User talk:Khubaib.m

Welcome

Hello Khubaib.m and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Nawabmalhi (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Nawabmalhi don't presume or show off like you are an ace Wikipedia editor or writer or like you are an admin here. You are just a propagandist ignoring all norms and rules of Wikipedia to force your opinion on the world. Your incompetency is apparent from the edit history of the page Islamic schools and branches, so many edits repeatedly make you guilty of edit warring and of breaching many other community rules. BTW above paragraph is a good copy paste effort, must be commended. :) If Ahmadis or Qadiyanis like you would like to have their opinion seen let them write in Ahmadiyya page for now, as you have no connection whatsoever with Islam and its branches. I had given detailed information about this in Islamic schools and branches with references which should not be deleted by anyone respecting Wikipedia terms and conditions. Hope you avoid forcing your personal opinions on world and respect community terms in future. --Khubaib.m (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect there is WP:Consensus established on the Ahmadiyya. Through the hundreds of discusions held on various article talk pages over the past 10 years atleast. What you were doing is called WP:OR. And this is not allowed or accepted on Wikipedia along with usage of secretarian sources. Furthermore, you deleted multiple academic sources on the page. I dont have a problem with you adding material to Ahmadiyya related articles. However, the edits that you have made are anti-normative and seem to be disruptive. I have still assumed Good faith. I encourage you start a discussion on the Ahmadiyya main talk page before making such edits. Once you establish consensus proceed to edit. Recently I have seen a wave of Pakistani isers making edits on Ahmadi related articles, and yes I feel that the pages need to be protected(ie. Only confirmed users can edit) so I dont have to continously revert deconstructive edits.

Please do not use the term the "Qadiani" it is offensive.

Nawabmalhi (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect @Nawabmalhi there has always been consensus among Muslim community for last 1440 years and would always be so based on primary sources of Islam that any person who claims to be a Prophet after Prophet Muhammad PBUH, is a liar and a non-Muslim/Apostate, same is the ruling for those who follow such a person i.e. they are also non-Muslims. Moreover it is common norm that if you want to know about a thing or person, you ask him or people around him or in case of thing study its manual, in the same way if you want to know about a religion you should ask its followers or study its primary sources. The primary sources of Islam i.e. Quran and Hadith are clear on this issue that Prophet Muhammad PBUH is last prophet and based on these primary sources, there is consensus among Muslims that Ahmadis/Qadianis(quite recently founded group) who claim to followers of false prophet are non-Muslims/apostates. Similarly, based on above mentioned facts, the national assembly of Pakistan held detailed discussions on the topic and gave full opportunity to Ahmadis(Qadianis) to present their opinion, at the end it concluded that the followers of this group are not Muslims and thus Pakistan officially declared them non-Muslims. Prior to this many courts in Pakistan(some even before creation of Pakistan) had ruled that Ahmadis/Qadianis are not Muslims. Following is the timeline of these events:

February 7, 1935: Munshi Muhammad Akbar Khan, B.A., LL.B., District Judge of Bahawalnagar in his ruling declared Qadianis are non-Muslim.

March 25, 1954: Mian Mohammad Saleem Senior, civil judge Rawalpindi, in his ruling declared that Qadianis are not Muslim.

June 3, 1955: Sheikh Mohammad Akbar, associate judge District Rawalpindi, in his ruling declared Mirzais (Qadianis) non-Muslim.

March 22, 1969: Sheikh Muhammad Rafiq Gorigia, civil judge in family court, declared that Mirzais, whether Qadiani or Lahori, are outside the fold of Islam.

July 13, 1970: Civil judge Samaro of the District Mirpur Khas declared Mirzais non-Muslim.

1972: Honorable Malik Ahmad Khan, commissioner Bahavalpur, declared that Mirzai are a different group than Muslims.

1972: Honorable Chaudry Mohammad Naseem, civil judge Rahim Yar Khan, wrote in his ruling that Qadianis can not preach or make their worship places in Muslim localities.

April 28: The Assembly of Kashmir (Independent) passed a resolution declaring Mirzai a non-Muslim minority.

June 19, 1974: The Assembly of province of Frontier passed an unanimous resolution demanding that Qadianis be declared non-Muslim.

September 17, 1974: The National Assembly of Pakistan declared Qadianis a non-Muslim Minority. The Rabita Aalim-e-Islami followed with a similar announcement.

April 26, 1984: The Government of Pakistan issued an ordinance which was published in the Gazette of Pakistan. According to this ordinance, all followers of Mirza Ghulam (Qadiani and Lahoris) were declared to be non-Muslims and were prevented from using Islamic terms and symbols to try to misguide Muslims. Both Qadianis and Lahoris contested this ordinance in the Federal Shariah Court and claimed it to be against Shariah and their civil rights.

