User:Babajobu/SIIEGtalk

"The Prophet"

Don't know whether ye think this would be an appropriate project for SIIEG, but here's one idea that's occured to me in the past: removing every instance of the POV supernatural honorific "The Prophet" from before Muhammad's name. It's totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I hesitated to begin doing this because I foresaw wars and difficulties in distinguishing NPOV titles from POV honorifics, and integral parts of names from tacked-on honorifics. Jesus "Christ" is as unacceptable to me as "The Prophet"...but what about "Lord" Krishna? These sorts of issues would have to be thought out in advance. I worked on the article about Sudanese Muslim theologian Mahmoud Mohamed Taha, and removed every one of about twenty instances of the honorific "Ustadh" (equalling something like "wise one") and the original contributor was amiable and agreeable to this, and the article much more appropriately now just refers to him by his name. But I think removing all the legion instances of "The Prophet" would incite some serious rancor, and we'd need to have all our conceptual ducks in a row before giving it a crack. Babajobu 13:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying Babajubo, but frankly I can't really see how such efforts should fit with the purpose of this project, which is to: "neutralize the apologetic content of Wikipedia Islam related articles, most of which are dominanted by the Sunni liberal Muslim minority POV, by reporting the facts on file about traditional, mainstream Muslim beliefs." What this is about (that is my understanding) is to work against the systemic liberal bias in articles regarding Islam, introduced by Western Muslims/converts, that are more likely to hold a liberal POV than mainstream Muslims living in Islamic countries. Something that on the other hand might fit the project, is to take another look at the 'Islamism' article, where historical background and justifications of conservative political Islam, has recently been deleted, by someone with an apparent liberal anti-islamist view of the islamic religion. -- Karl Meier 15:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I was being a little fuzzy-headed. I was thinking about mitigating "Islam is true" POV, but that's quite a different matter (if in some ways related) from restoring balance to articles characterized by liberal apologetics (and distortions) on behalf of Islam. So this project is more about dealing with "Islam is peace" than "Islam is true". Babajobu 15:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Both of which, incidentally, I'm happy to get behind. Babajobu 16:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that referring to Muhammad as "the Prophet" is rather inappropriate for an encylopedia article. Simply referring to "the prophet" is ambigious even in religious Muslim discourse, since there are many prophets in Islamic theology - Muslims would write "the Prophet Muhammad" in order to differentiate between Muhammad and other Islamic prophets. I think that such a matter falls into mission of SIIEG, because it is a question of Muslim religious bias versus a secular (i.e. non-religious) view of Islam and its founder. SIIEG should protect the secular perspective towards Islam, so that does include neutralizing the "Islam is true" POV (the "Islam is true" bias is an example of apologetics, in my opinion). So, should Muhammad be referred to as "Muhammad" on Wikipedia, or as "the Prophet," or as "the Prophet Muhammad," or perhaps "the Final Prophet of Allah?" I think the answer to that is clear, the encylopediac and NPOV approach is to refer to him as "Muhammad." I usually do replace "the Prophet" with "Muhammad" whenever I catch such an occurance, while editing, but I've never done a wide-scale changing of all such occurances. To see what kind of response such wide-scaling changing might solicit, I have removed all occurances of "the prophet" from the Muhammad article as an experiment. --Zeno of Elea 00:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

What do you think about the initial reference to Muhammad in an article? Is plain "Muhammad" specific enough? Could someone credibly claim that referring to him as The Prophet Muhammad helps remove ambiguity? I ask because I'm looking over instances of "The Prophet Muhammad" and many of them are in stubs, and are the only reference to Muhammad. I still think, even in the first reference, it needs to be NPOVd. I changed a couple first references from "The Prophet Muhammad"s to "the Islamic prophet Muhammad". Do you think that works? Incidentally, I also don't want to ride roughshod over Karl Maeir's contention that this should be about removing the spirit of "Islam is peace" rather than "Islam is true" from articles. If he thinks this is inappropriate, then I'm happy to regard this as an effort external to SIEEG, and continue these conversations on User pages, rather than here. What do you think, Mr. Maier? Babajobu 12:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

How about "Muhammad ibn Abd Allah?" Generally speaking, when it comes to disambiguating the names of humans, we use full names (i.e., first name and family name). Muhammad's full name is Muhammad ibn Abd Allah. Too obscure? How about "Muhammad the alleged prophet?" LOL - too hostile? How about "Muhammad, the founder of Islam?" Or how about "Muhammad, prophet of Islam?" Personally, I don't think disambiguation is ever needed in the case of "Muhammad," just as disambiguation is never needed in the case of "Jesus" or "Abraham." No one goes around saying "the Prophet Abraham" (except maybe Muslims). I think the use of the word "prophet" is highly contentious. Different religions have different defintions of what a "prophet" is and does. Judaism and Islam, for example, have completely different understandings on what "prophet" means. "Prophet" is not even an Arabic word, is it an English word that Muslims have just gotten used to using without giving it a second thought - it is a very poor translation of what Muslims REALLY call Muhammad: he is called "Rasool Allah," meaning "Messenger of Allah." In addition to referring to Muhammad as "Rasool Allah," Muslims also refer to him as a "Nabi" (meaning reciepient of the divine message). No where here does the word "prophet" come up, except in the imaginations of Muslim and non-Muslim anglophones. --Zeno of Elea 01:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not an initial reference to Muhammad should include something like "the Islamic Prophet", of course depends much on the context and the subject of the article. Sometimes it might be specific enough to use "Muhammad" only and sometimes not. However I did take a look at what you've been doing so far, and personally I like what I see. I also think your changes of "the Prophet" to "the Islamic Prophet" makes a lot of sense indeed. To say that Muhammad was Prophet is of course Islamic PoV, but to say that he was an Islamic Prophet (in an Islamic context) is a fact and NPoV. I actually think might join your efforts regarding all this tomorrow, when I got some time for it. And regarding making these efforts a part of this project, I think you might be right anyway. After all the name of the project is "the Secular Islamic Information Editors' Guild." -- Karl Meier 17:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Changed a couple of others, including Madeeh, which I changed from "Muhammad, Allah's prophet", to "Muhammad, who in Islam is considered a prophet". Perhaps that needs to be changed to make reference to the fact that he is not just considered "a prophet", but the final prophet. Regardless, I'm starting to think even "Islamic prophet" is problematic, or any other assertion of anyone's prophethood. Probably better to state who considers them a prophet. i.e., Abraham considered a prophet by Jews, Christians and Muslim (rather than "the Jewish prophet" or "Muslim prophet" or "Christian prophet", and Muhammad, considered a prophet (or "the final prophet" or something of that sort) by Muslims. Babajobu 19:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think "Muhammad, who in Islam is considered a prophet" is a rather long-wided way of saying something that is so obvious that it need not be said. I would recommend simply writing "Muhammad", and if there is any chance of ambiguity, then write "Muhammad" (with the Wikipedia article link tags) - in the hyperlink form, there is no chance of ambiguity for the one in a million people who don't know that "Muhammad" refers to Muhammad the famous medieval bedoiun of that name. --Zeno of Elea 01:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I'd arrived at the same conclusion, and have started doing it just that way. "Muhammad" in all cases, Muhammad in any case in which ambiguity could conceivably be claimed. I've had my first revert, which rejected "Islamic prophet" on grounds he is also a prophet to Bahai. So I reverted it back with just Muhammad. Babajobu 01:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate for an encylopedia article?

Think again: http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/the+prophet --Striver 19:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

LOL, that "definition" is just a mirror of the Wikipedia article on Muhammad, and is prominently tagged with a "Neutrality disputed" note. Babajobu 19:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the content, but not the definition:

[[1]]

--Striver 19:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That's not a definition, it's a disambiguation page. I just checked Merriam-Webster Unabridged and Shorter OED, and neither of them has a "The Prophet" entry. MW encyclopedia does...but bizarrely it refers only to a 19th century Native American leader. Not sure what to make of that. Babajobu 19:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, unless my search function is giving me incomplete results, I think I've removed from Wikipedia nearly all instances of the POV terms I listed in the section below. Now I know what it feels like to be a bot. Anyway, I know that SIIEG's mission involves more fundamental matters than just purging some POV terms, but I thought it was worth doing. Babajobu 13:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

RfAr against me becvause of Islamophobia page

[2] Your input, sources, corrections and comments are more than welcome. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

PBUH!

