Jump to content

User talk:Adamrce/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Welcome!

Hello Adamrce, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Ourintro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visitWikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Jayjg (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


Hello, Adamrce, andWelcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing!  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Your edit request on jihad

a reponse to you request made here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jihad

I would like to tell you that on wikipedia we can not use the quran as the only source, you want to add something which says "suicide bombing is forbidden, because quran says not to kill yourself, this is found in verse blah blah blah", again this is impossible to do, as somone else can come along and say something different. if you use the quran as a reference, you must give a secondary source with an opinion.

and as evidence that there are different opinions of suicide bombing, you will find many muslims scholars support it (such as yusuf al qaradawi) , and others are against it.

a fatwa from yusuf al qaradawi in support of it (with support from the quran and hadith):http://www.religioscope.com/pdf/martyrdom.pdf

fatwa against it (with support from the quran and hadith): http://www.fatwaonterrorism.com/

(hope you understand)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you sir for your reply, however, the speach of Al-Qaradawi was totally mis-understood by western reporters. I'm an American Muslim and I listen to Al-Qaradawi because he gives fair judgments and well known. He talked about fighting an enemy in your land who's is trying ot did occupy it. You know that Iraw was an occupation, as it wasn't agreed by th United Nation, Iraqi people, nor Arab Nation; different to what's happening in Libya now, which the fighting people are considered Jihadist and the Libyan president a terrorism. These fighting is allowed in the Old Testament and Quran, which is clear to be defending themselves. The suicide bombers are terrorists and Osama Bin Laden is not a Muslim leader, being abbanded from the Muslim world way before September 11th. Anyways, to get to my point, the following is a clear statement on BBC from a known scholar, and I re-confirm that Al-Qaradawi NEVER allowed terrorism attacks. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8544531.stm adamrce (talk)

Data removal

Hi, i think you accidental removed some data from the "jihad" page, i have added back added back this part, "Some Islamic scholars dispute the authenticity of this reference and consider the meaning of jihad as a holy war to be more important." which was removed"

if you intended to remove it you need to have good reason, your reason was "BBC itself said that this is from an unreliable source! How can it be in an encyclopedia", but then your words did not match with your actions, i did not understand why you then went on to remove that part--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sir, you brang that wuote from BBC, and BBC said right under that line that they got it from an unreliable source. Hope you understand :) adamrce (talk)



Reply

You have confused the names. The scholar who is in support of suicide bombing is Yusuf al Qaradawi, his fatwa is found here http://www.religioscope.com/pdf/martyrdom.pdf

The scholar who is against suicide bombing is Tahir ul qadri, his fatwa is found here http://www.fatwaonterrorism.com/, they are not same person friend. ANyway, i am happy that you understood the problem. Also you can add their opinions to wikipedia but wikipedia does not allow point pushing, so you can not present opinions as facts.

The community on wikipedia agreed that primary sources should nto be used without secondary sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Primary_Secondary_and_Tertiary_Sources --Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me make my point clearer, sir. The religionscope.com article, which doesn't even have a writer's signature, is an analysis of a person's thought of what Qaradawi means, which can't be used as a fact that Qaradawi allowed suicide bombing. Therefore, Qaradawi didn't say by word that suicide bombing is allowed, and Qardi strictly says that suicide bombing is not alowed. Which one do you think should be used in a respectful site like Wikipedia, a third party's analysis or a direct speech??? adamrce (talk)


Also, i think you misunderstand what bbc is saying. i am thinking english isnot your first language? bbc is saying that the quote is unreliable. in other words the quote "i have returned from the lesser jihadto the greater jihad" is fake, according to bbc--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


No sir, I'm a Muslim American, whom mostly write academic papers about religious divisions and similarities. BBC's quote was considering lesser Jihad as war and greater Jihad as after war, meaning that it's an internal struggle toward improving yourself. I removed that sentence, because it will make people think that scholars say "war is greater", even though BBC considered greater Jihad, inner struggle, as a holy war. That's why BBC added "(holy war)" right after greater Jihad. I just don't want readers to get more confused on the term holy war, as they think it means war. Both, Old Testament and Final Testaments, insist that war is only allowed as self defense; so this article really needs many corrections with logical sources, not only this section. Hope you understand my point! By the way, can you please tell me the script you use to add your name and time of comment. Thanks adamrce(talk) 21:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

yes, press the 4th button, after u press edit. to get the date and time. also, are you suggesting that bbc is wrong and you are right? because on wikipedia their is no such thing as right and wrong.The truth does not exist on wikipedia, see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Truth

on wikipedia we say what reliable sources say about the truth.not what you think is the truth. bbc is a reliable source if you can find a reliable source that says that the holy war is not the greater jihad, then go ahead and add it. (p.s, from my understanding, all 4 schools of islamic thought beleive that the holy war is the greater jihad, and that the hadith which divides jihad into the lesser and greater form.....is a fake hadith i.e their is no such thing as a greater and lesser jihad) see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jihad#Lesser_vs_greater_jihad_fake_.28no_source.29

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, English is my first language lol. I can only read Arabic, as a second language. Anyways, you still haven't got my point. I'm not talking about my believe, I'm discussing the same BBC quote. BBC quoted "...fighting against one's self is the greater jihad (holy war)", so inner struggle was mentioned as holy war. Therefore, you need to be careful when you talk about that, for readers to not understand that holy war is a war to spread Islam, which is not, based on BBC's article. If you're taking that section out of content, to be on Wikipedia, you need to clarify that they didn't mean holy war like the Holy Roman Empire, but holy war as defending themselves AdvertAdam (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I had a feeling you looked at my blocking history and judged me by that; it's unfortunate that mess is still following me around, but I understand why it made you less gentle with me. One good thing that came out of, though, it is that I know the blocking policy of Wikipedia very well ;)

The reason I changed the heading is that both the information I was adding and some existing information were about her life after Philips III died and there was no appropriate heading for that. You are definitely right by saying I should put a summary, especially when changes are made and I shall take more care to do so in the future. Greetings, Peaceingalaxy (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice words and the star, finally my boring userpage looks a bit more interesting~

Peaceingalaxy (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adamrce/Archive_1&oldid=1140837160"