User talk:Aminullah

No personal attacks

I have removed your personal attack against administrators of Wikipedia. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharia law picture

Your reason for removing this image (see right) from Sharia is not valid. Do you have a better reason than "Sharia is more than corporal punishments"?. thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think sharī`ah is being misunderstood in the West. Many people associate it only with the corporal punishments. If Wikipedia is to be neutral, it must show the positive aspects of sharī`ah laws. This is the most complete legal system on the Earth, as it deals with matters as diverse as alcohol, pornography, homosexuality and inheritance. If a Westerner sees this image, he will be so disgusted that he will not be willing to admit any good sides of it. Of course, criticism of sharī`ah must also be mentioned (I'd even expand this section).Aminullah 18:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a defense where you cited Wikipedia policies to remove the image. I have asked for the policies, not for a debate on whether Sharia should be shown in a positive light or not. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Salaam Aminallah,

I saw your edit to Islam article. Thanks for that. I thought it might be helpful if you could take a look at the following link about the sources: [1], or here User:Aminz/sources. --Aminz 20:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historicity of Muhammad

Hi Aminullah,

I was wondering if you can help me with this article(Historicity of Muhammad). I have already written something but it is far from being a good article (Wikipedia:Good articles). My english is not so good and I make lots of grammatical mistakes (and you are good in combating that ;) ). We also need to rewrite the intro per WP:Lead. The article has too many quotes which are needed to be re-written in our words. If you can help, that would be great. Another article you might want to work on is Early reforms under Islam. There too, we need to reword things and improve its flow. --Aminz 20:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qur'an templates

Hi,
Thanks for using the new template. Please continue to do so when you add new citations. However, I intend to do a search/replace with AWB once I get approved which should be easier than doing it by hand. Currently, the Quran-* templates are redirected to use Cite Quran.
Regards,
→ AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 13:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! You saved a lot of my time! Aminullah 13:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check user procedure

You recently compiled and listed a case at request for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has asked that you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the request for checkuser page. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed in a timely manner. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk.[reply]

answering-christianity

I notice you linked the article on Christianity to this. Do you really think it a good idea? Essentially it seems to be a rather strongly POV/attack site. There are comparable "anti" sites on other religions but we don't generally list them on the main pages for the article, and I think it would be a bad thing if we did... e.g. at Islam. I haven't removed the link for now but I would invite you to do so. --BozMo talk 19:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, but please think carefully. I did not say anything was offensive (not to me anyway) nor did I mention NPOV rules. At present all the contraversy issues around accusations of apartheid in Islam etc are off the main Islam page and put in separate pages on contraversy. Do you think that it is a good idea to include on the main pages on religions links to sites which only exist to criticise them? The link is already at Criticism_of_Christianity which corresponds to Criticism_of_Islam for Islam.--BozMo talk 20:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu views on monotheism

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Hindu views on monotheism, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Buddhipriya 20:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allah in Indonesian

Basically this is a copy of what I wrote in Allah (discussion), replying your doubt.

I was born and raised in Indonesia. Indonesian does not have proper plural form (normally it is done by repeating the word twice, but does not applies to all words). I have several friends who were Buddhist, and Hindus, and they DO use the world Allah, which is alternative form of Tuhan, which means God or Gods. I am a Roman Catholic and of Chinese descend, and we do use word "Allah", and so did my ancestors, who are/were Cunfucianism and Buddhist. I agree that Buddhist and Hindus does not use "Allah" as often as Muslims, Protestants, and Roman Catholics. Hope this clarify it.--w_tanoto 15:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu, Brahma, or Buddha is different case. In Hinduism, the normally used word is Dewa (ie, Dewa Wisnu -->Vishnu), not Tuhan, not Allah. While Buddha, they call him simply Buda or Buddha or Budha (the spellings are not standarised). Tuhan and Allah are generally accepted as Indonesian word for God in all religions recognised, especially in inter-religious relations. I can't really find a direct translation of Dewa from Indonesian to English, but according to Indonesian dictionary installed on my laptop, you can say that "Dewa" is the same as "Idol" in English. Yes, as I said, Allah is less common in religions you mentioned, but nevertheless, still used.--w_tanoto 17:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it came from sanskrit. Thanks for the info... I don't know the direct translation for that. I just said what my dictionary said. I agree it is offensive, as idol is also used in Indonesian sometimes for some dead items that is regarded as God (i.e. statue, stone).--w_tanoto 18:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infidel bitches and FAGs

These kinds of edit comments are not productive:

Please refrain from making comments such as these in the future. Ewlyahoocom 20:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it is the infidels who should refrain from putting a p.b.u.h. after their own names (which implies that they consider themselves prophets). Aminullah 09:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]