My goodness! Just found loads of PBUHs scattered around Wikipedia! Removed some of them. At the very least SIIEG should be a "PBUH patrol". Babajobu 19:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not talking, of course, about PBUHs that exist in material quoted from primary sources, hadith, et cetera. Babajobu 19:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

"Holy Qur'an"

That's another thing to look out for. Babajobu 01:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Image of Muhammad

Zeno, I'd like to consider uploading the drawing of Muhammad to that article. Analagous articles Jesus, Moses, Joseph Smith all contain images of their subject, as is natural and appropriate. I think an article an individual person should include a visual representation of that person. I realize that some people's religious sensibilities will be stirred by this...as is the case for other Wikipedia articles with potentially offensive images, the image of Muhammad should be low in the article. But I think it should be there. What do you think? I know you have the picture of the ascent on Buraq, but I think the other one should be there as well. Babajobu 02:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

You mean the 17th century drawing, on my user page? That will just cause massive edit warring. The picture wasn't drawn by Muslims, so there's no way to really justify its inclusion in an article like Muhammad. I only uploaded it because I thought it was hilarious. --Zeno of Elea 04:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

References, research w short summary

• [3] - There have been no fatwas against Osama Bin Laden. There have been no Muslim or Iman denunciations of the idea of suicide bombing. The only Muslim organization to consider expelling Bin Laden and terrorists from Islam determined at a conference that, "It is not possible to declare as apostates any group of Muslims who believes in Allah the Mighty and Sublime and His Messenger (may Peace and Blessings be upon him) and the pillars of faith, and respects the pillars of Islam and does not deny any necessary article of religion." Thus Bin Laden represents a true Muslim no matter how many women and children he kills.

• Actually, there is a fatwa in Pakistan against suicide bombing of fellow Muslims. However, even when done against Muslims, the fatwa is not applicable when the suicide bombing is done for an Islamic cause, specifically, if done in Kashmir and Palestine. Muwaffaq 19:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • have you actually got a link to the fatwa, Muwaffaq?
    • The news appeared in many Pakistani and Indian newspapers a couple of months ago. For example, according to the Frontline:

THE attack on the shrine has doubly shocked people within and outside the country, as both Shias and Sunnis venerated it. The attack occurred less than two weeks after a group of 58 religious scholars belonging to different schools of Islamic thought issued a fatwa (edict) against suicide attacks in the country. The fatwa said Islam forbids suicide attacks on Muslims and those committing such acts at places of worship and public congregations cease to be Muslims.

The government-backed move was a response to a series of suicide attacks in different parts of the country in the past two years. It took weeks of persuasion by the government for the scholars of various schools to agree on the text of the fatwa. Some of the scholars were opposed to such an order on the plea that it would adversely impact on "struggles" in Iraq, Kashmir, Afghanistan and Palestine. So it was agreed that the fatwa would be applicable only to Pakistan, and Kashmir and Palestine were mentioned as examples where such acts could be condoned. Muwaffaq 22:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• "There have been no fatwas against Osama Bin Laden." - Wrong [4]

Congratulations: you found ONE. Now, how many Islamic scholars are there?Existentializer 19:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• "There have been no Muslim or Iman denunciations of the idea of suicide bombing." - Wrong [5]

Reread it, please.

- that all acts of terrorism targeting civilians - which as always leaves open the usual drivel from Hamas, Al Qaeda, Al Jazeera about how those killed weren't "really" civilians.

- To make matters even more laughable, they hosted the text at CAIR. Do I really need to go into what a sham CAIR is?Existentializer 19:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• "The only Muslim organization to consider expelling Bin Laden and terrorists from Islam determined at a conference that, "It is not possible to declare as apostates any group of Muslims who believes in Allah the Mighty and Sublime and His Messenger (may Peace and Blessings be upon him) and the pillars of faith, and respects the pillars of Islam and does not deny any necessary article of religion." " - The idea that you can expel a person from a belief is inherently stupid.

The idea in Islam that you can declare someone an apostate for their actions, however, is not. NO Muslim group, ANYWHERE, has bothered to do so.Existentializer 19:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• "Thus Bin Laden represents a true Muslim no matter how many women and children he kills" - You are talking gibberish. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:03, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid YOU are the one talking gibberish. Seems dead-on right to me. Existentializer 19:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Ongoing list of POV terms that frequently appear in articles related to Islam

• pbuh , or the fuller peace be upon him, after Muhammad or other Islamic prophets — appropriate action is to remove
• The Prophet or The Holy Prophet in place of, or preceding, "Muhammad"; or just Prophet preceding "Muhammad" — appropriate action is to simplify and NPOV to just "Muhammad"; in first references to Muhammad in an article in which confusion with other Muhammads is plausible, render Muhammad, or possibly "the Islamic prophet Muhammad".

Disagree. Just using "prophet" as a descriptor does not imply that the individual is speaking truth, just that he/she is "prophesying". Unless you're going to remove "prophet" from Wikipedia entirely, leave uncapped usages in Islamic articles. Zora 22:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• capitalization of Companions when referring to those who knew Muhammad — correction action is to uncapitalize
• Holy Qur'an (or Holy Koran, Holy Quran, etc.)— appropriate action is to NPOV to "Qur'an"
• Reference to Muslims who have been killed as martyred — appropriate action is to change to "killed", or occasionally "murdered"

Question: Neither of these is workable when describing suicide bombers.Existentializer 19:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I hadn't run across (in Wikipedia, that is) the description of a suicide bomber as having been "martyred". In those cases "killed himself and (however many) others" seems most appropriate.

• SWT or Subhanahu wa ta'ala occasionally used after "Allah" — appropriate action is to remove
• SAW, a variant of PBUH, sometimes used after "Muhammad", — appropriate action is to remove
• SA, a variant of SAW

Poll at Islam

There is a poll currently taking place at Talk:Islam#the_poll. The poll is part of a long-standing dispute regarding the see also and external links sections of the Islam article. Please participate in this survey so that we can take some advantage of the central limit theorem. It doesn't look like the poll will be able to demonstrate any sort of consensus regarding the external links issue and the talk page is plunging into havoc. I think an RfC will eventually be needed. --Zeno of Elea 14:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

For your conveniece, this links directly to the poll.

Ironic Edit War at Template:Islam

There are two sorts of biases being pushed on Template:Islam through edit warring and bullying. Ironically, the first bias is of an overtly fundamentalist and puritanical character, while the other bias is of an overtly apologetic character.

Overtly fundamentalist and puritanical POV pushing on Wikipedia is very common. Debates often rage over image at articles relating to human anatomy that show the nude form, for example. In the Islam series, this sort of bias was recently exhibited in Muhammad where some people wanted to include a Persian minature devotional painting of Muhammad while another group was strongly opposed to including the painting because it was "offensive" to some Muslims. Why was is it offensive? Because fundamentalist shariah interpetations prohibit drawing pictures of mammals, especially prophets. Another place where this bias has historically occured is in the Template:Islam, where the debate over the cresent moon symbol has been raging for quite some time and is has recently become active again after a long period of suppressing the symbol. The cresent moon is, of course, the universally recognized symbol of Islam; over a dozen Muslim countries include their symbol in their flags, and the symbol appears at the holy mosque of the Kabba in Mecca. But certain fundamentalists who are opposed to bidah (any sort of innovation or change "in Islam") do not like this cresent moon symbol. The Salafis were particularly famous for their opposition to this symbol - the salafis destroyed all cresent moon symbols in Mecca and Medina and also destroyed and flattened to the ground Muhammad's tomb in Medina, due to the Islamic regulation requiring unmarked graves. It might be true that the cresent moon was not used in early Islamic or pre-Islamic times and is some sort of new invention that maybe the Ottomans introduced (though I've yet to see someone source this), but is Wikipedia going to delete important and relevant content just because it is considered "bidah" in Islam and some puritans have historically gone around destroying cresent symbols on mosques? This little moon symbol might seem a trivial issue, but I think it raises some interesting questions about Wikipedia and the direction it will take.

