was in your own words with WP:NPOV then it was not removed. This is encyclopedia, not a newspaper or any personal website. I hope this helps. Justice007 (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
So I can write it in my own words and quote the source???? Which I think is the most reliable one as it is One of the Leading Newspaper of Pakistan ???? Umerali2204 (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes you can add that but per WP:NPOV and briefly, not WP:promotional. and not separate section, just add to related section.Justice007 (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfair removal of 2013 Long March

Removal of 2013 Long March led by Tahir ul Qadri was a big blunder-did not u keep yourself in touch with recent event then go back and open pakistani private and public channels to see the source truth and reliability is undoubtful ... requesting not again include me with this conflict and stop it cleaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agente786 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The key is to ensure that additions are properly written, neutral and verifiable. If they are, they won't be deleted. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Tahri ul-Qadri Not a Law Professor, IS a moderate Islamist, supports Sunni Caliphate, etc removed - why?

GorgeCustersSabre removed my edits claiming they were not neutral or from reliable sources, although I referenced Qadri's own books, and Minhaj websites. Also the reference to support the claim he is a law professor does not in any way support that. Maintaining this seems to be very hagiographic, I can only reason that GorgeCustersSabre is a supporter of Qadri and somehow feels that my edits reduce the status of this scholar, despite being true. Please explain. My removed statemens and refs below:

1. He is not a professor, and the first few lines claiming this with the reference in fact link to his phd in Islamic penal punishments and do not state he was a professor.[4]

2. he has a Phd in law and is a Sufi Islamist- Supports the idea of Caliphate or Islamic state but differs with Wahabis on it: http://www.minhajpublications.com/?p=11

3. Qadri is not a secularist, he remains a moderate Islamist and believes in an Islamic State or Caliphate[1] in an orthodox Sunni way, and that not "a single Muslim country which can be said to have the Islamic political system fully established." "The prevalent political systems available to the world today are Democracy, Communism and the Islamic State commonly referred to as the Khilafah (Caliphate). There are many things in common between these systems. The majority of countries today are divided between being Western democracies or Muslim countries, although there might not be a single Muslim country which can be said to have the Islamic political system fully established. from: http://www.minhajpublications.com/?p=11

4. Qadri also supports in theory the Islamic penal punishments, and wrote a Phd on the subject: PUNISHMENTS IN ISLAM THEIR CLASSIFICATION & PHILOSOPHY: http://eprints.hec.gov.pk/1475/1/1359.HTM

5. Qadri's deputy, Ghazala Hassan Qadri, head of his from Minhaj Women League, states that women may take any position in government except that of head of state which is a minor sin, not a major sin - "Women & Politics in Islam : Full Rights to be a Member of Parliament Political Advisor", by Ghazala Hassan Qadri, head of his from Minhaj Women League, http://www.islamicreviver.com/category/islamic-state-khilafat

6. Qadri has also defended the Blaspheny Law of Pakistan, although accepts it is misused: http://www.islamicreviver.com/3333/reply-to-false-accusations-of-karen-haekkerup-danish-minister-about-blasphemy-law

All of the above sources are from his own supporters and movement so how is this biased? Aaliyah Stevens (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Aaliyah Stevens, citations to reliable, authoritative, and neutral third-party sources would strengthen the trustworthiness of the edits you want to make. They are essential. Wikipedia requires them. You should NOT cite any sources connected to Tahir-ul-Qadri and Mihaj-ul-Quran. They violate the guidelines on third-party sources. Two good sets of Wikipedia guidelines that I have found really useful can be found HERE and HERE. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
To add to what George is saying, I don't think the problem is the information claimed so much as it is the sources. An article on Wikipedia is strongly tied to its sources, or as Denzel Washington's character said in Training Day: "It's not what you know, it's what you can prove." I don't think the long justification for the content is what is needed. What is needed is a set of good sources, and then those can be defended/discussed. If they are reliable, then the article can be amdended based on those. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ ...the Islamic State commonly referred to as the Khilafah (Caliphate)..."

Added More

I recently added Beliefs,Work And linkage to Imam Ahmed Raza Khan of Sir Tahir ul Qadri in main intro.Dil e Muslim talk 17:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

reverted 6 edits

reverted 6 edits.unexplained remove a lot of data.against guidelines.without source.may be someone is against Sir Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri.possible vendlization.Dil e Muslim talk 16:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

added more

added more refrences on beliefs of Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri.my sources are authentic and necessary.Dil e Muslim talk 17:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

For those who were questioning relations of Sir Tahir ul Qadri with barelvi movement.

