User talk:Arrow740/Archive 1

Archive 1

Please be civil and assume good faith when dealing with other editors and their contributions. I'm talking specifically of your comments on Talk:The Quran and science. You can argue against Islam all you want, even if the talk page is not for that, but don't insult other users. And be aware that the 3RR does not apply when a user restores content that was removed without good reason and without discussion. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one removing. Arrow740 02:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

you may wish to stop misusing talk pages in the future

i have cited some wikipedia rules to you numerous times (i.e. WP:NOT, WP:TPG), that you are asking for them now suggests you have been ignoring them previously. i don't care much for copy-pasted plagiarised arguments as were seen from you as anon. wrt to your "arguments" and other assorted polemic, to claim "all" have ever been appropriate to articles is ridiculous, as they would never merit inclusion on the virtue of violating both WP:V and WP:OR. in fact much of it (and there are many more diffs) is you promulgating your personal conclusions as a self-proclaimed expert. quite simply, you don't seem to understand talk page guidelines, and you do not realise how a wiki talk page differs from a forum. you committed the same disruptive offence in the section we were previously discussing in, but then pretend to not know what is being alluded to when you are caught out, even though you were warned as anon not to troll (several times). if you continue to troll in the same manner in the future, you will be reported. ITAQALLAH 21:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

thank you for your understanding. of course, while e-mail or another medium would be more preferable for "debate", one can have dialogue with others on user talk pages, but if it is done in a contentious manner it simply denotes battle-ground mentality, although a number of other edits i did not cite may have been from article talk pages. to imply that the article is being deliberately misused by an editor or group of editors is not civil and is a bad faith assumption. the issue is about constant misuse where series of comments are made which do not serve to enable constructive and useful discourse about the improvements of an article. it is important to consider that while one continues to participate on wikipedia. ITAQALLAH 04:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Two things

Can you prove atheism? Also the article The Quran and science may be of interest to you, either in helping with it or weighing in on my nomination to delete it. If you care to respond, please use my talk page.Arrow740 01:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Atheism is the lack of belief in theism. Atheism is proven every time someone does not believe in a Deity. The Quran and science does not interest me, but Science does. religion trys to subjectify the natural world so people don't feel alone and ignorant, however, the more we learn, the more that gap closes up (please see God of the gaps). Somerset219 03:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant, can you prove that atheism as (roughly) defined in Theism is true. I.e. can you prove that there is no deity. Thanks for the link to God of the gaps though, that's an interesting article. Arrow740 03:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not up to me to prove that there is no deity. If it were, there would be no need for missionaries. It is standard logic that the one whom makes the claim has to prove it, "extraordinary claims take extraordinary evidence!" As it goes however, it is possible to present natural laws, that happen to explain away "arguments of proof" about Deities (god of the gaps), but there is no way for me to not prove something, like there is no way for you to not prove the exsistance of Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. If you can prove that santa clause does not exsist, then I can prove your deity does not. Then you'll see how rhetorical things can get. Somerset219 03:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Continued on your talkpage. Arrow740 08:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I know it is not up to you to prove that there is no deity; I was merely interested to know if you had a proof. As regards "arguments of proof" of the existence of God, I think that Thomas Aquinas' five ways cannot be explained away using "natural laws." That's not saying that they are all valid, though I personally believe that at the very least, even if there is an infinite regress of causes, there has to be something which causes the chain. By the way, the existence of natural laws cannot be proven. Any natural laws that we have deduced are nothing more than the result of scientists saying, "this appears to be how things work." I'm not saying that they're not right, I believe in science as much as the next reasonable person. I'm just saying that science is based on assumptions. Outside of the realm of science, it is not always reasonable to demand proof. There are some things which, even if false, cannot be falsified. So if you believe in the law of excluded middle, this means that there could be things that, even if true, can't be proven. For example, I didn't demand proof that there is no god, only asked for it (haha). My best friend fed a ganesha idol milk during that day that ganeshas all around the world were drinking milk, and I have no explanation for that. Because of that and other things which I have been convinced are miracles, I believe in the supernatural. I hesitate to call this proof of god's existence, though I hope to find some eventually. Arrow740 06:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

interesting, however science is there to make calculable observations that are repeatable. Its there to help us interact, deal with, and control our environment, it isn't there to give you the meaning of life. What I was talking about was more on giving answers with out proofs. Science is there to "funnel and propel" our knowledge so we can build on those lessons learned (computers).