July 15, 1984: The Federal Shariah Court considered the argument presented by the advocates of Qadiani (Mr. Mujib-ur-Rehman) and Lahori (Captain Abdul Wajid) groups and the defense offered by the Government (Sheikh Ghiass Muhammad and Dr. Syed Riaz-ul-Hasan Gillani). After consulting numerous experts on Constitution and many learned Muslim Scholars belonging to every schools of thought, the court rejected the challenge of Mirzais (Qadianis and Lahoris) and upheld the Ordinance issued by the Government of Pakistan.

Moreover the sole religious body of Gambia "Islamic Supreme Council" also declared Ahmadis/Qadianis non-Muslims.

The international Muslim bodies such as International Islamic Fiqh Academy, OIC and Muslim World League also declared them non-Muslims.

Hope this suffice for you.

Please do not use the term the "Ahmadi Muslim" it is offensive.

--Khubaib.m (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

You cant use primary sources on Wikipedia. There are 100s of Fatwas in support of the Ahmadiyya Movement just in the continent of Africa alone. The chief Imam of Ghana has attended many Ahmadi Jalsas etc. The Chief Imam of The Gambia was literally fired for the fatwa that yoy referenced. Regardless, using terms such as "All or Most Muslims consider X" have been discussed, and on the Ahmadiyya page it was decided it is best to use many. ie "many Muslims consider Ahmadis to be Kafirs". this is something I have personally protected from deletion on the main Ahmadiyya page. However, mentioning this in the summary is pointless and irrelevant.

Nawabmalhi (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Why pick individual one or two opinions in presence of already existing consensus of Global Muslim Community all over ages, stressed again and again by Ummah. I think you don't know much about consensus(Ijma), it is one of the primary sources of Shariah and once established is binding upon all Muslims to come in future. Prophet Muhammad PBUH (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Allah will not cause my ummah to agree on falsehood; the hand of Allah is with the jamaa‘ah (the main body of the Muslims).” At-Tirmidhi (2167) Classed as hassan. So stop cherry picking one or two opinions after consensus has been established and stressed repeatedly, the opinion of these scholars will not be counted in face of consensus. Last time the consensus was re-stressed in 1985, long before above said so called scholar of Ghana supported the Ahmadiyyas or attended their jalsas; the Council of the International Islamic Fiqh Academy, which is a subsidiary of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, during its second session, held in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, from 10th to 16th Rabee‘-uth-Thaanee, 1406 AH (22nd－28th December, 1985 CE) stated Qadianis/Ahmadis are non-Muslims/apostates. One more thing I would like to mention here is the ruling of religious body of a non-Muslim country Singapore, Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura(Islamic religious council of Singapore) has also declared Ahmdiya non-Muslims. And now stop quoting Ahmadiyya page or consensus reached there, it is a separate article having no link with other one. If you still have issue with content on this page discuss those in talk page of this article. Thanks

--Khubaib.m (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Maile (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Khubaib.m (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

