User talk:AAA765/Archive 3

Islam Peer Review

I am requesting a peer review for the Islam article. If you have any suggestions, please let us know. Thank you very much. BhaiSaab 01:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Re Genesis

The notion that Hebrew, or any other attested language, is the "original language" is demonstrably false. Not that you'd said that, but it's a common interpretation.

Who is the author of Genesis? Or, receiver of revelation if you prefer? There is no claim that anyone witnessed the events described, nor is there any claim that they were revealed. It's just an old story, and doesn't claim to be anything more. Several other claims of Genesis have been unambiguously and indisputably debunked.Timothy Usher 06:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

People doing evil in the name of religion

Aminz, yes, Muslims did that. Also read about the persecution of the Bahais in Iran. That was even WORSE -- and it's still going on.

I don't think that there's a religion in the world that hasn't been used as justification for horrible, horrible things. I don't know if you've heard of the Nagasaki Martyrs -- they were Japanese who converted to Christianity in the 17th century, and were tortured and killed because they wouldn't give it up. Buddhist priests, Zen priests, approved of the torture. That's MY religion.

It has less to do with religion than it has with human nature. A warning to us not to be too self-righteous, lest we end up killing and feeling completely justified. Zora 10:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes even people without religion can do this for example. I don't think that the article like other articles is particularly neutral though, so you should probably question what's written. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

re: Blanking

Because, impersonator or no, "This user will be condemned in the Judgment Day and will go to Hell" is an attack, something explicitly forbidden on Wikipedia. For more information, see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Snoutwood (tóg) 21:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not he 'deserves' it is subjective and irrelevant. From WP:NPA: "There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them." It doesn't matter that he's an impostor. We don't attack or insult people. Snoutwood (tóg) 22:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I know. It's too bad, but that's the way it goes. However, attacking him won't solve the problem. If anything, it inspires him to do it again. Some people (trolls) like that: it's why we don't feed them. You may also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals (it's not policy, but a lot of people, including me, agree with it). Snoutwood (tóg) 22:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. Snoutwood (tóg) 22:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for everything

Thank you Aminz, for your assistance in my unheeded defense, and reverting my user talk page from vandalism.Timothy Usher 23:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey checkout the Muwatta template

Template:Muwatta «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 13:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi

I'll take a look at this and try to understand the situation.

Since you're Persian too, you might want to help out at Persian people#History. We're having an inter-Iranian problem over the broader definition of who Persians are. Even though some sources clearly state Persians are of mixed ancestry, some users insist on saying Persians are "descendants of Aryan tribes", which is immediately contradicted by the next statement saying Aryan tribes intermingled with the local populations (Elamites for example, but also others) upon their arrival on the Iranian plateau.

All I'm asking is for the statement to be replaced with something more neutral. Perhaps something like "Aryan tribes began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC." I don't know why some users insist on using the terms "descendants" and "Aryan" next to each other.

The other side shows very little flexibility or respect. This issue has escalated beyond imagination and some users are actually trying to get me banned from Iran-related articles. As a result I've had very little time for anything else (such as the dhimmi article, which I've visited before).

Could you look into this and let me know what you think?

Aucaman^Talk 10:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm Persian too, if these users let me. There's something else I need to tell you too, but I'll tell you once this whole controversy is over. It would be our little secret. Aucaman^Talk 11:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Na man ye modati hast az riazi dast keshidam. Hala shoma rahat boro bekhab. Man ye tag mizaram roo najis ta moshkelatesh bar taraf beshe. Aucaman^Talk 11:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Are man badan barat tozi midam. hala shoma felan BORO BEKHAB. farsiam nanevisi behtare, chon vazia momkene chizayike migio eshteba tarjome konan :| Felan shab khosh. Aucaman^Talk 11:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Re WP:AN/I

I agree that we shouldn't get into the rest of it. One of the editors involved here has a substantial record of abusive diffs, establishing a pattern of bullying, gratuitous insult and unrecanted false charges alike. To me, that's not the immediate issue. 3RR was the reason given for the block, and when they realized AE'd miscounted, AE changed the subject while Sean Black blanked his talk page. The honorable response is to publically admit that the charge, and the block which was explicitly based on it, was wrong without further qualification. That's what I'll be requesting.Timothy Usher 10:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Aminz,

I saw your comment here, and I think you don't entirely understand what the page is about. It's not about the Iranian nationality (which includes Persians, Kurds, Azeris, Baloch, etc.), it's about the specific Persian ethinc group. As you know, Persians comprise 51% of Iran's population. By looking at this map you can see that Persians, Azeris, Arabs, and Kurds in Iran are all separate ethinc groups, but are the same nationality, Iranian. —Khoikhoi 22:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Khoikhoi,

I personally do not belong to no minority group of Iran but after coming to US I feel I can understand them better. As to your comment, I am afraid I disagree since based on what I have read about Judaism, being a Jews unlike being a Musim or Christian implies descending from Issac(like being "Seyed" in Iran but with the difference that being "Seyed" has nothing to with being a Muslim). So, Jews believe they are descendents of Issac who was Hebrew. Now, saying Iranians are descendents of "Aryans" automatically proves Iranian Jews are not Iranians. All the issue is about the word descendent. To persians this may not have much importance but to Jews it has. --Aminz 23:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, first off, you agree that most Persians are descendants of the Aryans, right? Incidentally, the term has nothing to do with the Nazis, and is not an "outdated racial theory", as Aucaman claims. Secondly, I'm Jewish too, and I can tell you that things in the Torah are not necessarily historically accurate.

Let me give you some sources.

Encyclopædia Britannica, the most authoritative encyclopedia on this planet, says the following in their Ethnic groups of Iran article:

The Persians, Kurds, and speakers of other Indo-European languages in Iran are descendants of the Aryan tribes that began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC.

Also, the Columbia Encyclopedia says the following:

The Aryans came about 2000 B.C. and split into two main groups, the Medes and the Persians.

The fact of the matter is, there is absolutely nothing with the History section of the Persians page, and there's an overwhelming majority that agrees. Going on with this issue would probably just start up another edit war, and it's not worth your time or mine. —Khoikhoi 23:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any discrimination. Anyways, the problem is about 100 users disagree with you, so I guess you'll have to discuss it with them. —Khoikhoi 23:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

*Sigh*. I tried, I tried. —Khoikhoi 23:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you can make such a huge generalization against 40 million people. In what way are they racist? —Khoikhoi 23:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

But the problem is that you're generalizng. Saying "all Persians are racist to some extent" is a somewhat racist statement in itself. ;) I'd just prefer it if you said Many Arabs don't like Persians, instead of using the word all. —Khoikhoi 00:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, how do you say "nice talking to you" in Persian? —Khoikhoi 00:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sweet. Can you type that in Farsi script? Khoda-hafez. —Khoikhoi 01:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! —Khoikhoi 01:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, revert it quick

Aminz, you don't get to vote in an arbitration. Only the arbitrators do. They are elected annually, I believe. Revert quick! Zora 22:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Heheh, you're the third person today who has stepped into it. ;-) (That said, I appreciate your intention to help, very much.) Lukas ^(T.|@) 22:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha! That's hilarious!Timothy Usher 05:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah, you can't change anything on that page, it's just the jury who get to edit it. Unfortunately... :-( Lukas ^(T.|@) 22:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course - It just seems to be entrenched Wikipedia jargon in that sort of case. But then again, in English, we do commonly say "somebody is (not) civil" when we want to express he acts in a civil (or uncivil) way, don't we? Anyway, we have more serious problems now than that... Lukas ^(T.|@) 22:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Najis

Having read through you and Pecher's latest clash, is the dispute on this page solved? Seems that Aucaman did some good work here.Timothy Usher 05:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Bernard Lewish on Najis article

Hi Aminz, you are possibly right, however on wikipedia we are not supposed to state the author of the source in the articles text unless there is an opposing reference *and* if the original source is considered unreliable. Bernard Lewis however, is considered reputable and reliable enough. Feel free to add another reference so that you can spell out your complaints without it being original research. Usually by virtue of the name of the author of a source appearing most people will assume the article is suggesting that the person is biased.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. Can you respond on my talk page as I tend to forget to check the other people's talk pages.

Well its not common sense to me. I am admitedly not an expert on shiism or anything, but I think I am probably more knowledgable on it than an average person and I really wouldn't have the foggiest idea that it is common sense to Shiite Jurists.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The reasoning you provided not only doesn't seem like common sense but seems quite esoteric (to me, probably not to you though). I think you are just going to have to provide a reference for this one man. I understand what you mean though, for every culture there are things that have become so ingrained in their collective consciousness and memory from such a young age that it is near impossible to understand how some poeple do not already know it. I guess that is a problem with having such a heterogenous community on English Wikipedia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say that Bernard Lewis is definetly reputable and reliable enough to stay in the article. I do understand that he is sometimes controversial, but I would argue that for an academic who writes on controverisal subjects and is as well-known as Lewis is, the criticism that has been directed towards him is relatively mild. Compare what has been said about Edward Said and you will see what I am talking about.

My suggested solution for you would be to add opposing references that ilustrate your viewpoint, but be careful to use reliable sources and not add original research.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi

I'll post on the talk page shortly. However, note that your version of these sentences

"Dhimmis were guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying a special capitation tax known as the jizya and accepting various restrictions and legal disabilities. "

was changed to

"Dhimmis were guaranteed their personal safety and security of property. They had to pay a special capitation tax known as the jizya and accepting various restrictions and legal disabilities. "

is actually a little more critical of Sharia, in that it suggests (correctly) that the "protection" was really just a threat. You may be familiar with the phrase "protection money" in regard to the Mafia; merchants would pay or be unprotected (from the Mafia itself, naturally).