God of the gaps is a good example of the mentality of religion, which is why I consistantly bring it up. Religion tends to try to explain things that aren't everyday occurances, or what you call supernatural. In other words, I am not saying that science has all the answers, I'm saying that making up a subjective conclusion with out understanding all the variables probably isn't the wisest desicion. A scientist studies the natural world, which is our life. I would rather have a computer technician (scientist) tell me how a computer works (natural world), than a used car salesman (Priest). Just because one doesn't understand the concepts of the natural world, doesn't make any answer for it right. If anything, God is an idea of those things we don't understand, but in no way can you better understand those things by believing it. People want the easy answer, there is none, and believing someones answer with out understanding why is not only stupid but can be dangerous (religious terrorism). Somerset219 23:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

thank you for standing up for me against Aminz's silly assertion. I made my vote according to my understanding of wikipedia policy and was rudely accused of misuse of wikipedia by Aminz. All I can say is "he who smelled it, dealt it." For me it was not a matter of being pro or anti Islamic, but a matter of whether the article merited the space it took up. I spend a lot of my time on the AfD discussions as I adhere to wikipedian deletionism- the belief in strict adherance to wikipedia standards in the articles. If it isn't contributing to the greatness of wikipedia, then it is wasting space. The article in question seems to be proselytizing. Green hornet 03:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

..looks like Aminz was right. ITAQALLAH 23:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Quran and science

Thanks for notifying me of the deletion debate. After looking it over I agree that the page has serious problems. But I did go ahead and vote speedy keep, because your second nomination was made only a few hours after the last nomination closed. If the page doesn't improve in a few weeks, consider a re-nomination or a mediation. --Alecmconroy 21:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I made a mistake when I accused you of voting twice in that debate. I incorrectly thought you posted CltFn's "speedy delete" vote because I didn't see his name/date thing. Sorry about that. - Lex 19:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

see the relevant talk page. also see The Islamic Medical Association of North America. ITAQALLAH 15:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

--I am sorry but i made Absolutley NO changes. I wrote my opinions on the talk page though. Which you probably read. I have not added anything to this article okay. Where did yuo get that from?MOI 22:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

--Oh! thank you for clarifying that. I was confused by ur 1st mesage.

---Yeah i got confused. I thougth i had put my message in that topic and i really hadnt. SRY!MOI 18:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

---Wait! Why did my message get deleted? I know i had edited it only once but why isnt it there anymore? Or your edit? Why isnt that there?MOI 18:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

---Oh. I think it went into the archives.

want to see full quotes

i would like to see the full quotes, within the context of the paragraphs for these attributions such as for the Needhlam and (i think) Musallam quotes. you have been implying that you have access to the actual materials themselves. so, substantiate what you have quoted and vindicate yourself from suspicions that you have been using certain unreliable web pages. it may not be from our good old Brother Andrew, but it is equally as worse. ITAQALLAH 18:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! furthermore "equally as worse" is expressing that AI is equally as worse (as BA) in comparison to reliable sources, which you should have been able to derive upon reading my comments in context. that is partly why it is very difficult to trust that you will represent sources accurately. ITAQALLAH 19:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

you don't seem to know what vandalism is. the information is simply not relevant to embryology in the qur'an, it is merely an attempt to skew the section through a barrage of non-sequitur arguments. arabic science and its success or failure has nothing to do with statements in the qur'an- that is a difference you must realise. as for your claims about my english (although you may want to take another look at your comprehension skills), it seems that it is now i who is laughing whilst i type. ITAQALLAH 20:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"equally as worse" would be incorrect if i was referring to the exclusive relationship between Brother Andrew and AI (answering islam, where the direct quotes of what you have included in the article can be found). i was not. the Moore part is redundant and weasel wordy, as when discussing Moore's interpretation it says "may refer", by implication not negating other possibilites. ITAQALLAH 20:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

i would consider asking a native speaker, if i wasn't one myself. i think i know the context in which my comment was made, and it has already been explained. ITAQALLAH 21:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 22:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

and here it is[1]. Bucaille says:

It was not until I had learnt Arabic and read the Qur'an in the original that I realised the precise meaning of certain verses. Only then did I make certain discoveries that were astounding. With my basic ideas on the Qur'an - which to begin with were inaccurate, just as those of most people in the West - I certainly did not expect to find in the text the statements that I in fact uncovered. With each new discovery, I was beset with doubt lest I might be mistaken in my translation or perhaps have provided an interpretation rather than a true rendering of the Arabic text.