Aslam O Alikum! Dear users.he is barelvi.it is proved from his books.Ilm al-Ghayb (Book on the Knowledge of the Unseen).al-Mawlid an-Nabawiyy ([blessings and peace be upon him)] Celebration of Mawlid] The largest ever written work on this subject, consisting of approximately 850 pages).Kitab at-Tawassul (Book on Intermediation).Kitab ash-Shafaa (Book on Intercession).Kitab al-Baraka (Book on Blessings).Kitab az-Ziyara (Book on Visiting the Graves).not even this He is linked to Imam Ahmad Raza Khan via only one teacher through three different routes[1].and you can see Sir Tahir ul Qadri celebrating milad in newpapers.these are fundandamental beliefs of only only barelvi.and dont remove it without some proper source.it is against guidelines.Dil e Muslim talk 08:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Please provide at least one good source that states that he is a Barelwi before adding such a big claim on the page. Original research and your deduction is not good enough. Tahir ul Qadri is a Sufi scholar and the above practises and beliefs are prominent amongst Sufis in the middle east. Hasseniqbal192 (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

i already warned you here that you are engaged in edit war on this page.

this is my last version in which i discribed that Tahir ul qadri is Barelvi

now about sources

  • i gave you refrence no 7 from a tv channel from zem tv.in this refrence Tahir ul Qadri is celebrating milad(Muhammad PBUH birthday).this festival milad is a basic and important fetival of Barelvi proof here.
  • Ilm al-Ghayb (Book on the Knowledge of the Unseen) is the book of Tahir ul Qadri.and Ilm al-Ghayb is fundmental believe of Barelvi movement see here here
  • he has written al-Mawlid an-Nabawiyy BOOK on Celebration of Mawlid.milad is also a fundamental belief of barelvi see here
  • another book Kitab az-Ziyara Book on Visiting the Graves.it is also fundalmental belief of barelvi see here fourth line.

he is a true and solid Barelvi.

can you prove these beliefs from Sufism

and Dont ever try to give fake warning to users.Dil e Muslim talk 16:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Please watch the 13 minute clip I sent you to your talk page where he clearly states that he is not a Barelwi. Being aggressive won't help matters. Please provide at least one source citing that he is a Barelwi apart from your deduction and original research and I will accept your edit. Hasseniqbal192 (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Speaking administratively, Am Not New, your work above is 100% original research. You cannot look at what someone wrote, see what type of philosophy it corresponds with, and then claim the person has that philosophy. Unless you can provide a reliable source stating that he is Barelvi, he may not be claimed to be anywhere on Wikipedia. Whether you're new or not, you need to review WP:OR. Note that re-adding that information here or anywhere else on Wikipedia absent a source is a WP:BLP violation and must be reverted and stopped. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
First of all Barelvi is not self accepted term,mostly opposition groups used for long and now media uses it for all the Sufi oriented Muslims of South Asia.The movement is same and one i.e Sunni movement which is also united with the largest majority of the world in their beliefs and in opposition to wahabi movements.Even main leaders never ever called or identify themselves with this term but they are known as barelvis due to Wahabi tactics.Similarly all Sunni scholars who love and respect Imam Ahmed Raza Khan are called Barelvis and are identified by the term barelvis.Tahir ul Qadri and many others don't call themselves but most are identified by this term.[See Here]. Shabiha (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
If they don't call themselves that, they may not be identified on Wikipedia with the term. You could not categorize them that way, you could not add the term to an infobox, and you could not put them in a list of "Notable Barelvi". Period. WP:BLPCAT is absolutely unambiguous that you may not categorize people by religion unless 1) it's sourced, 2) they self-identify, and 3) it is relevant to why they are notable. There is absolutely no exception to this. Now, If you can fulfill criteria 1 only, then you may be able to add the information to the body of the article, with a sentence like "According to Source X, this person is a Barelvi"; but the source's opinion would have to be of due weight and the quality of the source would have to be good. And you still couldn't add it as a category, etc. This is not a negotiable point, at all, because major harm can come to people if they are incorrectly labelled as one religion or another when it is not, in fact, true and important to their "encyclopedic identity". So if you know of anyone else on Wikipedia who is categorized as a Barlevi because they "love and respect Imam Ahmed Raza Khan", please immediately remove that category/infobox info. Please. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Suffice to say that Qadri is controversial with the Barelvi movement and I think that's made clear here.
As for Shabiha's comments, then they constitute pure religious bigotry. Firstly, Barelvis are not the only Sufis in South Asia - Deobandis are Sufis as well. Secondly, all of world scholarship refers to Barelvis as Barelvis - it isn't a Wahhabi plot because Wahhabism was a Saudi Arabian movement unrelated to what was happening in South Asia at the inception of the Barelvi movement. It's a patently ridiculous claim to blame naming Barelvis Barelvis on Wahhabis. Thirdly, the majority of Sunni Muslims around the world do NOT agree with Barelvi beliefs; were that the case, Barelvis wouldn't stand out as a distinct movement so this is again an illogical claim. Deobandis, the Barelvis Sufi counterparts in South Asian, as well as the aformentioned Wahhabis are all sub-divisions of Sunni Islam; Shabiha's comments are typical of hardliners of the Barelvi movement who seek to declare all non-Barelvi Sunnis as heretical. It's a ridiculous thing to say and quite insulting to the rest of the Muslim world.
Now, as for Qadri...WP:IRS and WP:OR. A number of editors have been beated over the head with these policies and still seem to be refusing to actually read them. Please. Read. Those. Policies. Before. Continuing. The. Discussion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW the above discussion of mezzomezzo is WP:OR dear mezzomezzo Please. Read. Those. Policies.Dil e Muslim talk 09:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