The second bias being pushed in Template:Islam is to remove the Jihad link from the "Fundamental Principals" section of the template. The "Fundamental Principals" section was originally called "the Five Pillars of Islam" and "Jihad" was included with a note that Jihad is sometimes called the Sixth pillar of Islam. Then it was pointed out that Shiah Muslims don't believe in the whole "five pillars" thing, so "Fundamental Principals" would be more neutral. Military obligations are obviously an important part of Islam, and large portions of the Qur'an dwell on the subject of Jihad, and Jihad is considered the greatest deed in Islam. Dr. Azzam wrote a fatwa titled "Jihad: the first obligation after faith." The apologists would rather that people just not read or think about Jihad, because the whole topic puts Islam in a dim light from most secular and non-Muslim perspectives. So some users are edit warring to remove the Jihad link (this is also a recurring edit war on the template). --Zeno of Elea 15:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I put the Jihad link back in, along with a notice that some muslims consider it a fundamental principal of Islam. Islam is Peace POV is a varient of Islam is true POV, although it is somewhat more political. Klonimus 18:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Existentializer

Just for your information: [6] Existentializer banned for "suspicion" based on someone's vandalizing his user page. This is way out of line. Ni-ju-Ichi 05:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The onslaught continues

I was right. User Carbonite has banned me INDEFINITELY now for joining with you people. -Ni-ju-Ichi

Changing the first point on our mission.

As is

• neutralize the apologetic content of Wikipedia Islam related articles, most of which are dominanted by the Sunni liberal Muslim minority POV, by reporting the facts on file about traditional, mainstream Muslim beliefs.

Proposed change to

• Ensure Wikipedia Islam related articles are written in an encyclopedic style free from apologetics and sympathetic POV.

The new point is more general and explicit. It makes clear our goal of ensuring that Islam realted articles are free from sympathetic/apologetic POV and are written in an encyclopedic style, which means free from Honorifics and so forth. Klonimus 03:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Votes in Favor

1. Favor -- although for me it is not "our", I am interested in NPOV across the board, including these issues, and the new explanation is better than the old. --Noitall 03:57, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
2. Favor --Zeno of Elea 03:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
3. Favor - Satyameva jayate (Sanskrit:the truth will prevail), especially against Islamic twists and convolutions.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Votes Opposed

1. Oppose, this proposal is fundamentally inconsistent with NPOV. You cannot adequately describe a debate by purposefully exluding aspects of it, no matter how much you may disagree with them. --bainer (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

You absolutely cannot do that. To ensure that an article is free from apologetics is a completely POV aim, and totally against Wikipedia policy. --Victim of signature fascism vote for the arb com 17:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Existentializer and Ni-ju-Ichi are no longer members

Unfortunately, two users have to be removed from our list of members: User:Ni-ju-Ichi and User:Existentializer have been found by administrators to be sock puppets of User:Enviroknot, a banned user. Both user accounts are indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia, therefore will have to be removed from the current memebers list. They seemed okay to me, and I didn't know that they were sock puppets. --Zeno of Elea 04:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Nither of them seemed very disruptive to me, I'd like to see some IP traces before I accept this. For some reason, some admins are very quick to label people as sock puppets. Klonimus 05:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I asked for an IP log analysis, and the guy who has authority to look at the logs did run a check and reported the results here. --Zeno of Elea 05:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh well, I still liked User:Enviroknot. Klonimus 09:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

SIIEG might be deleted

As you might have noticed, User:Striver is trying to delete SIIEG. I invited Striver to join SIIEG (and still hope that he does) because Striver is quite knowledgable about Shiah beliefs; in particular, Shiahs have a lot of critical information and opinions about certain companions of Muhammad. Striver did not take up the invitiation, but decided to imitate the SIIEG idea by starting a number of new "guild" Wikiprojects:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Sunni Guild
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The World Conspiracy Guild
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The Septeber 11 2001 Conspiracy Guild
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The London bombing Conspiracy Guild

It seems that the paranoid conspiracy theory "guilds" drew the ire of a number of editors, and are well into the process of deletion. In response to this, Striver has put up SIIEG for deletion. I don't think we really have anything to do worry about. But those members who inclined to not see SIIEG deleted might eventually have to vote to keep SIIEG. --Zeno of Elea 04:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Sinking the Runnymede Trust Definition

The Runnymede Trust definition is seen as a notable definition by Axon and several others here on Wikipedia. While I think it is worthwhile to include this definition at the Islamophobia page only because of its prominence in political circles, I believe the definition ipse is a monstrum. I would like to ask all members of SIIEG to provide references to

• a) primary and secondary sources in which writers, publishers or journalists criticize the Runnymede Trust Definition
• b) sources which prove that mainstream Muslim scholars, leaders and majority portions of the Muslim population hold views which are in agreeance with parts of the Runnymede Trust Definition.
• c) Qur'anic and hadith sources which are in accordance with parts of the Runnymede Trust Definition.

I have added some examples. Please help, this is urgent.

1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11][12].
2. Islam is seen as separate and 'other'. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
3. Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric[], irrational[], primitive[] and sexist[].
4. Islam is seen as violent[], aggressive[], threatening[], supportive of terrorism[13] and engaged in a 'clash of civilisations'[].
5. Islam is seen as a political ideology and is used for political or military advantage. []
6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand. []
7. Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society. []
8. Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.[]

--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Historicity

Real history and evidence needs to be assessed in certain accounts. If the only evidence is in the Koran, it needs to be stated as such. If the evidence is much later, it also needs to be stated (this is the way it is on Christian sites). Also, involvement in massacres and wars should be discussed (just as David's involvement in murder and God's disapproval as stated in the Bible is discussed). For instance, this is terrible history, it looks like pages out of a religious text: Battle of Bassorah. Perhaps add other pages where the historicity must be cleaned up. --Noitall 03:35, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

ProphetBot

I was wrong, my search function was initially not showing them all. After a good few rounds of Prophet purging, Wikipedia is still absolutely overrun with references to "Prophet Muhammad". I'm on a dial-up connection and don't have time to purge them all. In future I will create a ProphetBot to manage this. Babajobu 13:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Just STOP, dang it. It's one thing to remove "the Prophet Muhammad, PBUH" -- I do that myself. But "the prophet Muhammad", used descriptively, is NOT an endorsement of Islam. When I talk about the Jewish prophets, Amos and Hosea and the like, I'll say "the prophet Amos" without feeling in any way that I'm endorsing his message. Heck, I'd even describe Joseph Smith as "the Mormon prophet" without feeling that I thereby become LDS! As a writer, I want to be able to use descriptives to vary the style. An article in which Muhammad can only be referred to as "Muhammad" or "he" is going to sound terrible.

Just removing "prophet" from any proximity to "Muhammad" is POV, unless you're going to remove "prophet" from Wikipedia entirely. I think if you tried to do that, you'd be banned in a heartbeat. So use some judgement! It's usually enough to remove the caps and the PBUHs, and alternate between using "Muhammad" and "the prophet". Zora 22:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

For anyone interested, I responded to Zora on his user page under "Prophet removal". He's going to put up an RfC on the whole issue of honorific/supernatural terms in religion articles, (and I agree entirely with the need for an RfC), and no more changes will be made pending resolution there. Babajobu 23:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

There is now a discussion going on in the Policy section of the Village Pump. It us under the heading: "Use fof the term prophet inherently POV?" Babajobu 00:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, "Prophet Muhammed" is POV (as it claims that the epithet prophet is universally valid for Muhammad, "Prophet of islam Muhammed" is not. This means that according to me all "Prophet Muhammad" references should be replaced by

• Muhammad or
• Prophet of islam, Muhammad.

--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

At the village pump discussion I think we came to a pretty satisfactory resolution on that. Just out of curiousity, Germen, why do you always leave "Islam" uncapitalized as "islam"? Babajobu 16:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Yusuf al-Qaradawi

When I stumbled upon this page it was an orgy of "Islam is peace", "Islam is true", as well as "Qaradawi is a man of peace and speaks truth". I've made some changes, but it's still very bad. Anyone interested, come on over. Babajobu 18:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks like SIIEG is going to be deleted

Prepare for the worst.