I agree that Pecher's version is marginally more neutral in that it's less interpretive, but I don't object to either one.Timothy Usher 06:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note "marginally"! As I've said above, your version (the first, correct?) is overtly neutral, but suggests that the Dhimmi were given "an offer [they couldn't] refuse."Timothy Usher 07:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope that my recent edits have solved at least the section title dispute. No doubt there will be others, but as this one had no easy solution, maybe the next ones will be solvable (?)Timothy Usher 09:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Good luck on your exams!Timothy Usher 09:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

More to come...I can't see the logic to the organization of sections...for example, how is "Marriage" "Social and Psychological" rather than "Legal"? It's both social and legal.Timothy Usher 09:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Muslim

Also note the latest discussion on Muslim.Timothy Usher 07:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"(I think this should be good)" does not quite explain how you are taking the discussion into account on Talk:Muslim. Please re-read and discuss? Shenme 07:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No need to think "sorry" or "whoops" - we all bring things to WP. (I'm trying to explain myself further, too, but I type slowly - more comments there soon) Shenme 07:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Doroud

Just wanted to say that welcome to Wikipedia, we have a good few Iranian editors on here, there was some trouble with Aucaman but please do not rush in to conclusions without understanding the situation - no one is trying to be "racist" here. Ba sepaas, -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 19:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Template

After some thought I decided to create this smiley template, as I thought most of the arguments in the talk pages are due to misinterpretaion of what is being said, hopefully these smileys will help us (at least me !!) communicate in a much more friendly manner. Hope you all will like it.

• {{smiley|1}} will produce

(Friendly smile)

• {{smiley|2}} will produce

(Confident)

• {{smiley|3}} will produce

(Mocking)

• {{smiley|4}} will produce

(Hysterical)

• {{smiley|5}} will produce

(Hurt)

• {{smiley|6}} will produce

(Very Sorry)

• {{smiley|7}} will produce

(Sleepy)

• {{smiley|8}} will produce

(You are Nive)

• {{smiley|9}} will produce

(I am not happy)

• {{smiley|0}} will produce

(No Comments)

 «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 20:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

More Smileys for you

• {{smiley|10}} will produce

(Congratulations)

• {{smiley|11}} will produce

(I am in deep trouble)

• {{smiley|12}} will produce

(I am innocent)

• {{smiley|13}} will produce

(Sceptical)

• {{smiley|14}} will produce

(Upset)

• {{smiley|15}} will produce

(I am shocked)

 «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 19:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

No. I compromised on that. Timothy didn't even participate in the discussion. I see enough disagreement over the name that the article can be moved back. The proper way to move it would be to go through RM, not like this. If it is continued to be moved then Isa will be locked from moves until an RM consensus can be reached. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

AE, if you think the page needs to be move-locked, please be sure to request that at WP:RFPP. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know. I am fine with this name, which was proposed by Tom. I see only Pecher and Timothy disagreeing with both it and Isa. Palmiro, Aiden + others would like Isa better, but most are willing to keep this name. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes this name is the compromise even if Isa was the best in my opinion. We can't have it moved anymore. If RM is made, then I am definitely sure that no consensus will come out of it and the article will have to remain at Isa under policy. So I think that instead of complaining Timothy should find this as the best. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor wrote, "Timothy didn't even participate in the discussion."

That's junk. I've been very involved in the discussion from the beginning. As for the portion of the discussion which has unfolded on his talk page, I quit that portion because it had been determined that he "owns" his talk page and can alter comments thereto post facto, compromising the integrity of the discussion.Timothy Usher 01:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Timothy you did participate in the discussion. Just confirming. --Aminz 04:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

History of slavery in the United States

Aminz,

I was wondering what you think of this article: History of slavery in the United States. Do you think it too critical?Timothy Usher 02:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Template

Thanks for the info! —Aiden 18:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Multi-page confusion

Aminz, I must have been thinking about the Criticism of Islam page. Or an edit on the talk page (?).Timothy Usher 06:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I reacted as if you were criticizing this edit I'd made earlier [1]. Someone had writting "Critics such as Muir have argued that Muhammad ordered the torture and execution of her husband after the battle at Khaybar", but the source (at least one of them) is not a critic but an unqualified Muslim admirer, Ibn Ishaq, while "...but this is disputed by some Muslims, who argue that he was killed in battle" is unsourced.Timothy Usher 07:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Montazari's explanation:

"After Safiyah became a hostage, there were a few people who wanted to marry her. But since she was the daughter of the chief of the tribe, the Prophet in consideration of he social status, did not allow others to marry her. Safiyah herself was reluctant to marry ordinary people. Therefore the Prophet (pbuh) for the sake of protecting Safiyah, accepted to marry her."

Is completely at odds with Ibn Hishaq's of Muhammad tossing his cloak over her. Where is he getting this from? What verses? What hadith? Perhaps there are some, but from what I see here (perhaps editted?), Ali Sina has gotten the better of the Ayatollah.Timothy Usher 07:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Blog you might like

Aminz, you might like this blog [2] by a Pakistani Muslim. He's an amazingly good writer, a modernist, and someone who is willing to bare his uncertainties in public. Zora 23:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you read this? It's called the Serenity Prayer:

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

by a Protestant clergyman named Reinhold Niebuhr. Emphasizes just how hard it is to keep a balance between submission and effort. I think I have a tendency to give up too soon, myself. Zora 07:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Rani, etc.

Oh, I know. I was alerted from Zora's talk page a few weeks back; I couldn't believe my eyes. See, now, wouldn't it be a crime to cover that up?

Can you believe what that Shez 15 just wrote (the unsigned comment above yours)? Zora may ignore it, but I've reported it.

Sorry I've not responded to your hadith, which as you say, contradicts Ibn Hashaq...although does not speak to the specific issue with the husband, nor does it quite say that Muhammad married her for charitable reasons, only that she was presented to him on this ground...but it does contradict Ibn Hashaq, so there's some confusion here. I think we need to find more hadith to see where the apologists are getting this from.Timothy Usher 04:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Mumtaz

Well then check Indian actress Mumtaz out, as she was of Persin origin, her pic in the wiki article is not very flattering but you may google and get some better one's.Haphar 12:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Islam

Hi , I have included a new image in the talk page of the Islam template, please make your comments about it to be included in the template, thanks BTW all the very best for your exams  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 18:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hello

Hey Aminz,

Sure, no problem. :) I noticed that you've been getting into some conflicts on certain pages. If you ever need an admin to intervene if you don't think the situation isn't getting any better, I have some names for you. Cheers, —Khoikhoi 05:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus intro

"Jesus (8-2 BC/BCE– 29-36 AD/CE)"

But wait...isn't the "Christian POV" that he was born 1 AD, died 33AD, then rose again 33AD and lives to the present? 1-33, 33-present? How come this isn't represented? How come the text doesn't at least say, "According to D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris,..."Timothy Usher 05:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Khaybar

Thanks - looking forward to it; hope things go well w/ your exams. I understand the general background; though Al Ahzab gives good context, not sure if it is 'the' cite we need. Would also humbly suggest that militarily it would not make sense to attack there 'just because they broke an oath' - there really wasn't very much to be afraid of tactically, (esp from perspective of a presumably intelligent & courageous commander....). Kind of bizare to chase folks out of town - and then pursue them a while later to kill them: why not just kill them right away. Which makes me think some of the more recent Islamic interpretations may be apologism, which I think is uneeded and in many ways insulting to Islam. But the point needs to be made that there is a heck of a lot more to this than what Stillman and the encyc of Islam assert. Personally would like to see this thing get to where Badr is (i.e. FA status). Bridesmill 17:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The Past Has Passed

As you requested, I avoided talking to and interacting with you for the past several days (although not intentionally; I just have had no reason to). However, I hope you're still not holding a grudge for something I thought wasn't a big deal in the first place (note my tenth axiom). joturner 22:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Subst

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. --Cyde Weys 02:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Rules of war, Najis, et cetera

Hi Aminz; I don't think I can usefully mediate on this, and I can't act as a neutral admin. I've begun to wonder if this is an area to which I can usefully contribute. I have no special knowledge, beyond having read a few books. The pages are tremendously divisive and time consuming, and I really end up making little significant improvement. I'm going to try to move away from these, into areas that I know more about, and that are less difficult to edit. I'll look in from time to time. Good luck with your exams. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Persian people

I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - where only verifiable, reliable, sourced information are welcomed, currently the article and that sentence are well sourced and there is absolutely NO NEED for it to be reworded, as result of LONG and exhausting discussion it has had. I recommend you do NOT take this forward because of reasons I explained to you on the talk page. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 00:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Look, you do know that Aucaman has been banned from editing Iran-related articles and was also banned from editing Wikipedia for a week, and you know the reason for this is because of his repeated vandalism to Iranian articles as well as calling Cyrus (Koroush) an illeterate murderer [3], correct? you do know this and you would like to make him happy? Very interesting. If you would like to know my religion, it is Zartoshti, and I am not happy with you baradar. Good night. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 01:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I am guessing that was your message? If it was, and since you keep writing in Persian let me do that as well then.

Aziz, keshvar goshayi haye Koroush kenar, Keshvareh mara dorost kard. Mas-aleh in nist ke adam kosht ya na kosht, va agar yek nafar goft Koroushetan kasi nabood be joz adam-koshe-bisavad, to azize man bayad yezareh fekr koni ke bibini in adam che ghadr nefrat dareh be Iran va adamaneh Irani. In heech rabti be din nadareh, agar mikhahi Persian Jews ro khosh-hal koni, be Ahmadinejad raey nadeh, nemikhad biyay inja moshgel eejad bokoni. To gofti blocket kardan, man inkaro nakardam, man va chandin doost baraye do mah zahmat keshidim baraye in mas-aleh va hala to mikhay biyay ke in adam ro khosh-hal koni? mageh bikari?! in agha pedareh maro darovordeh! harchi fohsh bood in va oon doostash be ma goftan, az terrorist, pasdar, melli-khah, etc. Mikhay doshman khoshhal koni? chi begam behet? Salamat bash. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 08:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Khoob, basheh, man bikhiyalesh shodam! Fekr nakonam vaghe'an ham besheh kari kard. Shad bashi --Aminz 10:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

...at your request. Best wishes, Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Aminz 01:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Best, Aminz! You'll do well, I'm sure.