After going through reason mentioned for block along with other policies and blocking policy, it seems like respected admin has not assumed good faith on my part which is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. "It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it." But I am assuming good faith for blocking admin. I would also like to mention that the purpose of an Encyclopedia is to collect all relevant but authentic information supported by references on one place for the benefit of public, that's what I have been trying to do. Moreover, the user Nawabmalhi who requested to block me, was himself guilty of going against the community norms, he tried to impose his narrow/minority opinion by repeatedly changing/deleting the referenced neutral language content I had added. While his actions may not come under exact definition of vandalism or edit warring but surely his edits were nonconstructive and against the norms. If he had to contribute to encyclopedia he should have added more content instead of tempering or deleting existing referenced content, what he has been doing is obvious from the revision history of the page. Moreover, he has cited in his request that I have been supposedly vandalizing/tempering the "Ahmadiyya" section of the page Islamic schools and branches, to which I would argue that I am an ardent Muslim so my area of interest is Islam and I would like to bring authentic information of Islam to the world in most neutral way possible, will try to clear up matters where needed, that's what I did in the relevant section of the relevant page. Moreover same accusation could be hurled on him as is apparent from revision history. He also cited supposedly sectarian content on my talk page which will turn out to be wrong upon closer examination, I only cleared the matter supported by references. The language in my talk page may not be that neutral as in other pages because that is my user space, and if it is still inappropriate, admin should have advised me. Nawabmalhi has also cited the removal of Ahmadiyya from population branches section, to which I would suggest it could be mentioned in "Ahmadiyya Movement" section of the page Islamic schools and branches simply as "There are around -- million followers of Ahmadiyya movement", to which no one would have objection, because I was not only person to remove it from there, many other people removed it repeatedly, so we should respect opinion of all and should reach a conclusion on which all may agree. Now I am giving some "Diffs" here from revision history of above mentioned page for admins ease to verify who is wrong: 1st edit by me: Special:Diff/950357836/950595692, 2nd minor edit by me: Special:Diff/950595692/950656171, 3rd edit by me which was later reverted by someone: Special:Diff/950662889/950717796, by having a closer look at my edits it is apparent that mostly I added information in neutral way along with relevant refernces. Now I will give example of problematic edit by Nawabmalhi using "Diff" which will expose his mentality of imposing his view by tempering the content: Special:Diff/950656171/959281443 (here by looking at changes in Ahmadiyya section you would witness that he removed content of 2nd paragraph which was supported by references and changed it altogether with his own) then he proceeded with a series of edits dramatically changing the section. which can be witnessed from revision history. Then I tried to revert his edits again here Special:Diff/959295863/963101136 but he again undid my edit here Special:Diff/963101136/963728598. Then again I reverted his revision here Special:Diff/963927830/963934371 so he responded by requesting blocking me, he placed request on WP:AIV page where the admin Maile66 took notice. As apparent from all this both were involved in the scenario but Nawabmalhi started all this non-constructively, thus it was close to edit warring on part of both of us but not came under its exact definition. Now I will discuss about respected admin's decision to block me. At first, the admin suggested that it is not as simple as vandalism and suggested to Nawabmalhi that matter should be looked at by larges set of eyes on forum like WP:ANI but all of a sudden admin changed his mind and blocked me. Here is "Diff" confirming the Nawabmalhi request and Maile66 response. Now I will conclude my request saying that I agree that my actions which were in response were somewhat inappropriate but didn't come in the scope of vandalism as it is stated "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.", hence, firstly Nawabmalhi reported it on wrong forum i.e. WP:AIV page, then the blocking reason mentioned by amdin Maile66 i.e. "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia" also seem to not fit my case, my actions may only give impression of "Treating editing as a battleground" but one must consider "Difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms", advising or warning was more suitable compared to blocking. This is all I have to say, I am requesting to be unblocked and leaving the rest for reviewing administrator to examine and decide. --Khubaib.m (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining this request on procedural grounds only; this is far too long to be able to read. Please make another request that is much shorter, preferably a short paragraph. 331dot (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment: (Since I have been mentioned multiple times) I am not the first user to revert your edits other have done so before me. I assumed Good faith initially and took the time to explain to you multiple times that using sources that are primary, secretarian, or simply unreliable is not how to edit on Wikipedia (WP:OR). I also explained to you thaat there was a concensus established on the Ahmadiyya talk page (just see the talk page archives) as well as. the Islamic schools and branches by multiples Admins (None of whom are Ahmadis). Furthermore, at the same time you removed multiple well respected academic sources on the Ahmadiyya numerous times and removed text based off years of established concensus and based entirely on the Ahmadiyya main page. You also did not really start any talk page discussion on why you wanted to remove certain sources. He has said on his talkpage " Please do not use the term the "Ahmadi Muslim" it is offensive." as a retort which to me clearly shows his intentions along with his singular focus on the Ahmadiyya. You havebalso forgotten there were multiple sources cited in the population of branches section not one or the explicit reason you gave when remove the Ahmadiyya. I≈ could go on however this paragraph is already getting too long. Nawabmalhi (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Khubaib.m (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I wanted to make it concise but couldn't because of the facts mentioned. In short, it all started when user Nawabmalhi first "tempered" my "revision" (a closer look at changes in Ahmadiyya section would disclose that he removed content of 2nd paragraph which was supported by references and changed it altogether with his own). This started an edit war between us which continued till he reported and got me "blocked".. However, I do agree that my responsive actions were also inappropriate, I could have requested "dispute resolution" instead, which I will do now because Nawabmalhi again "undid" my revision after getting me blocked. Moreover, I would say that my intention was not wrong, only the way I pursued it was wrong, which can be confirmed by examining the edits I made. Please consider "Difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms". Advising or warning would have been enough to get me realize my mistake. So I request admin to please unblock me so that I may constructively contribute to the community --Khubaib.m (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I'll accept this, as you have indicated that you plan to seek dispute resolution and discuss your changes with other editors rather than edit warring. – bradv🍁 06:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Admin -bradv🍁 for taking time to review my request and giving me a chance to correct my conduct so that I may contribute positively for community.