as comcerned with sufism of deobandi.they are not in favor of shrines tomb and calling saints for assistance.[2]Dil e Muslim talk 09:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your passive aggressive, sarcastic post is referring to. I'm not trying to be rude, I honestly don't know what it is you're trying to say - please rephrase it and think through your sentences first. Your English really needs some work if you want to engage in productive discussions on English Wikipedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

third party proofs

the main reason is that he want to call himself with term ahlesunnat wa jamaat which most barelvi like.see first paragraph of article Barelvi. he want to call himself with word barelvi word ahlesunnah or some other word it doesnt matter.it is based on his beliefs.and he is barelvi see here he is a barelvi declared by a newspaper.and not even this he and minhaj ul quran(his orgnization) is also declared barelvi by some well known authors in journal "Producing Islamic Knowledge. Transmission and Dissemination in Western Europe" Edited by Martin van Bruinessen and Stefano Allievi Dil e Muslim talk 08:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

One journalist and a couple of academics have labelled him with this term. Tahir-ul-Qadri himself has never associated himself with the Barelvi movement and he has been critical of this extreme sub-movement started by some followers of Ahmad Raza Khan, he has spoken clearly against Barelvis in the video I sent you earlier if you care to watch it. Tahir-ul-Qadri accepts many of the teachings of Ahmad Raza Khan but he has also always reserved the right to have different opinions to Ahmad Raza Khan. For example, he doesn't label Wahabis and Deobandis as infidels, nor does he believe that you can't pray behind them as many Barelvis think. His organisation, Minhaj ul Qur'an also label themselves as a non-sectarian organisation. You won't find any source where Tahir ul Qadri has associated himself with this Barelvi movement, many of his views are similar, but these same views are also found in Sufis. Many people have generally associated him with the movement but he himself has never claimed to be part of this extreme sub-sect. Tahir ul Qadri has always called himself a sufi and minhaj ul quran is known to be a sufi based organisation. Thought I'll just throw my views in this discussion. Tommyfenton (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

If other people have called him Barelvi, and those other people are important enough that their opinion passes WP:DUE, then we could include that as a sentence somewhere in the article, properly attributed: "He has been described as a Barelvi by Person X (citation)". However, if he has not used the term himself, we may not add a Barelvi cat, add the info to the infobox, or add his name to a "List of Barelvi" article or embedded list, per WP:BLPCAT. Tommyfenton, do you have those sources, so we can figure out whether or not it's worth including in prose? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
There aren't any major sources that specifically state that he is a Barelvi. Am Not New refers to Martin van Bruinessen and Stefano Allievi calling him a Barelvi but hasn't provided any reference. I don't think that it is worth adding it to the prose as they may have said Barelvi scholar in passing but I don't see that worthy of adding as I don't think that they are important sources on this subject.. Tommyfenton (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.minhaj.org/english/tid/8718/A-Profile-of-Shaykh-ul-Islam-Dr-Muhammad-Tahir-ul-Qadri.html
  2. ^ http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/islam-barelvi.htm

Relies on a single source?