You could always create another username, you know...Timothy Usher 01:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm It is tempting ;) --Aminz 10:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom, can you please unblock me "if it is possible". I am done with my hardest exam. Thanks --Aminz 22:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. I hope it went well. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, I am still blocked. Maybe it is because my IP address is blocked (24.7.102.19). Can you please unblock this as well. Thanks --Aminz 01:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked the ip; how now? Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

A revert to the Dhimmi article

Can anyone please give a revert to the Dhimmi article for the sake of God? I added this to the article but it was reverted by Pecher:

Allameh Tabatabaei in Tafsir al-Mizan commenting on a tradition that the above verse has "abrogated" other verses asking for good behaviour toward Dhimmi's, states that "abrogation" could be either understood in its terminological sense or its literal sense. If "abrogation" is understood in its terminological sense, Muslims should not deal with Dhimmi's but in a good and decent manner.

In order to avoid RS pretext, it can be modified in this way:

Allameh Tabatabaei in Tafsir al-Mizan commenting on a tradition that the above verse has "abrogated" other verses asking for good behaviour toward Dhimmi's, states that "abrogation" could be either understood in its terminological sense or its literal sense. If "abrogation" is understood in its terminological sense, Muslims should not deal with Dhimmi's but in a good and decent manner.

Thanks --Aminz 10:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Joturner

Thanks for the tip... I definitely wanted to vote support on his RfA. ;-) Netscott 08:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already seen this, though thank you for forwarding. I think this is a real mistake, and somewhat an indictment of WP, that it's as lopsided (so far) as it is. Joturner is bright and hard-working. These are good. But he is too young to stand in judgement over anyone, a point underscored by recent experience with Sean Black, and admin tasks include this. Would you want teenagers on your jury? Although he does use his real name, a very big plus to credibility in my book. Further, will he take or solicit admin action in Islam-related articles? The second point is very important, because the current system invites favor-trading between admins. Two admins can functionally evade the rules simply by agreeing to block on one another's behalf. It's important to know they won't solicit it, either, as per Anonymous editor.08:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your desire to let people know about Joturner's RfA Aminz, put please vary your talk page messages to avoid being labelled as a spammer (which is blockable). Netscott 08:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there a problem there? I've already voted, if that's the issue. Regards, Palmiro | Talk 13:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Aminz, I can't

Aminz, I can't be an administrator. I'm too abrupt and short-tempered. Not only that, I've made so many enemies (especially Iranian, Salafi, Shi'a, and Hindutva ones) that my RfA would go down in flames. It would be interesting, in an ugly way, but I'm not up to it now. I appreciate the thought, but I just don't have the temperament required.

How did your exams go? You know, if you want WP to help you in school (which it can), you should be working on engineering-related articles :) Zora 02:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, I can't think of a Persian editor other than you who approves of my edits. Zereshk and ManiF are particularly vociferous. I'm an anti-nationalist and I want that POV included too when I work on Iran-related articles. I have Indian editors angry at me, but I spend less time on South Asian articles. Oh yes, I have one American angry at me too, he thinks I should leave the US, since I'm not a loyal patriotic American :) No one understands. That's the penalty of having off-beat opinions. Zora 02:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Response to your inquiry

I'm sorry but I simply can't accept that. Man shaak daram ke shomaa Irani bashid ama in masleh baram ziaad mohem nist, chizi ke baram mohem hast ineh ke in shakhs sabagheh kheili baadi dareh dar maghalat marboot be Iran vaa Iranian, vaa man be hich onvan namitonam azash hemayat konam. Man kheili baeed midonam ke hich Irani hazar besheh az ishoon hemayat koneh. --ManiF 04:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Man dar topicha Islami ziaad faal nistam, hamnjoor ke shoma dar topicha Irani ziaad faal nisti. Pas bavar kon zamani ke man migam in shakhs sabagheh besiaar baadi dar topicha Irani dareh. --ManiF 05:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Naa, farghi namikone, baa tavajoh be sabagheh ishoon, man namitonam ghabool konam ke az chenin "status"i soe estefadeh nasheh, hala che mostaghim che gheir-mostaghim. --ManiF 06:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Doubt

Aminz, doubt, sincere seeking doubt, is more religious than being smugly certain of something just because your parents told you to believe it.

If Muhammad hadn't sought, what would he have become? Just another Meccan merchant, worshipping Hubal.

There was a French philosopher named Simone Weil who was brought up in a secular Jewish family. She had no faith in anything save science and scholarship. Then something happened and she experienced "God" in a Christian way. But she refused to join a Christian church. She said that her experience stood for God's love even for atheists. She said, "Christ loves those who resist him for the truth's sake, because he is the truth." Say that of Allah, and I think it will apply to Islam. Zora 10:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

salam

az ashnayee ba shoma khoshhalam. chon linke safhe man ro be zora dade boodi oomadam khodam ro moarefi konam.

man taze be wiki englisi omadam va faghat yek bar ba zora bahs kardam oonam ghabl az peygham zereshk bood. in bahs ra to safhe bahse zora ba onvane "you make big mistakes" bebin. be nazaram oon az shia ettelaate kolli va avamane dare va shayad nabayad ba in ettelate kam eghdam be edit maghalate tashayyo mikard.

rasti omidvaram khoda behet tofigh bede bishtar doa koni va behesh nazdik beshi.--Sa.vakilian 18:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

yadam raft beporsam chera mikhay ye adami ro ke inghadr tablost ro kandid koni.

dobareh salam!

Salam AminZ,

No single user has ever put so much endless time into attacking, discrediting, reducing the significance, encouraging ethnic separatism, and outright revising history in Iranian articles on Wikipedia more than Zora. There is a reason that she has so many enemies. Do you know how many Shia related articles she has nominated for deletion in the past 2 years? I dare say a good dozen couple. Striver I bet can verify this. Zora has endorsed the deletion of Misconceptions about the Shi'a artticle 3 times alone. Why? Because she considers people like Goldziher, Scacht, and Lammens as academic sources, while calling Nasr, Tabatabaei, and the entire Howzeh Elmiyeh Qom as "suspect" and "unrelaible".

For crying out loud, Lammens' paper for the Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici reads:

• "Ali was the least intelligent" and intellectually "incapable".
• Ali was "ugly".
• Ali was "fat".
• Mocks how Allah wished to keep his representative Muhammad in poverty.
• Writes of Muhammad "kicking Fatima brutally" and telling her to "shut up".
• Writes: "Fatima screamed: You are marrying me off to a beggar" (i.e. to Ali).
• Muhammad's wealth came from "plundering the Jews".
• Doubts the existence of Al Muhsin.
• Accuses Ali of having extramarital affairs and betraying her wife Fatima.

Such are the sources that Zora calls "academic", while dismissing the likes of Tabatabaei, Makarem Shirazi, and Nasr.

It always irritates me how she openly and arrogantly dismisses a pluralistic setting in articles, stating second hand research by western authors as fact, while dismissing Shia/Iranian sources as unreliable merely because she thinks they are "nationalist". She doubts that "Hazrat e Muhsin" ever existed. Have you asked her? She doubts the existence of "Shahrbanu". She has repeatedly deleted any reference to the fact that Umar ibn al-Khattab in fact carried out the Islamic conquest of Persia by spilling blood. She was so in denial that I had to scan actual pages from books recounting atrocities from Hajjaj ibn Yusof against Iranians and Mawali. And for an entire goddamn month or two, she even voiciferously clashed with me (here) because she thought (thinks) that Islamic Hadith are not worthy of being considered as sources (astaghforellah!). She was the one who in fact nominated the article List of Hadith for deletion under the most ludicrous pretext. [4] Now you tell me AminZ, give me one reason not to think of her as esaalatan zedd-e-shi'a. How would you react to somebody who actively keeps broadcasting the view that Shias are a fabricated spinoff of Islam? For a month, she even refused to accept an alternative second view that Ali (AS) was the first man to embrace Islam. When I showed her sources that do accept this view, she exported the entire debate here supposedly so that it wouldnt have enough exposure.

See, my problem with her is that:

1. She constantly looks for a way to re-write the history of Iran along separatist ethnic lines (which is the colonialist view of the old british orientalists), either by stating that Khwarazm is historically not a cultural province of historical Persia (Talk:Khwarezm), or that Sheikh Khazal was a martyr for the supposed cause of Arab independence in Khuzestan, or that Sialk is not nearly 7000 years old, simply because "Sazman e Miras e Farhangi" is not a reliable source according to Zora. engaar Irani haa ersiyeh babasho khordan. She has claimed that: "Elamites were not Iranian", "Iran was not one of the oldest civilizations of the world" (na faghat the oldest, but not even one of the oldest), that she goes around injecting views that people like Kharazmi were "possibly" Arab, that "Persian culture does not exist", etc etc etc. I mean, it doesnt take long for one to start wondering what does Zora have against Iranians? She even supported a separatist noticeboard called "al-Hurriyah" that advocates a free Khuzestan for Arabs.[5] SouthernComfort even believes that the user "Ahwaz" is actually a sockpuppet of Zora. I wouldnt be surprised if that were true.
2. She refuses to accept and incorporate other views into articles, contrary to her claims on talk pages. When faced with mounting counter-evidence against her view, she exports the debate elsewhere by creating a new sub-article. That's how and why articles like these were created: Identity of first male Muslim Succession to Muhammad Historical Shi'a-Sunni relations Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib Islamicization in post-conquest Iran ad infinitum.

Interestingly, Zora voted against my adminship last year, and quite viciously too (which came as a surprise to me since I wasnt even thinking of ever using admin powers to block or condemn people. My intention for adminship was strictly to organize the articles into proper categories, stubs, wikimedia links and databases, Farsi-English WP collborations, etc). I for one am certain that she did and does use backdoor communications and lobbying against me among other things. And I am certain that she does hold some nasty negative views against Iranians. Why, I will never know. But it is quite easy to see her pro-Arab bias fueling her anti-Iranian tendencies. And,...I always have doubted her truthfulness. She says something, acts the exact opposite.

But it's not just me, AminZ. Save you and maybe one or two tak-o-took others, I think I can safely claim that the vast majority of Iranian editors are unanimously against Zora's adminship of any kind. Ask them yourself if you dont beleive me. Zora only remembers me in particular only because Ive been here the longest. But she has clashed with almost every single Iranian editor no matter what their political/religious background. Zora indeed has made herself many enemies by relentlessly attacking Iranian articles left and right for the past 2 years. As we speak, she is trying to convey that Khwarazm is not (and never was) a cultural member of Iran.