I doubt it. Right now the votes are keep: 10, delete: 9, merge: 1. This is what Wikipedias deletion policies says about this issue: "...At the end of five days, if a rough consensus (what constitutes a rough consensus is not set in stone, some do consider a 2/3 majority a "rough consensus", while others believe consensus implies a higher ratio) has been reached to delete the page, the page will be removed. Otherwise the page remains." -- Karl Meier 12:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Abdul 'Azeez ibn Abdullaah ibn Baaz

I don't have time to work on this article, and I'm not sure I'm doing the right thing by bringing it to the attention of you guys, but ... as it stands, the article on ibn Baaz is pure Salafi hagiography. This Wahabi scholar was one of the mainstays of the Saudi theocracy and he is an extremely controversial figure even inside Islam. Many Muslims disagreed with him. Is there someone here who can do some research and revise the article in a non-hagiographic and NPOV direction? I'll be interested in seeing if anyone here can be neutral but fair. Zora 02:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD results

This article was nominated for deletion. The result was no consensus. For details, please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Islam:SIIEG. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:21, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Sweet, we survived Klonimus 20:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

polemics

Klonimus reverted my caution against polemics with the comment RV: No changes to mission statement w/o concensus on talk page. One would think that avoidance of polemic would be uncontroversial, but since it apparently is not, let us make the consensus (whatever it may be) clear:

Those in favor of changing mission statment as per Mirv

• —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Those opposed

Please define Polemics? And why is a nonmember of this project so interested in our mission statement?

SIIEG exists to further the purpose of encouraging Islam relating articles being written in an encyclopedic style free from apologetics or sympathetic POV. Klonimus 01:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Polemic is the art or practice of inciting disputation or causing controversy, for example in religious, philosophical, or political matters. As such a polemic text on a topic is written specifically to dispute or refute the chosen topic, to "stir up trouble". Why do you care who is suggesting that polemic be avoided, and why are you opposed to the idea of eschewing that sort of writing? —Charles P. (Mirv) 03:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't like m:instruction creep. 2. I don't think SIIEG has anything to do with trolling, how ever some people think including secular or skeptical perspectives is trolling. It's very important to avoid any chilling effects. If encyclopedic articles about Islam, Muslims or Islamic practices stir up controversy so be it. Klonimus 04:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Concerns about polemical content should, by and large, be expressed through a different channel. Ideally a convergence of methedologies should take place in the parent project. Of course if the project is percieved is advancing POV (polemical) content into articles then this is quite possibly an appropriate channel for voicing such concerns, though the project does already explicitly advocate a NPOV approach. --Zeno of Elea 07:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Right, anyways most of the controversy about Islam has to do with conflict between people trying to present of a positive or sympathetic POV and people commitend to comprehensive neutral POV. Klonimus 15:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD Campaign against books critical to Islam

Recently I've been filling out the category Category:Books critical of Islam with articles about a contemporary books that are critical of Islam. One would think that documenting a verifiyable sub genre of books would not cause offense. But sadly this is not the case. I urge all wikipedian concerned with having an encyclopedic encyclopedia to look at the following articles and their VfD's. Klonimus 23:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism
• Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad 10,000+ on the Amazon.com rankings
• Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle 25,000+ on the Amazon.com rankings

These articles are currently undergoing some edit conflicts, so please take look.

• Quick Update,
  • Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad
  • Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle

Have been closed as no concensus keep. Klonimus 06:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Please see Mark A. Gabriel for another of Ian Pitchfords's VfDs.

Article request

Can someone do an article on Ahmad Thomson, an adviser to Tony Blair? Seems like a notable and charming fellow. See the article link for more info.

Klonimus 03:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC) --- From the

Jews and Freemasons controlled war on Iraq, says No 10 adviser By Toby Helm (Filed: 12/09/2005)

Tony Blair decided to wage war on Iraq after coming under the influence of a "sinister" group of Jews and Freemasons, a Muslim barrister who advises the Prime Minister has claimed.

Ahmad Thomson, from the Association of Muslim Lawyers, said Mr Blair was the latest in a long line of politicians to have been influenced by the group which saw the attack on Saddam Hussein as a way to control the Middle East.

A Government spokesman confirmed last night that ministers and officials consulted Mr Thomson on issues concerning Muslims but refused to be drawn on his views. "We talk to a lot of people, including many whose views we do not necessarily agree with," she said.

Mr Thomson said: "Pressure was put on Tony Blair before the invasion. The way it works is that pressure is put on people to arrive at certain decisions. It is part of the Zionist plan and it is shaping events."

[14]

Hey, check it out! After Klonimus put up this request I threw together a quick stub on Ahmad Thomson. Now Ahmad Thomson himself (or someone claiming to be him) has now created an account on Wikipedia and is edit warring over the content! He seems to have stopped for now, you'll have to go through the history to see his first person additions and apologetics. Babajobu 08:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Dhul-Qarnayn

Islamic apologists on Wikipedia are attempting and preparing to white wash and/or destroy the article Dhul-Qarnayn. This is a provocative subject for Muslims because it even a cursory glance, at the facts surrounding Dhul-Qarnayn, disproves the central tenants of Islam. I would appreciate it if more people could watch this article. Also please see the talk page. Zora wants to replace Dhul-Qarnayn with User_talk:Zora/Dhul, which is outrageous in my opinion. -- Zeno of Elea 13:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Identification of Dhul-Qarnayn with Alexander would effectively demolish the common Muslim view that the Qur'an is divine and infallible, but it needn't demolish Islam -- any more than higher criticism destroyed Christianity. There are millions of Christians who believe that the books of the Bible were written by human beings who accepted the prejudices and deficient knowledge of their time. Such "liberal" Christians still find value in the Bible. Liberal Muslims could do the same vis-a-vis the Qur'an -- and some do. Zora 19:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

"Liberal Muslims could do the same vis-a-vis the Qur'an -- and some do." I've personally never heard a Muslim, no matter how "liberal," endorse such a view of the Qur'an. If you know of any Muslim books, websites, blogs, etc. that endorse such a view, I would be very interested in knowing more details. -- Zeno of Elea 23:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam

I had included a section on Hindu critics of Islam, which was deleted by User:Anonymous editor. Please stop by and take a look at his objections.

He says it's a copyright violation. Is it? Babajobu 15:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

That's typical behavior for Anonymous editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Don't let it frustrate you. Similar things are going on right now in Zionist terrorism Klonimus 16:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, he started off by asserting that it was copyright violation. It sure was adapted from an online text, but was thoroughly summarized. When that didn't work, he said that the source I had listed as a reference (from a book by a central figure from the 19th century, who found an Hindu organization with over a million members today), was derogatory and childish, and the author was "completely insane." He also keeps asserting that since Hinduism and Islam are very different, Hindu criticism of Islam is irrelevant. Read the discussion [15] page on the article. He simply doesn't want the section to be there. He would just try to rationalize that in any possible way.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor

I'm inclined to think that many siieg'rs might be interested in the proposed adminship of one the biggest Islamic partisans on WP. Klonimus 05:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how SIIEGrs would vote in my RfA, or even whether they'd have much interest in voting at all, but since Anonymous Editor contacted his friends to vote against my RfA, I figure it will provide some balance to link to my RfA here, too. (Though seems very unlikely I'll be getting the adminship, anyway.) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Babajobu

Islamic economics / Islamic banking

The article Islamic economics shouldnt even exist. Islam does not have a theory of economics. A primitive set of illogical prohibitions, based on nothing more than the "God says so" argument, does not amount to a theory of economics. Notably there are no Christian economics or Jewish economics articles even though there is not a single related legal precept in shariah that cannot be found in ancient Jewish or Christian laws. To call this "Islamic economics" is a systematic bias. The article Islamic economics should forward to Islamic finance. Similarly, Islamic banking should forward to Islamic finance, merging both Islamic banking and Islamic economics. There is in fact no economic theory at all, it is only a set of laws about finance (i.e. about what kinds of financial transactions are "haram").