Only after consultations with several specialists in linguistics and exegesis, both Muslim and non-Muslim, was I convinced that a new concept might be formed from such a study: the compatibility between the statements in the Qur'an and firmly established data of modern science with regard to subjects on which nobody at the time of Muhammad - not even the Prophet himself - could have had access to the knowledge we possess today. Since then, I have not found in the Qur'an any support given to the myths or superstitions present at the time the text was communicated to man. This is not the case for the Bible, whose authors expressed themselves in the language of their period.

In La Bible, le Coran et la Science (The Bible, the Qur'an and Science), which first appeared in the original French in 1976 and which subsequently appeared in English in 1978, I set forth the main points of these findings. On November 9, 1976, I gave a lecture to the Academie de Médecine (French academy of Medicine) in which I explored the statements of the origins of man contained in the Qur'an; the title of the lecture was Données physiologiques et embryologiques du Coran (Physiological and Embryological Data in the Qur'an). I emphasised the fact that these data - which I shall summarise below - formed part of a much wider study.

-- ITAQALLAH 23:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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 administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 01:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

telling editors to "stop snivelling" and "stop whining" (when they are legitimately requesting clarification), as well as continually making bad-faith accusations of vandalism all quite easily constitute as personal attacks. ITAQALLAH 02:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

and as i said, it was a bad faith accusation. i changed it in an attempt to make it more coherent, assuming with it that ibn al-qayyim also endorsed the interpretation. there was no conscious intention to remove the "most commentators" specifically. bold editing or mistakes do not count as vandalism. ITAQALLAH 03:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What happened?

Kya howa dost? What had made you angry? Did I made any mistake? I never intended to offend you. Let discuss Islam. I tell you that why I love it so much and you tell me that why you hate it so much. Okay dost? :) You could also email me at faisal.aslam@gmail.com -- ابراهيم 19:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

We are wikipedia so listen: Muhammad revelations are REAL

Over on Muhammad Itaqallah makes wikipedia say revelations are real without ANY source. He playing games like that with ONE standard here ANOTHER over here. ALL for one POV though. that never change.Opiner 21:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Busy

Hi Arrow740,

I am currently swamped. I'll try to work on it whenever I got free. Cheers, --Aminz 00:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

re: e-mail

i had offered for a discussion over email some time ago. however, i do not believe such discussions would be fruitful anymore, in consideration of what i perceive to be continued personal attacks and constant misrepresentation or misunderstanding of what others (myself mainly) say. perhaps in the future when we both calm down a little i may consider it. ITAQALLAH 01:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Arrow, if you continue in this vein of personal attacks, i may be left with little choice but to report you. in your short editing career, you have already racked up a colorful portfolio of personal attacks. please keep any accusatory bad-faith suspicions that you may have to yourself. per this:

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 16:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Truth

An interesting philosophical point. I myself am a pragmatist and an instrumentalist towards truth. I don't believe truth exists in some external world, or at least there is no way to prove such a conviction. We don't have truths, we just have assumptions that happen to work. Knowledge is, in my view, based on some form of solidarity, consensus with in a group; between groups there is pluralism, a multiplicity of opinions. There is no way to decide which truth is better than the other.

On wikipedia this view is reflected in the way I deal with debates, edit wars and disagreements, I try to remain always oriented towards compromise. As such I can assert what I believe is true, but have to give in when others have other views. For wikipedia is not about truth, but about consensus C mon 23:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Under the sharia? Are you kidding me? Less than 10% of the Dutch population is islamic, their birth figures and levels of religiosity are declining. Such a minority could never grab power; instead, like any good democrat we must respect the opinions of the minority. BTW We have a more serious chance of becoming a protestant theocracy than a Islamic caliphate, seeing we have a theocratic protestant party in parliament since 1918.

What your saying maybe funny if you don't live here. The people who are saying we are in the danger of becoming an islamic caliphate, are part of the problem in the Netherlands as long as islam is not treated with the simple democratic respect, recognized as a part of the Netherland, the segregation between black and white is kept in place and youth in the large cities do not have perspectives to better life, both economically and socially, we are breeding fundamentalism and terrorism, not by our tolerance but by our intolerance. C mon 07:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

First, immigration, both from asylum seekers and family migration (the biggest two sources) has rapidly declined because of government policy, which I don't support: as the majority of asylum seekers is from non-islamic countries and they are treated inhumanely by the Dutch government.