But then again, meedoonam ke Zora gaahi vaght haa komak haaye shaayaanee be maqaalaat e Islam kardeh (in General). But when it comes to Shia articles, I digress. And when it comes to Iranian articles, I even fear her revisionism. It scares the hell out of me the way she calls me a "nationalist" just because I try to include sources and references that show Irani ha ham eftekhaaraati daarand, che Islami, che ghabl az Islam. ((e.g.))

In short, Zora is unable to contribute without injecting her personal opinions into an article, when it comes to the Shia and especially Iran.

Yet, as a credit to her numerous contributions in protecting the Islamic articles in general, I would approve of her vote on 2 conditions. It's simple:

1. That she stay away from all Iranian related articles, always, everywhere, no matter what (even if asked to come in and join).
2. That two Iranian-versed admins (whom everyone agree on) also be nominated, voted, or even instated into adminship en par with Zora. Maybe ManiF and Kashk. I dunno. If Zora can get admined, so should her opposites. After all, Zora is someone who claims Richard Frye is an Iranian nationalist (!), Encyclopedia Iranica is "outdated" (!!), and Tehran University is not a reliable source of information. I mean, with such a strongly opinionated person, how else must one deal with? Think about it, is she going to start blocking articles because, for example, she thinks Ehsan Yarshater or Iran's Cultural Heritage Organization are "nationalist"s?

I dunno AminZ, people like Zora damage the historical integrity of Iran, and Shias. Do you honestly trust someone who beleives Seyyed Hossein Nasr is not "academic"? I find that incredibly problematic. I mean, juse judge for yourself:

"What we're discussing right now is whether "ritual uncleanliness" [in Shia Islam] translates into everyday persecution [of Jews] (which it seems to do) and whether or not this is to be considered a feature of Persian Shi'a Islam in general or something introduced or intensified by Khomeini."Zora 05:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC) on the Khomeini talk page

So Jews are, according to Zora, persecuted in Iran because they are thought of as Najes. zekee. chetor mikhaai be yek nafar ke eentor chert o pert mibaafeh e'temaad konee?--Zereshk 03:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation on Rules of war in Islam

And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah. (Quran 8:61)

We have been invited to mediate on the issue of rules of war. Pls. accept mediation here. Jazak'Allah.Bless sins 02:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI - are you a party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Parties.27_agreement_to_mediate_3

Request opinion of Muslim editor

Hello. Could you please stop by Talk:Christianity and give your opinion? We are debating whether the word 'monotheism' should be included in the intro to the Christianity article. According to most dictionaries, the definition of monotheism is The dogma or belief that there is one God. Now, all Christians believe there is one God and all Christian creeds (such as the Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian Creed) profess a belief in one God. The point of contention is the Holy Trinity. Christians believe that God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit all make up one essense of God, i.e. are three parts of one God (known as hypostasis). Now, several editors think that because this is different from the Islamic view of Tawhid--and they alledge Muslims think Christians are not monotheistic, but tritheistic--we cannot say Christianity is monotheistic like is done in the Islam article. Many editors content, however, that the definition of monotheism is based solely on belief, not truth. So if Christians believe their God is one God, they are by definition monotheistic, even if they may not be right. All it takes to be monotheistic is to believe there is one God. Others, however, think we can only say "Christianity is a monotheistic religion according to its followers." Again, some editors (including myself) have issue with this because it's basically like saying "Christianity believes it believes that there is one God," which of course is redundant. In my opinion, monotheism by definition is the belief! None-the-less, we would like to know from a Muslim editor: 1) Do Muslims view Christianity as tritheistic? 2) Even if so, considering Christians still believe there is one God, are they still not monotheistic? Sorry for the long post, but there's a lot of debate I had to summarize. Thanks, —Aiden 20:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Aminz. —Aiden 15:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing I would take back

Aminz, it's simply inappropriate that coreligionists vote as a bloc to promote one of their own, asking him as some have, to misuse his admin priviledge to alter the future course of Islam-related articles, even mentioning particular articles that need action. Given the breakdown of supports to opposes, unanimous support from Guild members would be statistically supremely unlikely, were there not the expectation of future partisan support.

1. Same logic: Faisal did that, not Joturner. Again, you are using Faisal's action to condemn Joturner exactly as you did with me and Joturner. You neglect Joturner comments in this regard.

2. Here co-religons are usually friends. People working on the same article sharing the same culture (persian, muslim, mathematician, etc) tend to become each other's friends and it is natural that they support each other. Compare this with other RfA's. Joturner gained 120 votes, of which too many are not members of Muslim Guide. Again, you are neglecting that I informed everybody I knew. Were there a project page that other people working on Islam related, I would have informed them. I see this nothing more than a pretext. Majority of those Muslim editors would have been voted anyway. --Aminz 18:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't neglect his comments, nor did I ever "condemn" him. But if dozens of Guild members believe he will of partisan assistance, and support accordingly, we're obliged to consider that they might have a good reason to believe that.

I am sure Joturner will not do it. See how he opposed me! I had given him a barnstar! As I said below, if there are enough evidences for this, one should go for it, otherwise it is also injustice to oppose one based on what "may" or "may not" happen --Aminz 19:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

AND YOU DID "neglect his comments," and DID "I ever "condemn" him." --Aminz 19:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not neglect them, but concluded that they were politically-motivated and hence unreliable. He's treated this as a campaign, obliging us to evaluate his statements in this light.

Well, that's your conclusion, may be true, but it is your conclusion. You believe Joturner is a liar and don't trust his words. That's your position but the way you are writing your arguments from your perspective rings as a sign of "dishonesty" in my view. Your insistence on the "targeted advertisement for this RfA" idea tells me that once you decide to oppose someone, you will use whatever tool you have, no matter honestly or dishonestly, to achieve your goal. You treat similar cases differently just because one of them is according to your desire but one is not. --Aminz 19:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"...it is also injustice to oppose one based on what "may" or "may not" happen." - no, it's not. First, this is not about doing justice to Joturner. Nothing bad is going to happen to him either way. Adminship is not a reward for making a large number of edits, for pushing Mosque to FAC, for changing ones userpage, for answering questions "correctly" or for being a good guy. Second, it's inherently speculative - the supports project a vision of how he might conduct himself as an admin just as do opposes. I am not saying that I know for a fact he will act this way or that way. I don't know. And that's exactly the problem.

I meant that by default every person can misuse the power but as long as there is no evidence for it; people of cleared of doing that. That is by default people are not guilty. Assuming people guilty by default is injustice. Even "Sadam" is innocent unless it is proved that he is guilty. In any case, if you have the impression that he "will" misuse the power, then you have the right to oppose it. That's it all. --Aminz 19:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This would be true, were adminship a right to which he'd be entitled in the absence of demonstrable wrongdoing, but it is not. It's not a disciplinary proceeding, where he might be punished - just as adminship isn't a reward, so it's denial is not a punishment. The candidate is asking to be entrusted with priviledges not afforded to regular editors; as such, the burden of trust is on the candidate.Timothy Usher 20:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right in correcting me. So, the matter is about the community's trust that he will not misuse his power (e.g. blocking users wrongly, etc.) It is completely personal of course. I am willing to trust Joturner and think he will not betray my trust but you don't. Fine. That's all personal. --Aminz 20:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I do know he's a hardworking editor with many positive contributions, and that this in no way depends on becoming an admin, nor is adminship a reward for it.Timothy Usher 19:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"Majority of those Muslim editors would have been voted anyway." - It sounds like you're saying they would have acted as a bloc whether or not there was any formal organization, in which case I can see why you'd say that the existence of the formal organization becomes a trivial point. Perhaps you're right.Timothy Usher 19:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No, they supported Joturner's on his previous RfA without anything posted on the Muslim Guide page. They may have been working on the same articles and has got to know each other there. Please read my comment in its context--Aminz 19:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This must not be allowed to become a trend, and it seems I'm hardly alone in this judgement. As you yourself are a member of said guild, I don't expect you to share it.

As I've already been unjustly blocked and falsely accused by an admin who is also a guild member (and supported this RfA) - one whose user page was likewise changed to gain promotion - and as the candidate stood idly by, knowing this action was wrong but apparently unwilling to confront a fellow Guild member on behalf of a non-member, I consider it a matter of self-defense, and the defense of wikipedia. Islam-related pages can be contentious. It's easy to say, oh, "people are edit-warring" and lock the page into one's favored version, as we've also seen.

You could criticize Joturner for being dishonest in your case with AE. That's a valid and honest criticism. (To Joturner, you were indeed dishonest when you decided not to involve yourself in the case). Timothy, Tell this to people and they will judge. But this is one argument independent of others you made. --Aminz 19:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, can you enlighten me as to what situation is being referred to here? I don't remember a case with AE (AE being Anonymous Editor, I presume?) being brought to my attention. joturner 00:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And as stated, the denial of the obvious - that the Mosque FAC, user page changes and recent avoidance of Islam-related articles (excepting Mosque) were intended to aid his RfA - casts doubt upon the sincerity of his intentions not to engage in this sort of behavior, because it shows him flexible enough to say whatever he needs to say to gain promotion.

Timothy, while agreeing with you, I still abide by my comments on your talk page. My comments were not about these points. These are valid points that you could state on the talk page. --Aminz 19:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What I know is that there are two things about which the candidate is passionate and to which he is dedicated - Islam and becoming an admin. If we could make pledges of non-involvement in Islam-related articles clear and binding, such that trust would no longer be an issue, then I'd support. If we could hand him the tools he needs to do innocuous things without also giving him the power to block users and lock pages, I'd support. But there is no mop here that isn't also potentially a sword, and once it's handed over, there's almost no way to take it back.