I would like to inquire about the tag currently at the top of the article stating, as of this April, that the article largely relies on a single source. Because...well, do I need to state the obvious? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes. The point of tags like that are twofold. The first is to point to readers "You may want to be careful about how much you trust this info, since it's very narrowly sourced." The second is to point to editors (or readers who could become editors) that this article needs assistance, and so someone with other sources might be more encouraged to add them. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
So is the issue excessive reliance on the minhaj al quran or other websites connected to the subject? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I think Article should be edited to add more third party references. am adding few points which are related to his recent stands on much discussed Blasphemy Law in pakistan ,it created a controversy in Denmark.Msoamu (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if some of those you added are reliable, particularly the "Before Its News" link. Are these respected publications? MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Biased slant

This article seems to be written by someone close to the subject or the subject himself, and seems rather an exercise in self-promotion and self-justification. It reads like promotional campaign/political literature, justifying the point of view and actions of the Dr and also trying to present him in some sort of 'messianic' light (eg an alleged meeting with the prophet Muhammad in a dream and trying to relate some sort of special significance to this, to make the Dr seem something special) and so on. I really think this should be really drastically pruned and edited and all such spurious claims and the obvious bias removed, by competent neutral editors. Thanks. 39.54.21.210 (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Prof (r) Hilda Khan, Pakistan

The article has highly slanted and needs cleanup of honorifics and dubious sources. Also the irrelevant rants in talks pages by unprofessional Pakistani Wikipedians can take up data!!!Messiaindarain (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

With respect, what's the point of attacking Pakistani editors? George Custer's Sabre (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Appropriately referenced content has been removed from page and edit history.

A lot of appropriately referenced content which was neutral and added to the richness of page content has been totally removed not just from the page but also from the edit history. Why do wikipedia editors have a strong inclination to remove content from this page? If they have issues why cannot they address individual problems one by one instead of completely deleting the content? Is this what wikipedia stands for? Isn`t this supposed to be a collaborative platform? If yes, then the editors should point out the errors and correct them if they can instead of deleting the whole content and reducing the page to a dismal account of an influential persons life. I`ll edit the page again and expect the editors to show a mature understanding and settle the differences and errors by debate, this is what the talk page is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanialAhmedSheikh (talk • contribs) 17:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Express permission by Minhaj ul Quran to use the content.

This is a notification for the editors. The official website of Minhaj ul Quran has given express permission on their website for the usage of content and images for wikipedia. The permission has been given on this link http://www.minhaj.org/english/tid/455/Notification-on-Copyrights-by-Minhaj-ul-Quran-International.html#Wikipedia . So kindly make use of it. (Danial 22:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanialAhmedSheikh (talk • contribs)

User CatcherStorm recently reverted the changes I made to the page under the pretext of copyright violation, the above mentioned link clarifies that fact that Minhaj ul Quran International has given express permission for the usage of content and images. I request user CatcherStorm to kindly undo his revert. I take it that the user must have reverted my changes under good faith. However the issue has been resolved now , therefore undo the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanialAhmedSheikh (talk • contribs) 23:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand what issue editors have with this page, everytime there is a constructive edit, it is reverted. On every instance the editors have refused to point out errors and instead provide general statements and delete the constructive edits. If there is a problem with a certain section, editors should discuss it here instead of removing it completely and reverting the page to a version where information is not just weak but false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanialAhmedSheikh (talk • contribs) 10:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"Licensed for use on Wikipedia only" is not a valid license. If you actually read the text of the Creative Commons license, you'll see that it's usage permissions extend beyond Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 11:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect heading and content of Long March 2012

The long march did not happen in 2012, it happened in January 2013. Dr. Qadri came back to Pakistan and held a large public gathering on December 23rd, 2012 in Lahore which was the background event for the long march. Moreover the Longmarch 2012 section says "he has won 20 seats in that march". This is completely wrong as PAT did not even contest the elections of 2013 instead they launched the Vote for None campaign. Need to add a separate section to represent this fairly. Danial 10:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanialAhmedSheikh (talk • contribs)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad_Tahir-ul-Qadri/Archive_1&oldid=1136253087"