Talk:Javed Ahmad Ghamidi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

	Islam Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Muslim scholars task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Article - Move 2 Ali Sina's debate link taken off 3 Ghamidi's methodology 4 Criticism Missing

[edit] Article - Move

If searched on google for "Javed Ahmad Ghamidi", we get 9470 results:[1] and if we search google for "Javed Ahmed Ghamidi", we get 830 results:[2]. Hence, I believe that this article should be moved to Javed Ahmad Ghamidi. TruthSpreader^Talk 13:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ali Sina's debate link taken off

TruthSpreader, Ali Sina debated with Ghamidi, atleast partially in this debate. Why was the link taken off? Explain why the link should not be here or is not relevant. http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/Ghamidip6.htm We could change the wording to say "Debate with Khalid Zaheer with assistance from Ghamidi", or something to that effect. For sure, Ghamidi had some communication with Ali Sina in that debate and so it should be there. --Matt57 02:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Even though FF website says that Ghamidi is involved, we don't know that to which degree he is involved. I personally don't think that Ghamidi would even spend time for FF, and Khalid Zaheer is running this debate from himself. As the situation is quite vague, I don't find it relevant to this very article. But if you want to start a new article: Khalid Zaheer, it is upto you. TruthSpreader^Talk 03:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I would start it, but I dont have any information on him plus I dont think he's as notable as Ghamidi. Ghamidi surely participated in this debate atleast to some extent as you can see and in my opinion, you have attempted to censor which is expected. And yes, Ghamidi did spend time on Ali's challenge. Its clear from the letter. Ali doesnt have to boast about Ghamidi. He's debated with Grand Ayatollahs. I'll check up more on this. --Matt57 17:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not Ghamidi who needs to promote himself, it is Sina who wants to put big names in his showcase to prove his credibility. And there is no censorship rather a matter of accuracy, as you've already put the reference on Sina's article. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghamidi's methodology

This article presents the views of Ghadimi on certain laws (such as Penal laws or Social laws) but what about his methodologies? I mean the article doesn't explain what is different in his *approach* that makes him ending up with different conclusion that others end up with. --Aminz 08:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the article tells in itself. It can be seen easily that Ghamidi doesn't follow ijma of scholars. Secondly, Ghamidi has a different way of looking at Sunnah (which is very opposite to the approach which traditionalist scholars took after Imam Shafi'i i.e. hadith is equal to Sunnah). Thirdly, he believes that the only ambit of hadith is to tell that how to perform certain task (from Qur'an or Sunnah) in a best possible way i.e. only Qur'an and Sunnah can add something in religion and nothing else. And for every Sunnah, it has to prove that this practice reached us through perpetual adherence of the whole ummah i.e. presence of practice in all times after the prophet.

Ghamidi's conclusions are based on his hermeneutics. But still occasionally, he refers top (Sunni) scholars in his writings to support his conclusions. His criticism of traditional understanding in number of areas can be read in his book Burhan. Which includes:

1. Research on Diyya
2. Law of Evidence (Discussion mainly on number of witnesses e.g. traditionally woman's testimony is considered half)
3. Punishment of stoning (A review of all the hadith related to rajm and concluding that none of them is strong enough to challenge the Qur'anic ruling)
4. Penal laws - some further discussions
5. Mistake of Interpretation (some verses which are used by Islamists)
6. Islam and Sufism (completely different two religions)
7. A request to Ahl "Bayt" (criticism on those who take "Bayt" (oath) for obedience e.g. Sufis and Israr Ahmed)
8. A request to Minhaj-ul-Quran (pointing mistakes of Tahir-ul-Qadri)
9. Islamic revolution (Ghamidi believes that there is no concept of revolution in Islam)
10. Limitations of Dawah (criticism mainly on Tablighi Jamaat)
11. Mistakes in essays (answers to many groups who have criticized Ghamidi's writings)

--TruthSpreader^reply 09:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Missing

I think this article needs inclusion of criticism on his methodologies as well. Just to keep this article neutral on all prespectives. Don't get me wrong, this is wht I have learnt from his student as a student. 203.81.197.126 18:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)