Being passionate about becoming an admin can be very well motivated by things other than those you think (e.g. for its prestige). You could have entered into a discussion on this with him. Of course, there can be lots of misuses, but unless you provide evidences that these happen, I will not buy it. While we should be careful to not to give the sword to an unqualified person, not giving it to the one who is qualified is the same injustice. You should have provided evidences on the page and left people to make a decision. We are not everybody! --Aminz 19:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it can be pretty intimidating being one of thirteen (?) opposes in what was once a page of supports. In such cases, many keep their misgivings to themselves, as it appears the candidate will succeed anyhow, so why give cause for future resentment? An understandable dishonesty, but one which I chose not to pursue.Timothy Usher 18:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it was intimidating for you to be one of the few who opposed but you just posted your own opinion there. This is not dishonesty. Dishonesty occurs when something is against your wish but is true. --Aminz 19:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It must be noted that I am not a co-religionist, and still hope that as an admin will bring in an understanding of Muslim matters to the admin team. You cannot create NPOV without understanding the various POV's. I just have the feeling that these constant attacks on Joturner are of the same quality like the constant mentioning of someone else being "a sockpuppet" despite a checkuser proving differently. Mud sticks ... so repeat something often enaugh and people will believe it - maybe though it will backfire and will ruin TU's credibility totally. Agathoclea 19:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop wikistalking me, Agathoclea.

However, since you're here, a checkuser does not generally prove that usernames are different individuals, only that they've recently propagated from different IP addresses. By this logic, I myself can be proven not to be one individual, as I've posted from at least three addresses over the past week. Moreover, these usernames were known to be puppets before I arrived upon the scene.Timothy Usher 19:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

While I don't know about the details of the Agathoclea's comparison (and don't want to judge about it at all), I would like to point out that He meant while there is no evidence for Joturner' wrong actions in the future, repeating it over and over is attacking him. + I liked his sentence "Mud sticks ... so repeat something often enaugh and people will believe it"! --Aminz 19:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. He should stop attacking Joturner, even making negative inuendo. Besides being bad form and interpreting things in the worse possible light (not assuming good faith), it is rather rude and lacks civility. Also, not only have the user been proved to be a different IP address, there are several other facts which show the users are different people, which you have been informed about, but which you remain silent of---prefering to continue making false and personal attack despite the evidence.Giovanni33 23:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33, stop wikistalking me. Thanks.Timothy Usher 23:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No. If you are going to harass me by spreading false accusations, then I will have to follow you around and respond to defend myself WHERE you are talking about me, as you are doing above. So, simply put, No.Giovanni33 23:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It was Agathoclea who brought it up, totally out of context, on this page, as part of his own wikistalking. And how would you have even known about this were you not already doing so?Timothy Usher 00:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't care who brought it up, your talking about me so I have a right to respond. And, your exactly right, how would I have known if I am not paying attention? Exactly why I said No to your request. When you have shown that you have stoped making personal attacks then I will not have the need to bother to pay attention.Giovanni33 01:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Nomination Withdrawn

I withdrew my RfA nomination and therefore you should continue all discussion relating to it someplace other than the RfA's talk page. joturner 01:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; my mistake. Apparently, discussion is still allowed on the RfA's talk page. However, I'd suggest you keep it relevant to the RfA and not continue some of the discussion on the page that wasn't really too relevant to the RfA. joturner 02:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you now Joturner?

How is it that you owe me one for opposing Joturner's candidacy, that's also a problem. How is it an insult against you? If, say, Pecher made an RfA, and you opposed it, would I owe you an oppose?Timothy Usher 02:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You could think of it this way: what is the chance that the unsuccessful candidate - or any member of the Muslim Guild besides you - would have supported my hypothetical candidacy?

Why don't you take a look at some of the things that have been said about me by your fellow Guild members, and on the talk page?Timothy Usher 02:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Resign from WP?

What's the point? You could accomplish all you hope to gain just by taking it less seriously. Yes, I know that's hard to do, but I give myself the same good advice. Wikipedia was saying what it was before we ever saw it, and it didn't bother us then.Timothy Usher 03:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to make myself free. I am just very tired. There are/will be other editors who will continue working on it. The articles will eventually become good. I have done my share. --Aminz 03:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It breaks your heart if you care about the articles. The only thing that can keep you going is assessing what the work is doing for you. I'm constantly on the verge of quitting, but then I think of all that I've learned. Nothing like an argument to get you to hit the books. Zora 03:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If I don't force myself to resign from wikipedia, I will not be able to control myself. I am addicted to wikipedia. I am unable to take it less seriously. But no doubt I learned A LOT from wikipedia. I know. But I can not control myself of not editing wikipedi.--Aminz 04:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are addicted, then don't go "cold turkey." Wean yourself off slowly and do other things instead. Before you leave you should take back certain barnstars you gave certain editors who proved not to be worthy of what they said.Giovanni33 02:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's hurting the rest of your life, of course you should leave, Aminz. We'll miss you, but we'd be selfish if we wanted you to stay under those circumstances.

Thanks! I will miss you and everybody here too. I am not going to die of course ;) and will be back someday (but not soon) --Aminz 05:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, if you want an online gathering place where you meet interesting people and do useful things, try Distributed Proofreaders. We turn old books into free ebooks. The chat forums are fun and supportive, and the people are great. You could do two or three pages a day, learn something, feel that you are contributing to the world, and it wouldn't eat your life. There's a link on my user page. Zora 04:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems a good idea. I hope it doesn't require one to be good in grammer. If it is just rewriting, that would be also good for my english as well. I need to pick an interesting book. I'll join after taking a rest. --Aminz 05:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No! Don't leave us!!! Ok I visited here while on RC patrol, but don't leave anyway! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 04:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

M1ss1ontomars2k4, Thanks; But I am a bit tired. --Aminz 05:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Stay in touch

I'm also Zora at Distributed Proofreaders. Send me a Wikipedia email, I'll reply, and you'll have my email address. Best of luck to you, Aminz; you're bright and sincere. The world doesn't always treat sincere people kindly, but some of us appreciate a kind heart! Zora 02:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my delay Zora in doing what I was supposed to do. One of my advisors is leaving the town soon and we have had a couple of meetings per week. I have decided to work on both math and religious stuff simultaneously :) --Aminz 00:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yo Aminz

What happened? Why are you leaving wikipedia? Addiction is no reason for you to leave wikipedia. What will happen to all the great work you have done? Please buddy come back soon, we need you here. Just as Timothy said dont take things too serious..Eventually only the truth will prevail, there is no need for you to be stressed out with all the bad things happenning around..I hope you will reconsider..Please.. Please..  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 19:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mystic, thanks! But I have resigned. Yes, it was quite natural for me to clash with other editors, yes. I don't want to break my word because then I will do it over and over in the future again! I will be back sometime in the future when I am ready. Best of Luck to you my friend! Aminz 00:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I will restrict myself to the Criticism of Islam article. It has been dramatically changed! Aminz 00:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work

Aminz, Wikipedia and all of us gained from your clear thinking, good faith, and generosity. I hope you come back when you are ready to. You will be most welcome. Best wishes, Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur.Timothy Usher 03:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much Tom and Timothy. I also gained a lot from you. Best wishes to you too. Aminz 00:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I am still waiting to discuss with you about Adam and Eve

Hi well as you told me that you are busy in your finals and come back in 10 days on wikipedia, humm.. now I m reading that may be you are considering to take a longer break, any way it is your choice but if you think other wise, I think there are still to discuss and talk here. phippi46 23:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ooops! I am sorry! Phippi, I love to discuss of course. But as you know, I have resigned. I'll send you a wiki email soon. Best of Luck --Aminz 00:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Accusing Timothy Usher of anti-Semitism against anon users

Please have a look the section "Why I am not a vandal and Timothy Usher and Pgk are making false accusations" of the Muslim Guild. You may want to take back the awards you gave Timothy Usher. Thanks 70.231.233.118 05:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't take my awards back. I, myself, had clashs with Timothy and Anonymous Editor but they deserve the awards. I am sorry I have resigned. Please ask someone else to look into your dispute with Timothy. Thanks, --Aminz 00:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Aminz!

I guess you're not truly retired after all!Timothy Usher 22:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar Aminz, i appreciate it! Tell me if i can assist you in any way :) --Striver 23:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you, Aminz, for the barnstar. I'm happy to see you back. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar from your Ihwhan Juan.--JuanMuslim ^1m 04:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Could you email me? There is something very important I want to tell you.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 19:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"Unqualified"

Aminz, "unqualified" has several meanings[6]. Not the best dictionary out there, but it'll do. "Unanimous unqualified support for a fellow member" is not the same as "unanimous support for a fellow member who is unqualified" or as "unanimous support for a fellow member from people who are unqualified to give it."Timothy Usher 02:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Controversial pages

Hi Aminz; I'm sorry not to be able to help, but I'm not following the Dhimmi page any longer. I'm trying to move away from the more controversial articles. I have no particular knowledge in the area beyond having read a few books, and I haven't been able to contribute much for the time it consumes. Disengaging is a difficult and gradual process, so I'll still be around for a while on some of our pages about religion, but from now on I hope to spend more time on technical articles. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't put your comments inside mine

It makes reading mine more difficult. If you could do me a favour and move them below as the points are numbered so we can keep track of them.Hypnosadist 17:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.Hypnosadist 18:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!

Much appreciated, Aminz. I think we work together well on that article. - Merzbow 22:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

answer

You wrote:

Thanks Striver, I am currently working on "Criticism of Islam" article. One problem I used to have there is that I don't have online access to the shia authentic Hadiths. I prefer to sometimes quote from Shia sources rather than always quoting from Bukhari, etc. Also, regarding tafsirs, I do have access to Tafsir Nemooneh and part of Al-Mizan but that's not enough. I would be thankful if you could help me. --Aminz 04:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a bit of trouble finding good Shi'a sources as well.... try this List of Shi'a books, but ill doubt it will help. Peace --Striver 09:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: History

What do you think of this?[7]? Consider also that there is an alternate view, which BhaiSaab has advocated[8]. What is your opinion of the tone found in the link he provided? That's what someone is teaching now; the cat (no pun intended) is already out of the bag.Timothy Usher 04:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of...

Even if this page is not kept, at least you articulated a hopeful and positive view of what the articles could be, and how well-meaning people might contribute. Reading your remarks there made me feel better about the possibility of progress here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Because your optimism made me feel better.