Secondly, there is a lot of information missing from these two articles (or what should, in fact, be a single article under the heading Islamic finance). Specifically, there is no discussion of stock markets, speculation, financial derivatives, and insurance. Funamentalist Muslim scholars generally hold that all of these manifestly important activities are "haram" (prohibited sin).

For example, in June 2005 the President of Iran declared, "Stock exchange activities are a kind of gambling and we are against them." [16] This caused investors to panic and move their investments to other countries. In the four months that followed, the Tehran Stock Market lost 20% of its value. On October 30, 2005, a few days after calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map," the President of Iran suggested that the solution to his country's economic problems is to start hanging stock market speculators, saying "if we were permitted to hang two or three persons, the problems with the stock exchange would be solved for ever." The Quran does indeed prohibit gambling. Speculative investment is indeed a type of gambling. In fact gambling is nothing more than financial risk and all activities involving money are a gamble. Speculative investing, or "prop trading" as it is called in finance, is indisguishable from gambling. Thus the notion that stock trading is "haram" is prevelant in the Muslim world.

Derivatives (eg stock options) are another financial activity that the doctors of Islam commonly deem to be "haram." In the same line of reasoning, the Muslim scholars have declared insurance to be haram (note that derivates can be seen as a type of insurance).

It goes without saying that Islam also prohibits the collection and payment of interest ("usury") - a vital component of the economy and financial markets. Consider, for example, the following excerpt from a June 26, 2004 article reported in a Pakistani newspaper [17]:

ISLAMABAD, June 16: Opposition members in the National Assembly belonging to the MMA and the PML-N staged a protest walkout on Wednesday against what they termed derogatory remarks by a minority member on interest on bank loans.

Taking part in the budget debate, M.P. Bhindara, a minority MNA belonging to the PML, referred to a decree by an Al-Azhar University's scholar that bank interest was not un-Islamic.

He said without interest the country could not get foreign loans and could not achieve the desired progress. A pandemonium broke out in the house over his remarks as a number of MMA members, including Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, Liaquat Baloch and others, rose from their seats in protest and tried to respond to Mr Bhandara's observations.

However, they were not allowed to speak on a point of order which led to their walkout which was also joined by Mehmud Khan Achakzai and Imran Khan. The members belonging to the PPP Parliamentarians, however, did not take part in the walkout. Later, the opposition members were persuaded to by a team of ministers sent by Speaker Chaudhry Amir Hussain to return to the house.

During its talks with the opposition members to bring them back into the house, the government team accepted the right of the MMA to respond to the minority member's remarks and it was decided that Sahibzada Fazal Karim of PML-N and Maulana Shirani of MMA would make brief statements.

Sahibzada Fazal Karim said the Council of Islamic ideology had decreed that interest in all its forms was 'haram' in an Islamic society. Hence, he said, no member had the right to negate this settled issue.

This is not an economic theory. Economic theory shows that interest is a natural phenomenon caused by the time value of money. The idea that an economy can function without interest is wholely unfounded, impossible, and does not corroborate with emperical evidence. Yet the article Islamic economics attempts to lead the reader into believing that banning interest can be intellectually justified. But what has been ommited entirely from the wikipedia articles is that this is a bigger issue. The economic "theory" of the Muslim doctors is one which all financial instruments (stocks, bonds, and derivatives) are banned, all interest bearing transactions are banned, and the whole concept in insurance is abolished. For those who are unaware, pension and insurance companies are the largest investors in the financial markets and often pension and insurance is handeled by the same company. Pensions are funded, in a large part, through long-term interest bearing loans: save money now, get it back later. If you don't collect interest, then inflation eventually causes your money to become worthless. Allah knows how many Muslims collect a negative real interest rate by leaving cash in the bank and refusing to accept interest on it, without even realizing the disasterous consequences of their "divinely guided" financial plan.

"Islamic finance" is a "truly Islamic" (i.e. imaginary) world where stocks, derivatives, bonds, interest, speculation and insurance are all banned. This would take us back to an age of barbarism where most people would suffer terrible poverty in the absense of basic needs due to a lack of insurance, pension, and loans. Meanwhile, the whole economy would soon collapse with the banishment of trade and lending. The article Islamic economics only briefly mentions the adverse effects that Islamic finance has had and can potentially have. The headings Islamic economics and Islamic banking are themselves inappropriate. Insurance, for example, is neither economics nor banking. And shariah is not an economic theory, nor is it a banking system, it is a set of laws (on financial transactions, in this case). This set of laws is not based on any theoretical, ethical or emperical grounds. It is a telling fact that every country in the world (including every Muslim country) has interest based banking systems, stock market "gambling" exchanges, insurance companies, etc. So this set of laws cannot be presented as some sort of intelectually respectable theory, any more than an encylopedia can describe the Church's bans on interest as some sort of competing theory of economics. I am followed around by POV warriors and have given up on editing, but I hope somsone else decides to research this issue and do something about the systematic biases present in the current articles. -- Zeno of Elea 09:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back, Zeno! :-) Babajobu 10:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

So, when you said "I will not be editing Wikipedia articles any more", and that you had "better things to do with my time".. you were lying? Surely not! --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

He wasn't lying, Tom, he was pissed off and he *did* leave for a while. So you can be proud of having chased him off for that long. Nice Wikipedia citizenship there, trying to encourage the exit of editors whose POV differs from yours. Lovely. Babajobu 17:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Irishpunk, I have stopped editing wikipedia articles. Talk pages pages and wikiprojects are not articles. -- Zeno of Elea 01:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeno of Elea, was that another lie? Why is it that I had to correct an edit from you on the Current Events page if you have ceased editing articles, and whats with the Paris Riots, is that not a wikipedia article? Babajobu, I didn't ask or want him to leave, I'd have much rather he ceased his POV and polemics. Calling people he disagrees with "Muslim fundementalist nazis" is hardly going to help a project such as this. He said he was going to leave, he lied, then he said he was not going to edit "wikipedia articles", he lied again. The man is a liar. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Tom, Wikipedia is replete with people whose wikistress level has gone off the charts and who have said they are leaving, only to return later after they have had a chance to take it easy for a while. The Esperanza project was founded to diminish the frequency of this sort of thing. None of those people are "liars", they are responding to an environment in which POV wars and so on can be very frustrating. Taunting someone who has just returned as a "liar" for not staying away permanently is a very shitty, very classless thing to do. Babajobu 10:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Babajobu, we clearly have a differnece of opinion as to what is regarded as "a very shitty, very classless thing to do", considering you felt Zeno of Elea the liar calling people he disagrees with "Muslim fundamentalist Nazis", "ramandan crazed narcasistic fundamentalists" and "enslaved victims of a deranged rapist psychopath" was fine and dandy. It seems your own bias is deluding your judgement. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