Watt

That's a great link. Thank you. Will read. I never doubted that Muhammad was a thoughtful man and an ideological and creative genius, nor assumed that his most controversial actions were particularly heinous by the low standards of his time. Watt's point about him being a moral exemplar or not is on-target - it's the assumptions of modern religion which compel us to test him to according to contemporary standards whose scrutiny other, often much worse, rulers escape.

Not doing much wikistuff lately, and probably won't be for a bit, but I'll make sure to have read through this more closely by then.Timothy Usher 06:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Catholic encyclopedia wording

Regarding this revert... I don't think Rickyrab was changing the meaning of what the CE was saying, he was just making the sentence more readable. We don't always have to put things in exactly the same words as the source does if we can say the same thing in a way that flows better in the immediate context of the article. - Merzbow 21:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for being fair... :)

Thank you very much for being fair. :) McKhan

Whatever Imfatima2001 gathered and wrote, I simply formatted and posted it as a new page, Mainstream Muslims Vs. Al-Ahbash, along-with her table. Please, feel welcome to see the current status of that page here. I wish I had more time to re-write that table, at least. McKhan

Thank you so much for all the help and for the example. I will check it out. Take care and Good night. :) McKhan

Personally I think McKhan just wants his attacks on the Al-Ahbash to stay up - or at least the mention of his attacks. I've added more archive info to the talk page, but I really think any mention of whatever is in the archives is useless because taking a look at text in there, all of info in the archives seems useless. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course he deserves to have a say in it. He's an editor on here. He's welcome to write criticisms on the Al-Ahbash, but I don't think he should use polemecist websites as they tend to be unreliable. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that you agree with me. You wouldn't want to see sources like ansar.org or kr-hcy.org to be used to write articles on the Shi'a, would you? Obviously they're not reliable. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of criticism, I'd like your input here. Salam. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course he can. I would like to see the article move forward and I've told him to propose his changes on the talk page so that we are able to discuss them. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for these good edits at Muhammad article. --- Faisal 10:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't edit other user's talk page entries

I don't know what your intent was, but please don't ever do that again. His Excellency... 05:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Doing good job on Critism of Islam page

Good that you are back, at least on one Artical :-) any way after reading this artical I have found that alot of information was noticiably direct to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) with fals claims and intents. I am looking in it, if I have found something to share, I will do. If something to check or investigate you think is important, will be happy to do with you regards. phippi46 16:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Prosecutions by Prophet Muhammad

Salaam, I was thinking that if an article can be created which would discuss all the reasons why Prophet Muhammad prosecuted these people. What I have understood so far, I wrote on Banu Nadir/mpov under Muslims explanation for prosectuion. It is very important because the battles and People killed by Prophet Muhammad is a very important part of Islamic history. And then a link to this article can be given on every page which would discuss such killings. This proposal can also be posted on Muslim Guild project. The work has to be top class because the way he is being portrayed, that doesn't make a good sketch of prophet Muhammad's personality in one's mind. SaadSaleem 07:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Prosecutions under early Islamic governments SaadSaleem 00:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Howdi

Bro, I think it's better to give up. There's an absolutely zero chance that any of these articles will ever be NPOV. What us editing them only serve to do is create the illusion that the articles are credible because 1 or two Muslims participate (i'm actually not a Muslim, but I'm seen as one here). Let them win here. JuanMuslim has a 'boycott Wikipedia' thing running, and I think that's the best idea. There is no knowlege here, just opinion and sentiment. If I were a Shaikh, I'd pronounce a fatwah saying Wikipedia is haraam for muslims. :) His Excellency... 21:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi article

Hello Aminz, Listen I'm willing to assist with editing this article (as much as I can... I do have other Wikipedia projects ;-). It's important that you calmly and consistenly edit and calmly make your points in talk. I find that when I am as calm as can be I tend to edit and interact with other editors much better. I realize that it is likely difficult for an editor who has religious convictions to edit on religious topics (particularly their religion) calmly all of the time particularly when there are other editors who seem to want to portray said religion negatively. But if you let emotion rule you in such cases then it is likely that you will not be succesful in editing. I also realize that Dhimmi is a controversial article so if you truly have it in your mind to help render it neutral you're likely going to have to work hard to do so. You've done very well to get yourself a copy of Lewis' book. As you no doubt saw, I had concerns about the fact that most citations were from books and now I'm beginning to think that my concerns were well founded. Cheers. Netscott 22:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I like what I'm seeing. :-) Netscott 22:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed a bit of revisionist history making happening on Wikipedia. Thanks for the Lewis cite info. Relative to the other cited sources H.E. is saying that Bat Ye'or is a poor source of info for the article. Unfortunately, I think many Wikipedia editors are less than fully aware of who's a good source and who is not on most articles here (including ones on Islam). My advice to editors is faciliate knowledge aquisition by fellow editors through utlization of reliable online sources as much as possible. You will do will to follow this advice. Netscott 23:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You're going to need more than just Lewis' book to strengthen your arguments. As well the other sources and how reliable and worthy they are of citation in the article should be discussed. If there are sources cited in the article that are not appropriate to the subject matter they should be outed and the text relying upon such sources edited accordingly. Netscott 23:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What am I? The defense for the accused? Stop presenting me with your research and telling me to make the edits based on your findings. What keeps you from doing the work yourself? And don't take their statements on face value. If they say "WP:So-And-So says this", read the actual policy. Several of them, including Merzbow, have tried to exclude content or sources using 'policy' that doesn't actually exist. His Excellency... 05:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about those comments. From what you've given me, I thought you were afraid to do the editing yourself and instead were throwing the burden on me. It's clear now you want to do deeper research before proceeding, and that's perfectly reasonable. My suggestion to you, and myself for that matter, is to give up this Wikipedia matter altogether. Bernard Lewis's works and Bat Ye'ors and all that are not relevant to ongoings in our lifetime. It's ancient history. It's a waste of your time to be re-evaluating midieval human rights standards. If people like those editing here want to waste their lives creating an encyclopedia full of hate rhetoric to disenfranchise Muslims, let them. Not to be all mullah-ish, but idle-talk is clearly haraam, and given there's no positive outcome in your (or my) participation here, it's better to invest energy elsewhere- like in real life. His Excellency... 05:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, I'm going to empty my watchlist and hopefully stop participating here. It's a bit addictive actually. If you're busy with real life, stick to real life and give up this Wikipedia thing. It's not productive. Who cares about what Muslims did in the year 900? Does reading Lewis or Stillman or Ye'or have anything to do with our lives today? When I first came to Wikipedia, I edited articles dealing with current events, particularly Islamism. This haggling over ancient history is meaningless- everyone treated outsiders like shit back then. We don't owe an apology to the world's Jewish population because Umar bin Whatever made Jews wear funny slippers in Yemen. If Merzbow or Usher or Pecher wants to waste their lives reading that drivel, let them. It's not my problem and it shouldnt be yours. Read books that will give you knowlege and understanding that'll improve your own life. I don't read Lewis because that information would do nothing to benefit me. Don't waste time with those who devote their time to things they hate. In practice, that is islamically haraam. Assalamu Alaikum. His Excellency... 05:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Lewis is right and Muslims didn't persecute them. Maybe Ye'or is right and Muslims did persecute them. All I know is that I never mistreated a Jew, not even the one who was my roommate and stole my food regularly. It's better to give it up. There is no productivity in working here, and engaging these people who hate so much is just agitating. From an Islamic perspective, this is considered 'idle talk' and is explicitly haraam, since it benefits nobody. I don't consider myself much of a Muslim these days, but I do see the wisdom in doing what actually benefits you. His Excellency... 05:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

H.E. Thanks for your advice. I may give up as well if I feel my existence is not productive. I suggest you to just edit less instead of giving it up. --Aminz 05:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned you'll learn more about Islam from these dialogues. Western sources selectively cite history to give the most negative impression. For example, take the Banu Nadir and Banu Quraiza incident; the killing of men from the two Jewish tribes. From the Sira (Ar Raheequl Makhtum is a great one), it's clear Muhammad (SAW) authored an undeniably considerate set of terms in his treaty with the Jewish groups. It is clear that the Banu Quraiza worked against the Muslims despite the treaty, and violated its term. The Islamic historical documents point to an incident where members of the Jewish tribe 'exposed' a Muslimah and ridiculed her, and then killed a Muslim man who tried to defend her honor. Bat Ye'or will omit all that, as would Lewis. Many incidences took place, many not documented, to ferment the situation. A battle broke out. Now after a battle, our modern standards demand that POWs be protected. These days we have large facilities to contain POWs, with cameras. We have IGOs and NGOs to monitor them. In the middle ages, no such facilities were possible. People didn't have firearms to guard 2000 or 20,000 male prisoners, or cameras to monitor them. Killing the males was the norm of the time because there was no other option. The killing of women and children was forbidden, as was the killing of the elderly or those devoted to monastic service. Jizya was ONLY ever taken from young males (according to Umar, those who trim their beards), not from women or the elderly. Why? Because if there was reason to fear a revolt, it would come from the men amongst the Dhimmi, and that they're paying Jizya was a sign that they intended to continue playing by the rules.Not paying was indicative of an intent to break away from the ruling government and revolt, so not paying Jizyah was highly punishable. Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation of "subdued" in the Qur'an is a less-than-perfect choice of words, but there really isn't a good substitute. "Made to submit" is a phrase that is more suitable. You know Muhammad made it clear that the level of Jizyah was to be an amount easily affordable (latter Caliphs might have abused that, but that's out of Islam). Anyway, I've learned all this from Muslim teachers I've spoken to. They've never published books, so it's not 'verifiable' by Wikipedia standards. . You won't get these details here, nor will you find them in the books of orientalists who wish to frame Muslims as medieval barbarians. Their misleadingly selective recollection of history is meant to corrupt their audience with a negative image. Other than Ahmed Deedat, I know of no other Muslim who made a career out of addressing the polemicists. Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe we shouldn't waste time over what Christians or Jews think or say about us.A better attitude towards them might be what's suggested in Surah Kafirun: "to you be your way, to me be mine". His Excellency... 06:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply in for your Post