And what, pray tell, is my bias here? I nowhere said that those things were "fine and dandy". You are throwing out red herrings in order to excuse what truly was classless behavior on your part. Babajobu 16:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you seriously not aware of your own Bias? hardly the point in all and anyways; When I referred to Zeno of Elea as a liar (Which he is) you were quick to critisize and comdemn that as "a very shitty, very classless thing to do" (which is hardly of itself the classiest of ways in which to condemn a person) - yet, when Zeno of Elea calls people he disagrees with "Muslim fundamentalist Nazis", "ramandan crazed narcasistic fundamentalists" and "enslaved victims of a deranged rapist psychopath" you issue not even a peep.. now why could that be?!--Irishpunktom\^talk 17:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware of my own POVs...I was curious what your perception of my POV is. I suspect it's rather less simplistic than you might like to believe. I did reject Zeno's characterization of Mustafaa as a "Muslim fundamentalist Nazi". Generally, though, when someone has a fit of frustration in the process of temporarily leaving Wikipedia, I'm more tolerant of his emotional remarks than I am the remarks of someone who, upon the former's return, is waiting around to taunt him and insult him for not staying away permanently. Another of my POVs, I guess. Babajobu 17:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Babajobu, I called a liar a liar. I called a liar who referred to me as a "Muslim fundamentalist Nazi", "ramandan crazed narcasistic fundamentalist" and "enslaved victim of a deranged rapist psychopath" a liar. I have never made such hate-filled personal attacks against that man, I merely referred to him as a liar.. because he is a liar. --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I can certainly empathize with your being angered by those remarks. He was wrong to talk like that. Babajobu 18:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Irishpunktom, you're just going around and tagging everything I edit. I did say I was going to stop editing while I was drunk one night, I also said a lot of other things which are mostly accurate. You will notice that a current event article is very different from an article such as Dhul-Qarnayn which I'm not editing anymore. As you can see, I am done editing Islam articles so long as there are POV warriors like you chasing me around deleting my edits and putting ridiculous batteries of tags into articles I edit or create. I predict that you'll have less success in articles that are in subject categories other than Islam. -- Zeno of Elea 10:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Where you "drunk" earlier today when you said that you "have stopped editing wikipedia articles"?. As for the Paris Riots I had contention with your summary of the BBC article, but instead of duscussing it and going over it, you revrted back to your POV addition. Had you not been so militant in your determination to keep this POC entry there would have no need to tag it. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Sup Zeno, I propose redirecting Islamic Economics to Peak Oil :-), but on a more serious note, The subject of economic relationships in sharia is a legitamate one, especially when contrasted with economic relations in Halacha. The main difference is that sharia economics operates in a world where everything occurs because allah wills it, where as "jewish" economics occurs in a world where people are partners with god and his creation. Hence in judaism there is much more acceptance of idea's like insurance, and stocks etc. Infact there is an enourmaous body of law dealing with the proper valutation of partnerships and investment relationships. The Islamic prohibitions on interest (Riba ) come from a strict reading of Halachic prohibitions on interest (Ribbit). If you read Ibn Warraq, you will learn that at alot of sharia is based on a mishmash of misunderstood Jewish law and pagan Arab customs. Klonimus 20:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

New MoS for SIIEG

Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG/Manual of Style

I just started working on this, so that we can have a uniform reference. Everyone is invited to contribute. Klonimus 03:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Mirv hijacked this, but otherwise I think that this really merits alot of input from SIIEG'ers especially the part about terrorism. There is nothing the history buffers like more than to remove references to the T-word, especially if it involves muslims as perpetrators. I think it's very important that BBC style political correctness not become enshrined as wikipedia policy. Klonimus 06:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Shehzad Tanweer

• London bomber buried in Pakistan from the washington times
• London bomber buried in Pakistan from BBC
• Remains of first July 7 suicide bomber buried note that even the leftist Guardian refers to Mr Tanweer as a suicide bomber. Not an alledged suicide bomber. I'm impressed that the Guardian is less politically correct than wikipedia.

Shehzad Tanweer, that plucky son of Albion has been buried in Pakistan. Would Babs or anyone else like to update his article. Klonimus 06:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ramallite

Yet another RfA that SIIEG'ers might be interested in.

Klonimus 14:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

New Project Idea

I'm thinking of registering a domain name and starting a new website. My idea is to start a kind of 'encylopedia' about Islam, based on the wikipedia software and articles. I would setup the wikipedia software on a server, and then copy every single wikipedia article that relates to Islam. In other words, it would be a subject-specific wikipedia fork. What will make it different from wikipedia is that anonymous users will NOT be able to edit it as we will be free to set the rules and software ourselves. Such a website would allow us to deal with the problem of apologist POV pushing in a highly effecient manner. It will also solve the problem of the vast and totally ineffectual wikipedia bureaucracy. Most importantly, it will be an encylopedia of Islam, a subject-specific encylopedia and not merely a generalist encylopedia, which means that the main page will be about Islam. The specialized nature of the website will allow for original research. Some people might say or feel that it is more beneficial to edit wikipedia because wikipedia is one of the most visited websites on the net. However, I would point out that Islam category articles probably make a very very small portion of the total hits to wikipedia. Also, an effective website can gain google recognition on searches just as wikipedia has done. I'm wondering what you guys think and if you would be interested. I'm also wondering if anyone knows if anyone has ever made a subject-specific wikipedia fork website before. We could introduce some new technology for this, such as a system for marking "reviewed" and "unreviewed" articles, and an indicator of how similar or different the article is from the latest wikipedia version. Also, I would appreciate suggestions for a domain name. -- Zeno of Elea 02:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

This could be a very good idea. Make sure you have a good understanding of the potential costs and what not. Klonimus 06:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea, Zeno. It's not really an alternative to Wikipedia so much as a different type of project altogether: allowing OR will guarantee that. Would be interested to see how it worked out. Babajobu 13:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

That could be a very interesting and useful project. Regarding the domain name, how about "Islamopedia.org"? -- Karl Meier 14:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

On a related note, one of the reason's wikipedia is pretty good overall, is that there is an intereaction from many POV's that leads to quality articles. If you have people from only one side working on something you have a tendancy to devolve into dkosopedia. Anyways I still think that our best efforts remain on working in wikipedia. However that also means being onguard against infiltration of Islam is True POV and people who promote that. Klonimus 17:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I still think Wikipedia is an excellent project and that SIIEG's project, i.e. working to ensure that "Islam is Peace"/"Islam is True" is presented as a particular POV rather than as objective reality, is much-needed here. Personally I'm more interested in working on that than in working on a new fork. But having said that, I'd be interested in seeing what a fork like that managed to come up with. Babajobu 18:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Slogan for SIIEG?

I just thought that perhaps we ought to have an official slogan. In keeping with our secular mission it ought to be secular as well. I invite all interested members to propose and comment on some slogans

• Uberrima fides -- Utmost Good Faith. To symbolise the good faith efforts that SIIEG'ers contribute to Wikipedia.
• 'Satyameva Jayate -- Truth Alone Triumphs. Self explanitory, and something we all need to keep in mind when the going gets tough.
• Allah is our goal. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Holy war is our way. To die for Allah is our highest expectation. Just kidding :-)
• Pietate, Arte et Scientia Corrigere With compassion, skill and knowledge we correct, straighten or set right

Klonimus 07:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I vote for the third one, with "Just kidding" as the last part of the motto! Babajobu 11:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I like Uberrima fides because SIIEG'ers work with utmost good faith, and seek a full disclosure of all material facts about Islam. Klonimus 09:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Please learn latin. Fides doesn't mean that kind of faith. --Victim of signature fascism vote for the arb com 17:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

VfD on 2005 Belgian urban violence

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Belgian urban violence

Some folks are trying to clean up any mention of copycat violence in Belgium related to the intifada,urban violence, in France. Klonimus 07:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yet another case of pov-warring

Because the following has been added to a public project page, I think it is only fair to also add it to other public pages:

Muhammad bin Qasim: Could you help me out on the Muhammad bin Qasim article? perhaps get the guild members to help out. Once you check the article out you'll know why I'm saying. Check the talk page. of the article.--Street Scholar ---- Islamic conquest of South Asia: Pro Hindu, Anti-Muslim article attention needed. --Street Scholar -- Yes, I have seen these articles before and they are very biased. I am glad that you and others are balancing them. I will help out when I get the time. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC) (see also Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor#Talk_pages).

Street Scholar has done pov-warring/deletions in these and other articles. It therefore makes me wonder that he puts such comments on a public wikipedia page to encourage others to aid him in his pov-warring. South Asian articles that are related to Islam get very much vandalism. This ranges from deletions, pov-warring, vandalism, whitewashing, inserting false and unsourced claims, revisionism, apologism and much more. Just a note: the two articles mentioned above have always been if anything at least partly apologetic, very incomplete, etc. and in fact they are not without a pro-islamic bias, so Street Scholars comment is a bit ironic.

Street Scholar (talk · contribs) has made only about maybe 100 contributions until now, but they include a lot of pov-warring and deletions like here: Iconoclasm, Islamic conquest (many similar deletions by Street Scholar in this article), bin Qasim (many similar pov-warring by Street Scholar in this article). They also include personal attacks like this: "Can you stop editing the Bin-Qasim article, you clearly have no idea of what you're talking about...You clearly have lost your finger tip-grip on reality haven't you?" [18], and sexist remarks: side note: Well Hindu girls seem to like my nose as seen as though I've humped a few an I am dating one now. and more (like on Talk:Muhammad_bin_Qasim and also writes that an important article should be up for deletion: [19]). Big thanks anyway to everybody who reverts at least the most glaring vandalism. --Kefalonia 12:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I probably don't know enough on the topics to be of much use, but I've added both Muhammad bin Qasim and Islamic conquest of South Asia to my watchlist and will revert anything that pops out to me as transparently crazy. Babajobu 18:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thanks for everybody who reverted vandalism. This is very helpful, because as I said above, these pages get a lot of vandalism. Kefalonia 18:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Glad it's helping, Kefalonia! Babajobu 18:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh a topic about me I see. Hay kefalonia, if you are going to talk about me you should at-least have the courtesy to tell me. Firstly lets look at the claim you make. You insulted me and Arabs by saying Arabs have deformed facial features. This is what actually happened:

You Said: "Don't understand why you worship these Arab conquers so much. They raped your grandmothers and killed your grandfathers"

I AM NOT User Dangerous Boy. --Kefalonia 12:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Then I made a reference saying I am a Turkish decedent, which you replied with ad-Hom:

"Looking at your nose, you sure might be but you're an exception. --Dangerous-Boy 11:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC) "

That is when I said: "side note: Well Hindu girls seem to like my nose as seen as though I've humped a few an I am dating one now."

Then you said: "Well, your nose looks jewish and you claim arab descent.... --Dangerous-Boy 23:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)"

I said: "I see you're not only racist you're also anti-Semitic and xenophobic - Anything else I missed out?

Yes, you make racist remarks on Blacks here and elsewhere and many other such things like saying "How is he an idiot for holding an opinion? the land doesn't even belong to Jews, they should go back to Europe where they actually came from. They are taking land that doesn't belong to them. Even in Australia they are taking over land that doesn't belong to them and the Aussies are starting to get pissed off too." [20]

--Street Scholar 20:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC) "

That is what actually happened. And anyway, lets look at my sources and then look at your sources to the article. You're getting all your information from Infinity-foundation, a website owned by a racist hintutva Ideology follower. Who in the paste have been known to lie. Like the claim about the Barbari Masque they said the masque was built on the birth site of the MYTHological god Krishna. And I put a big emphasis on the word myth, which resulted in the desecration of the masque and the death of many Muslims in India. And you are using information from this guys website. This is like writing an article on the Holocaust and getting your information from Nazi sources. I wouldn't be surprised if you were a Nazi, because you clearly are an anti-Semitic.

--Street Scholar 12:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I AM NOT User Dangerous Boy. Thanks for noticing that. And please stop ranting about Infinity-foundation: Almost the only thing I did in the Qasim article was reverting your vandalism, copyvio, blanking and your deletion of references to the most important primary source about Muhammad bin Qasim (The Chach-Nama). There is also a discussion at WP:AIN [21]. --Kefalonia 12:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Street Scholar, if you're going to have an argument with Kefalonia, you might as well argue with him, rather than with another user (Dangerous Boy) who you have differences with. Regardless, the issue around Muhammad bin Qasim and Islamic conquest of South Asia seems to be whether or not to include material that is critical of Qasim, or to include only hagiographic material that glows about how wonderful and benevolent he was. Let's just focus on keeping the article balanced, and avoid the interpersonal wars (with Dangerous Boy, or anyone else). Babajobu 13:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

look, it doesn't matter what I do outside of Wikipedia, so its pointless, you bringing them posts up. There is something called freedom of speech high probability a concept you are not familiar with. Dangerous, boy and this Kefalionis. Are two heads of the same dragon.

--Street Scholar 18:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't bring up any posts outside Wikipedia, I just said that you should respect Kefalonia's autonomy and not denounce him for comments made by another editor. I would think criticizing an editor for comments made by someone else is at least as strange as criticizing them for comments made outside Wikipedia. Babajobu 20:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Shut up man I wasn't even talking to you or even taking you into consideration. Just shut up --Street Scholar 20:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

lol! Well argued! You're a scholar and a gentleman! Babajobu 20:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Mohammed Sidique Khan

UK bomber attacks Muslim leaders published in the Sydney Morning HeraldNovember 16, 2005

Anyone want to integrate the new info into his article? Klonimus 19:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

About that word Islamofascism

About that word "Islamofascism" A very nice exposition of the concept. Klonimus 09:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism and Political Correctness

Anyone care to comment about the issue of breaking out Talk:Islamofascism out of Neofascism and Religion.

Mel Ettis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has decided to go against ther VfD decision an permanently protect and redirect this page. This may have to goto an RfC, and may eventually involve an RfC on Mel's conduct as an admin, this isn't the first time that mel has been accused of abusing his admin powers to further his own POV.

I think it's very important to have sound arguments and good evidence for this one. But at the same time, I think that when even one of the most bitter of the original partisans for deleting/merging LeeHunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) feels that this probably deserves its own page then I think it can be said that general concensus is to have it in a separate page Klonimus 19:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I think we just need to hear where this notion of a consensus for redirect is coming from. Numerous people have said it now. I don't know where it's coming from, but it's got to be coming from somewhere. Hopefully Mel will explain. Babajobu 19:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Mel isn't going to explain anything, I would bet $5 to the wikimedia foundation that Mel can't show a credible source for the existance of the concensus that he claims exists. The only concenus emeged when Mel, Lee, and Yube deciced to create Neofascism and Religion so that they could get rid of the Islamofascim article by merging it into that. I eventually got tired of edit warring with the Islamosypathists on wikipedia, so I moved on to other things.

Now that GWB has used the term twice in speeches, it's going to be very hard for Mel to continue to claim that this isn't notable enough for it's own article. Lee and others will continue to try and dilute the article, and especially to prevent any attempt at coming up with an empirical defintion of "Islamofascism".

What I find so fascinating about this is how several editors that are AFAIK not muslims are so interested in being apologists for a BBC type view of Islam (as a being misinterpreted religion of peace). They out-dawah the wiki-muslims. Klonimus 23:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I am a little annoyed that Mel just showed up, reverted to redirect, protected it, and wandered off without any explanation other than "there was a clear consensus for redirect" when I and other editors had already questioned where exactly this consensus formed, since it's not on the talk page or the AfD page. I would have liked a little more input from him to go with his decision. Hopefully he'll eventually respond to the talk page comments. Babajobu 23:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting editorial in Jordan Times

[http://www.jordantimes.com/thu/opinion/opinion5.htm A culture of hate and death] by Zaid Nabulsi. It's a temporary thing so read it quick.

I'm going to be very frank. Self-delusion and fear of the truth had eventually cost us too many beautiful lives on that grim Wednesday night. But unless we face the distressing facts, we should expect more terrible surprises. ( Uberrima fides anyone?)

Klonimus 15:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Nabulsi is calling for an undoing of centuries of Muslim "literature" in order to turn Islam into a "religion of peace." The assumption here is that it began as a "religion of peace" but was then perverted over centuries. This is a false assumption and this process of undoing the past would inevitably and very quickly lead to debasing the "two legs" of Islam, namely the Quran and hadith (both of which would have been banned as hate literature and incitement of violence had they been published in this enlightened age). It is mass religioisity in Muslim societies that leads to the rise of political Islam in society, and the rise of political Islam in a society always leads to militant Islam and gross oppression of women, children, non-Muslims, and eventually the "moderate" Muslims themselves (ironically). And what is driving the deep religiosity amongst the masses in Muslim societies? It isn't the mujahideen who drive this religiosity, it is the so-called "moderates" who dress up the creed of the mujahideen as "the religion of peace." It is these self-appointed "moderate" mullahs who try to paint the black flag of Islam white, who try to legitimize their fundamentalism and anti-secular, theocractic ideals by trying to excommunicate and delegitmize those who have shown the true face of Islam. We are told by these moderate Muslims that it is not Islam that is the danger, rather it is some supposedly crazy people who have supposedly "perverted" Islam with an ideology of hatred, warfare, and oppression and "turned" it into the enemy of freedom and peace. This is no different than modern-day Communists who try to gloss over the bloody consequences of Communism by insisting that everyone from Lenin and Stalin to Mao and Pol Pot were not representative of a "truly Communist state," just as "moderate" and "radical" Muslims, alike, speak of a "truly Islamic state." But those who are wise know that Communism, an ideology that holds class warfare as a fundamental principal, will always lead to the sort of misery that was unleashed onto humankind by the likes of Pol Pot. Fortunately, those foolish people who try to paint the red flag of communism white are an insignificant minority in a world where communism is widely accepted as a failed and abandoned ideology. However, the "moderate" mullahs are not insigificant. On the contrary, they plant the trojan horse of "moderate" political Islam into society, into the minds of Muslims and non-Muslims, and into the political systems of Islam-conquered nations. They are Public Relations managers and propogandsits for the very same Islam to which the militants and terrorists adhere. It is in the interest of the terrorist that "moderate" mullahs go about telling Westerners and Muslim youth that Islam is a reasonable religion, that (despite appearances) it is NOT a crazy, dangerous and violent political ideology whose grasp over the Islam-conquered nations, cultures and societies needs to be defeated. Therefore, it is the self-appointed, so-called moderate Muslims who rank amongst the greatest allies of the terrorists and in some cases (such as CAIR or the Muslim Brotherhood) they secretly ARE terrorists. -- Zeno of Elea