Hi there, I will give soon the page numbers, it is true that the that make the section lengthy, actually, I had alot more information then you see there, and It was for me difficult to curtail it in such short period and space. Any way, I try another way to see what can we do. To answer your remarks about the that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) thaught himself as a Prophet or not, I think it is clear to all, yes he repeatdly announce that, that he is from God and his last Prophet. If we just look the life of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) it is absolutly clear that the transformation from early stage of his life when he started preaching his teaching and in the end of his life, there is a clear signs of advancement, in any way, his general life, wars, marriages reformer and a teacher. We dont have to forget that he has to preach first to people of Arabia, with certain mind set. Some of the backword people on planet at that time and then turn them into something totally different with his teaching, is not possible for a man, in my eyes who is not true in his thaughts and action. As you are working on this section, if you suggest we can remove one or more paragraphes from that section. And also although I try some time my best to improve my knowledge I still lack something in english or in editing techniques. May be with time, will be better, so you are allow to re-write, if you think wording is not at the standard etc. It may help me too :-) and yes... we are hopeful that our team will atleast in the finals.. let see what happend.. phippi46 00:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

dhimma intro was good work

The material you added to the intro brings some good balance I think; I did edit it a bit but all of the balancing quotes should still be there. We should now focus on coming up with a compromise addition to the Source of dhimma section related to Lewis' discussion of the Qur'anic verses that may or may not apply to dhimma. - Merzbow 07:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Now it looks like you're completely reverting my necessary edits. You need to be willing to compromise on this. - Merzbow 16:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

His excellency

Being uncivil is against policy no matter what good he's done on articles. He was blocked for how he was saying things, not wha`t he was saying. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Aminz

Thanks for your message. I agree that if we are going to make any inroads into removing the POV in this article we need to summarise the case on Bat Ye'or. First, though, I must point out that I don't at all have the same major as Esposito and Lewis. I work as a university researcher, but my field is quite different. I came upon the dhimmi article more or less by chance and contributed my tuppence-worth because I was struck by the POV line - apparent even to me. I had just been reading the Wheatcroft book, which I have some criticisms of, but it is most definitely a scholarly account and makes every effort to be even-handed. Another source who is 100 per cent scholarly and who could be used as a starting point is Albert Hourani. I do not mind emailing Esposito with a brief question. He may be very busy at this time of year and we may not get a response. Another thing I am doing is trawling through academic databases for articles and books that may be relevant. I already have a long list and would appreciate advice about how best to use that list. Itsmejudith 07:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither book is specifically about dhimmis, but both touch on the question. Wheatcroft's book is a history of the conflict between Christianity and Islam. Therefore it mentions in several places the status of Christians living under Islam as well as the status of Muslims in Christian states. It contains footnoted sources that can be followed up. My criticism of this book is that it focuses on the conflicts and does not give much attention to non-conflictual relationships, e.g. trading relationships. It had very favourable reviews in the serious UK newspapers, especially those on the centre-right. The author teaches at a leading Scottish university. Hourani wrote A History of the Arab Peoples as well as other books and articles that may be more relevant. He taught at Oxford University for many years and was a very important figure in Arab and Muslim history. There are a few paragraphs in his book on the dhimmi relationship. The important thing for this article is that Hourani's points shed light on what a balanced discussion of the issue should look like.Itsmejudith 08:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Some further sources

Hi Aminz

Here are a few sources that might be useful for the article. Some of them may have been discussed already. REL means it seems to me to be highly relevant. ACAD means it is from an academic source. ACAD? means it may be an academic source, the publisher could be checked out. I have not discriminated at all according to the apparent point of view. There are lots more, particularly more articles, which should be preferred to books, but it takes a long time to sift through them.

Asmal, Aboobaker Mehmood Title Details: Muslims under non-Muslim rule: the Fiqhi (legal) views of Ibn Nujaym and al-Wansharisi Publisher: Manchester : University of Manchester, 1998 REL ACAD

Awang, `Abd al-Rahman Title Details: The status of the Dhimmi in Islamic law / `Abd Al-Rahman Awang Publisher: 1988 Note: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Edinburgh, 1988 REL ACAD

C?cek, Kemal Title Details: Zimmis (non-Muslims) of Cyprus in the Sharia court : 1110/39 A.H. / 1698-1726 A.D: a thesis submitted to the Faculty of Arts of the University of Birmingham for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy / by Kemal C?cek Publisher: Birmingham, West Midlands, 1992 REL ACAD

Muslims and others in early Islamic society / edited by Robert Hoyland Series: The formation of the classical Islamic world ; v. 18 Publisher: Burlington, VT : Ashgate, 2002 Physical desc.: xxxiv, 363p ; p. cm ISBN/ISSN: 0860787133 REL ACAD

Courbage, Youssef Title Details: Christians and Jews under Islam / Youssef Courbage and Philippe Fargues ; translated by Judy Mabro Publisher: London : I.B. Tauris Publishers, 1995 ISBN/ISSN: 1860640133 1860642853 (pbk) REL ACAD

The interaction between Islamic law and Non-Muslims: Lakum dinukum wa-li dini / guest editor: Ze'ev Maghen Series: Islamic law and society ; vol.10, no.3 Publisher: Leiden : Brill, 2003 Physical desc.: 267-434 p ISSN: 09289380 REL ACAD (This is a special issue of a journal.)

Religion and citizenship in Europe and the Arab world / edited [at the Centre for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations] by Jørgen S. Nielsen Series: CSIC studies on Islam and Christianity Publisher: London : Grey Seal, 1992 Physical desc.: viii, 129p ISBN/ISSN: 1856400301 REL ACAD (This may be about recent times only.)

Nazir-Ali, Michael Title Details: The roots of Islamic tolerance Series: OPPS paper ; no.26 Publisher: Oxford Project for Peace Studies, 1990 Physical desc.: 14p ISBN/ISSN: 1871191262 (pbk) REL (Author is a bishop of the Church of England)

Dhimmis and others : Jews and Christians and the world of classical Islam / edited by Uri Rubin, David J. Wasserstein Series: Israel oriental studies ; 17 Publisher: Winona Lake, Ind. : Eisenbrauns, 1997 REL ACAD?

Skreslet, Stanley H. Title Details: The Greeks in medieval Islamic Egypt : a Melkite Dhimmi community / Stanley H. Skreslet II Publisher: Ann Arbor, Mich. : University Microfilms International, 1988 Physical desc.: 4microfiches (98 fr. each) Note: Thesis (Ph.D.) - Yale University Graduate School, 1987 Document Type: Thesis REL ACAD

The myth of Islamic tolerance : how Islamic law treats non-Muslims / edited by Robert Spencer Publisher: Amherst, NY : Prometheus, 2005 Physical desc.: 593 p ; 24 cm ISBN/ISSN: 1591022495 (hardcover : alk. paper) REL ACAD?

Muslim perceptions of other religions : a historical survey / edited by Jacques Waardenburg Publisher: New York ; Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1999 Physical desc.: xv, 350 p ; 26 cm ISBN/ISSN: 0195104722 ACAD (May be mainly about theology.)

Waardenburg, Jean Jacques Title Details: Muslims and others : relations in context / Jacques Waardenburg Series: Religion and reason ; v. 41 Publisher: Berlin ; New York : Walter de Gruyter, 2003 Physical desc.: xx, 519 p. ; 24cm ISBN/ISSN: 3110176270 REL ACAD

Itsmejudith 10:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi .. you know Aminz its seems to me some time, issues like Dhimmis or death penalty of a person who convert to other religions and other critism on Islam, no matter what you do there will be people who will never satisfied. I think part of the problem is the Muslim world itself. Its difficult but not impossible, but at the same time if some one dont want to understand then you can not do any thing. Present what you think is right.. and I hope you will keep doing that. phippi46 00:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I also wonder why on name of God we need first of all an artical like Critsim of Islam ? I mean should we research just to find evidence and counter evidence just to tell the critism on this great religion. I dont understand the purpose of this artical, what should we get from it, any thing good ? phippi46 00:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Some further sources

Glad you liked the sources. I have a whole lot more that I am sorting through. I also want to work on this slowly. I am going to set myself a time limit per day and stick to it so I don't get burned out. I am picking up lots of book reviews in the peer-reviewed journals. this should help to establish which sources are considered reliable in the academic community. I'm glad to see some movement out of the deadlock, thanks to Merzbow, but I don't think we should be too quick to compromise on using only top-quality sources. See User:Taxman/Featured article advice. Don't be too quick to spend money through Amazon. Can you borrow books through an academic library? If not, I can, and I am also looking at how I can track these sources down. Some of the references I have given you are UK PhD theses and will only be available by academic inter-library loan.Itsmejudith 08:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but it is always relative.. no matter what you belief, you will always find counter "facts". There is just no "Universal" formula, on which we can satisfy our self and agree. When I see any thing which I can belief but can not proove.. troubled me. It is some time just to satisfy my own self that I belief something which relaxed me. Any way, like I asked you before, if you see the bigger picture, there will be no end of discussion, just limit less arguments. That is why I think such pages should be created under strict limited rules. And I know you are a wise man, still wise to know that your good arguments (I personally belief that) will always motivate others to find something against it.. :-) .. it is just my openion, take care phippi46 23:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC) Oh yea.. it certainly was like that, I wrote something, I turned away to other page, got back and the answer was there.. wow :-) phippi46 00:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Great stuff restoring Lewis's viewpoint. I have consulted the Courbage and Fargues book and have some quotes I will try and work in. They endorse Lewis's view and expand it on certain points.Itsmejudith 07:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Prophet Mohammad.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Prophet Mohammad.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi

I find your editing very strange. The statement presuming marriage amongst Muslims is modelled after slavery was in the article since February. All this time it's been there, and you took no exception to it. Given the amount of work you've put into this article, I can't imagine you just noticed this now. On the other hand, you're very diligent when it comes to either deleting my edits or reverting my contributions, regardless of how solid my sources are or how well my edits reflect actual Muslim thinking. Ayatollah Sistani is a major leader of the Shias, second to Khomeini himself. His view on the issue of ritual purity was certainly noteworthy...Your edits suggest uncompromizing faith in Western interpretation of Islamic practices, while incredible skepticism when it comes to Muslim writings and opinions. His Excellency... 02:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Aminz has done awesome work digging up Muslim (especially Shi'a, which are hard to come by) sources for all types of articles. Your accusation is instantly laughable. - Merzbow 03:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You can laugh at whatever you want. I've made a reasonable observation, not an accusation. This article has included this commentary of "Muslim marriage is slavery" for over 3 months. For all the time he, and you for that matter, invested in this article, you found no reason to question whether or not that allegation was properly interpreted. And yet you're very cautious when information suggesting a different perspective is added. If you're claiming coincidence, or that you simply missed it...I'm not buying it. I know that both you and Timothy Usher have been loading compliments on his efforts here. I'm opposed to the whole barnstar thing in how people can easily be goaded into seeking such approval rather than working here objectively. I'm merely suggesting that a level amount of skepticism be directed at all entries, regardless of who inserts them. I've been familiar with your work long enough to know not to bother directing the same suggestion to you. That Pecher, whose work has repeatedly been criticized in the past for misinterpretation, could introduce a statement such as this here and neither you nor Aminz bothered to check on it is astounding. His Excellency... 05:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious, given my substantial revisions to the Ye'or quotes and other material last Friday. And that's your second personal attack of the day. - Merzbow 05:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is natural for H.E. to feel that I am "very diligent when it comes to either deleting my edits or reverting my contributions" since I almost removed all his edits today :P But it was accidental. The sistani quote was good and I'm sure he had spent much time finding it, but I really didn't think it was a good addition and it was better if I had somehow added it to the article, or had discussed it more before removing it. Having said that, I don't agree with H.E.'s later statements. Of course, it is true that Timothy Usher gave me a barnstar, or that Merzbow gave me compliments (thanks Merzbow btw), but I have had conflicts with both of them, well, mostly with Timothy Usher. I admire both Merzbow and Timothy Usher as excellent editors. They really are. Anyways, H.E., believe me, I don't have any personal preference on your edits or Merzbow's or Timothy Usher's. I am sorry for being so hasty to remove your comment. --Aminz 06:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved here: Do not remove warnings from your talk page please

{{wr3}} - Merzbow 23:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

{{wr4}} - Merzbow 00:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow, removing other people's comment is improper.But I've seen many other people doing it, especially a couple of admins. --Aminz 00:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing warnings from one's own talk page, as is happening here, is not proper. - Merzbow 00:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I know it is improper, but there is no policy against it. I've seen a couple of admins doing that. The proper idea is archiving rather than removing. --Aminz 00:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So, based on non-existence of any policy your warnings can be considered as personal attacks. --Aminz 00:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Aminz, I've disengaged the vandalism templates here... they look directed to you... feel free to revert them back if you want to. :-) (→Netscott) 01:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved: Latest personal attacks

For your two recent personal attacks here and here:

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. - Merzbow 23:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow, the two edits are not explicit personal attacks. The one directed to me didn't bother me at all. --Aminz 00:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

They are personal attacks as per the definition of WP:NPA. And neither of the two above were directed at you. - Merzbow 00:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So, you need to establish your proof by showing us the items close to those claimed attacks from this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPA#Examples_of_personal_attacks --Aminz 00:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom." - Merzbow 00:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

MERZBOW, you have given no explanation as to how my comments in fact violate WP:NPA. It is apparent to me that you are abusing the template as a means of intimidation. On your talk page, it is evident that this isn't the first time you've done this. I've filed an entry on WP:ANI, and suggest you respond there. His Excellency... 00:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

To Merzbow: Who are you to issue such warnings? You're not an admin, and even an admin would defer to another who wasn't involved in an ongoing content dispute. You haven't explained how my responses were in fact personal attacks. Both comments were responses to behaviors, the latter one to someone lecturing me that the West created Wikipedia to educate me and 'my children'. My response mirrored the comment directed at me. There is no personal attack to speak of. Also, seeing as we're on opposite ends of the POV spectrum on two different articles, it would be laughable for you to suggest your vandalism of my talk page with this unfounded 'warning' wasn't actually rooted in the ongoing content dispute. If that weren't the case, we'd see the exact same warning on the page of that other fellow whom I was responding to. The addition of this warning to my talk page was a crass and malevolent act aimed at intimidating me. Your talk page shows a similar tactic employed against another user. Using the vandalism and personal attack templates for the purpose of vandalism. His Excellency... 00:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

WTF?

What is happening here? (→Netscott) 00:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just moved some text from H.E.'s talk page to here. Merzbow thinks H.E. has made personal attacks & removes comments from his talk page. The details is given above. --Aminz 00:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, you should probably put this in a sub-page or just delete them; they are in H.E.'s talk page history anyhow. - Merzbow 00:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Check out WP:ANI, my talk page, its history...This is going too far. His Excellency... 00:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Folks step away from the keyboards for like 5 minutes please... cool down. (→Netscott) 00:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I second it.Please step away from the keyboards for like 5 minutes please --Aminz 00:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Did someone just Fing remove my entry on WP:ANI !? His Excellency... 00:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Take it easy please --Aminz 00:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Aminz your move was probably for the best but the ANI needs to see it at this point... please see my commentary over on Merzbow's talk page. (→Netscott) 00:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree, ANI needs to see it at this point. --Aminz 01:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom

Funny Merzbow didn't bring this to your attention: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#His_excellency_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29 His Excellency... 01:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Aminz has all our talk pages on watch and he's free to add his opinion to the case at any time if he wishes. - Merzbow 02:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This is, of course nonsense. We get along not because we always share the same POV but because we are civil with each other and can compromise. And FWIW, I do not hate Islam. Like any religion it has its moderate and its dangerous forms; I will oppose the latter, but have no beef with the former. I'd love to visit the Middle East someday, perhaps once the political situation cools down. (And even this is irrelevant to Wikipedia, where I am obligated to maintain NPOV in all articles regardless of what I personally think). Aminz is the kind of guy I'd have a (non-alcoholic of course :) drink with any time. - Merzbow 03:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys I know its hot weather and feelings are may be little hot.. please cool down and relax, this is Just only Encyclopedia and nothing is personal, so relax and work further phippi46 23:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aminz if you read this, I endorse Phippi's comment. Hope to see you back soon.Itsmejudith 20:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aminz hope you come back soon, please do what ever is best for your (mental)Health. Good luck and have a good life friend.Hypnosadist 23:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Aminz, it was absolutely unacceptable for me to take a swipe at you using the religion card. I lost my temper and swung out, once again. I know you're just a decent guy, a good Muslim one at that, trying to keep the peace; you're just alot more patient than I am. You're more the Jesus type, I'm more the Joshua type. Anyway, several users here are defending you and holding me responsible at my Arbcomm case, as they should. Feel free to swipe back at me at the Arbcomm case (link's on my talk page). Suggest a permanent ban even; God knows I could use that. Also, I know you once considered going to Arbcomm regarding Pecher's POV-pushing and obstinate selectivity with sources. Pecher is a party in this dispute, and his POV-pushing on pages is part of my response. Arbcomm welcomes all information that could be useful, so this is a good opportunity to address the Islam-bashing that's been going on here. And seriously, do add whatever you feel is due on my personal attack against you. There's no excuse for it at all, and I'll hold nothing against you. His Excellency... 00:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I was going to curse Hypnosadist out here to prove this isn't a mercy-seeking gimmick, but if I did that I'd be blocked again...So just AGF. His Excellency... 00:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back

Nice to see you back!Hypnosadist 23:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes VERY nice to see you back! Basically, sections 36 onwards are still live. But I want to concentrate on finding sources and even get to the stage of reading some of them ;-) There is one instrumental reason why it is good that you're around, and that is that I think you have good library access. Specifically, can you get International Journal of Middle East Studies online? Itsmejudith 23:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have actually access to the Berkeley library, so I guess I should be able to get it from there (or maybe online?). --Aminz 23:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have a whole day off tomorrow. Speak to you again after that. Itsmejudith 23:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Have nice times! --Aminz 23:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Anything you can do will always help, as the resident expert on mind control i've been deliberately complimenting people and trying to foster a nicer atmosphere. I know that you will be doing this as well (judith of course has been helping), and the last few sections have been going well. What do you wish me to do about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency/Evidence as i brought my evidence in defence of you?Hypnosadist 00:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting editing Al-Manar as part my military history project and no muslim editors are there, any comments/edits to help NPOV or other aspect of quality would help.Hypnosadist 00:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the award. It is my first and i'm very happy.Hypnosadist 00:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem.Hypnosadist 01:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio

All the articles from the Encyclopaedia of Islam are copyrighted; posting them on Wikipedia talk pages is copyright violation. Because the fonts were completely messed up, I assume you got the article from a free preview, but you still may not re-post it. Never do such things again. Pecher ^Talk 16:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aminz. Under the Fair Use principle you can make direct quotations of excerpts from copyright sources so long as it is for the purpose of criticism, comparison etc. and so long as you cite the source fully.Itsmejudith 22:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually inserted the whole articles from Encyclopaedia of Islam on two talk pages (Jizya & Apostasy in Islam) for public use which was not proper (I thought it is okay to have them on the talk pages since it is sort of informal). They are now removed. --Aminz 23:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please Help Lebanese

salam

We help Lebanese with improvement articles in English WP like

[9] [10][11]

Please gather us . in kar faghat chand rooz azat vaght migire vali savabe mojahedin ra mibari.--Sa.vakilian 18:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian, I hope you are well and doing fine. Unfortunately, I've never got a chance to closely study the Lebanon, Israel, Hezbollah. All I know is based on the information I've gained through media. I think those articles can help me learning more about these issues. I'll contribute to those article once I got the confidence of doing so. --Aminz 22:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The "criticism of Islam" section of the article on Islam

Hi there! I'm Kirbytime, the user who is trying to NPOV and clean up that article! I see that you helped revert the anon ip 68.41.197.130, who has made numerous changes to the Islam article (specifically that section). By the way, if you need any more help with any other Islam-related articles, I'll be more than happy to contribute! --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 08:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see the Islam talk page for my response to your inquiry on my talk page

That's what I wrote in invisible comment in the section's source. Thanks --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 08:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)