Please learn some history. Islam was far more tolerant of minorities during the crusades era than were Christians, who massacred them. Christians even had regular anti-Jewish riots in towns and cities where Jewish lands and property were burnt, and the Jews themselves slaughtered. York is perphaps the most horrific case of this. --Victim of signature fascism vote for the arb com 17:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism

It's up for VfD, make sure your opinion is counted. Klonimus 20:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

BYT's seems to have blown a gasket over this one. Klonimus 00:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Similar edit wars have been going on at Jihad (talk page).. User:Yuber vandalised my user page with an anon proxy, is now conducting a smear campaign claiming I am am what seems a guy he's had a run in with before, "Enviroknot" promising to "get someone to look at my account" and has "banned" me from his talk page (removing any edits I make) for mentioning that he has a big strike against him (I did not insult him or break any Wikipedia policies, he just wants to censor his talk page so that as few people as possible know about his history especially with regard to the following):

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber, which contains many criticisms of Yuber's "vicious POV pushing", intentionally starting edit wars, removing sourced material he dislikes, claiming consensus when there is none, harassing users, sockpuppeting and so on.

After he started claiming I was "enviroknot" I went to the page and checked it out, and User_talk:Enviroknot also mentions the following:

* Both Yuber and Guy Montag are each placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year from the date of closing this case (9th of October, 2005). Should any sysop feel that it is necessary that either of them be banned from an article where they is engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, POV reorganizations of the article, or any other activity which the user considers disruptive they shall place a template {{Yuber banned}} or {{Guy Montag banned}} as appropriate at the top of the talk page of the article, and notify them on their talk page. The template shall include the ending date of the ban (one year from this decision) and a link to Wikipedia:Probation. The template may be removed by any editor, including them, at the end of the ban. If they edit an article they are banned from, you will be briefly blocked from editing Wikipedia, for up to a week for repeat offenses. * Yuber is instructed to use only this account, and no anonymous IPs. What editing constitutes Yuber's is up to any sysop to decide. If Yuber violates this, any sysop is authorised to ban them for up to a week. Yours, James F. (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

--Chaosfeary 21:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yuber should have been banned for life. -- Zeno of Elea 00:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the admins checked me out, see SlimVirgin's talk page for confirmation I am not enviroknot. Yuber just seems to like to run smear campaigns against anyone who critcises his POV-edits... --Chaosfeary 00:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

YA VfD of interest

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political epithets

About time this monstrosity got laid to rest.

Klonimus 00:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Fundamentalism in French Workplace

Fundamentalism in French Workplace

PARIS — Employees set up clandestine prayer areas on the grounds of the Euro Disney resort.

Workers for a cargo firm at Charles de Gaulle airport praise the Sept. 11 attacks.

A Brinks technician is charged with pulling off a million-dollar heist for a Moroccan terrorist group allegedly led by his brother. Female converts to Islam operate a day-care center that authorities eventually shut down because of its religious radicalism.

Klonimus 03:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This should be mentioned in 2005 civil unrest in France, where unemployment and economic issues played a big role. -- Zeno of Elea 03:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Why? It has nothing to do with unemployment or economics issues, or the civil unrest. --Victim of signature fascism vote for the arb com

"The Muslim Guild"

Its worthwhile to check out the Muslim Guild talk pages. There's some .. interesting.. stuff going on there, eg: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild/User_comments/Striver Also User:Striver has been doing a lot of work on his user page, and it's become quite entertaining. -- Zeno of Elea 04:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

OMG at Striver's user page!! At last someone is really telling the TRUTH!! Babajobu 04:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Islam Portal

These projects were recently started: Portal:Islam, Portal:Sunni Islam, Portal:Shia Islam. It is part of the Muslim Guild Mission Statement to "assist in maintaining" these pages. Might be something to watch. -- Zeno of Elea 06:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

j00's

What, according to the Qur’an, are the main characteristics and qualities of Jews?

“The Qur’an has specified a considerable deal of its verses to talking about Jews, their personal qualities and characteristics. The Qur’anic description of Jews is quite impartial; praising them in some occasions where they deserve praise and condemning them in other occasions where they practice blameworthy acts. Yet, the latter occasions outnumbered the former, due to their bad qualities and the heinous acts they used to commit.

from IslamOnline.net

Klonimus 08:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Latest from VDH

[http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson120205.html A Moral War: The project in Iraq can succeed, and leave its critics scrambling.]

Almost everything that is now written about Iraq rings not quite right: It was a “blunder”; there should have been far more troops there; the country must be trisected; we must abide by a timetable and leave regardless of events on the ground; Iraq will soon devolve into either an Islamic republic or another dictatorship; the U.S. military is enervated and nearly ruined; and so on.

In fact, precisely because we have killed thousands of terrorists, trained an army, and ensured a political process, it is possible to do what was intended from the very beginning: lessen the footprint of American troops in the heart of the ancient caliphate.

Klonimus 00:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Chaosfeary

This user and SIIEG member seems like he has a lot of potential, but he's been doing some crazy things ([22] [23] [24]) and looks like he's on his way to an indefinite ban. Someone please reason with him and explain that he's got too much to offer Wikipedia to get himself banned over craziness like this. He's been banned by numerous admins, at least one of whom says she is ready to ban him permanently. Babajobu 14:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Abuse of power

I took my complaint against Gren for abuse of power to Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. I thought you might be interested to see. OceanSplash 15 Dec. 2005 10:03

What's wrong with apologetics?

(1) Do I understand the meaning of "Islamic apologetics" differently from the sense used in this Wikiproject?

• Islamic apologetics would be to make the case that truths of Islam can be known by human reason or, conversely, the truths of Islam are not contradicted by human reason.
• The apologetics propositions detailed are referenced back to an author of a book, article, or Internet page, and his or her work cited.
• That's how I would expect Islamic apologetics to be presented in the Wikipedia.

If I understand the mission statement correctly, this project has as its mission to suppress the presentation of Islamic apologetics otherwise conforming to the Wikipedia policies. Is that correct?

(2) For the sake of discussion, using my definition of Islamic apologetics, and not the definition used by the project members, is this the content that you seek to delete from the Wikipedia? patsw 03:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Pat, obviously there is nothing wrong with presenting a very enthusiastic and pious POV about Islam, assertions that "Islam is True" and so forth, so long as these are cited as the view of a particular author. Most members of this project object only to when these POVs are presented as objective truth, rather than as a particular POV. Babajobu 03:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The objection you mention here is not the one in the mission statement. It is specifically Islamic apologetics there but here you've modified it to be a point of view that is presented in the Wikipedia without conforming to its policies of verifiability, attribution, and citation. Is the mission statement wrong? patsw 04:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The mission statement is completely consistent with what I wrote. SIIEG's goal is to see Islam covered in an NPOV, non-pious, non-apologetic manner. Describing apologetic viewpoints is not itself apologetic...presenting those viewpoints as plain reality is apologetic. Babajobu 04:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)