Furthermore, Christianity was as bad: now Christ may not have committed any attrocities, but the pogroms against the Jews, defended because Jews were responsible for the death of Christ and the crusades against the muslims, defended because the Muslims held Jerusalem, the city of Christ, were attrocious. The Old Testament isn't the least violent book on the world either. And I won't go into the wars between Catholics and Protestants which last till today. No people has never been at war for religious reasons. The Islam, sadly, is not different.

Finally, we can all interpret religions the way we want too ("Islam is violent at its core" etc), but we can never know how it is to live in one, unless you do live in one. C mon 08:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to stress that you can't say anything about a religion if you're not in it, how well you have researched it, it still is a prejudice, since you can only understand a belief system if you are in it.

The Central Bureau of Statistics tell me that according to their prediction in 2050 3,458,362 people will be from non-Dutch origin. 1,084,099 will come from Morocco and Turkey. Currently about 700,000 people are from Moroccan or Turkish extraction. Not all these people are per definition muslim obviously. Immigration has fallen from 133,404 persons in 2001 to 92,297 in 2005.Migration from Turkey has fallen from 7,000 to 3,500; Morocco from nearly 6,000 to 2,500. The more than half of the migrants, come from within the EU, the US or Australia/New Zealand.

The "problem" should not be overstated. C mon 09:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It includes all allochtonen, that is upto the third generation.

The sentence "In fact, many Muslims probably do not have a very good grasp of many aspects of Islam." shows the flaw of your argument. How can you not understand your own religion? You can only understand a religion by being part of it. You might call it post-modern, but it is rather obvious, the only people who truely understand Islam are muslems themselves, who live, deal and struggle each day with their own religion.

You can interpret scriptures in a very different way, as long as there are pacifist christians and people who go at war over their own religion, that seems rather obvious. I know Christian who accept evolutionary theory and christians who reject it, on basis of the same Bible.

Materialism and atheism are as unprovable as any religion, because it is based on the assumption that the world out there exists and that the way we perceive it is correct. That is a very useful assumption, but not one you can prove. Personally I'll stick to being a pragmatist (things are true, facts are just useful) and agnost (the question does God exist, cannot be usefully answered), because I prefer to have a philosophical perspective that is not assume things about the world which I can't know. I have no epistemic basis for that (obviously), but I think that this position is most useful.

The majority truth might be more useful, but it is not more true. Especially not from the position your arguing because if your an atheist and materialist, you can't possibly think that moral truths exist. Where are those moral truths? How can you perceive them? Materialism almost per definition leads to some relativist position about moral truths. C mon 09:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The basic assertion of "relativist" philosophers like Kuhn (although he wouldn't appreciate that adjective) is that you can not understand beliefsystems if you aren't part of them. We can't understand the way Aristotle thought about nature, because we live in a completely different world, the same is true for Islam.

Still the whole point is that we can interpret religions in a certain way, if we are outsiders, by looking at their scriptures but we can never fully grasp their meaning. So the islam in your interpretation is aggressive, but the Islam in the interpretation of many muslems is a religion of peace.

My positions may seem to shift, because I have to have two kinds of answers, unlike materialists.

1. How we have knowledge, a question of fact
2. How we should have knowledge, a normative question.

On the first, I think it is becoming clear that knowledge is dependend on groups, paradigms, solidarity etc. Having knowledge is a group process and not objective. So knowledge is always consensus.

On the second, so how do I deal with this subjectivity as an individual: by pragmatism. That is how I personally deal with knowledge.

These two fuse on wikipedia, where knowledge (i.e. things included in wikipedia) is that which is not deleted by the community and therefore our edits have to be pragmatic: by being bold we can include some of our perspective, by removing information we can prevent edit conflicts.

BTW, in Islamic countries I'd be hanged for sodomy, that's the exact reason we (the Netherlands) have to open our borders for those who have lost their faith and those who flee islamic countries. If you have claim to have superior views, you must open your borders to those who agree with your superiority and not close them because you fear those who agree with you. (But this is a very specific European problem). C mon 12:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think are epistemological differences, especially those concerning the ability to understand religions cannot be reconciled. I respect your realism and materialism, although they are a bit naive. We can argue it over and over, but I'm very convinced of the idea that an Islamic (or an Aristotelean) lives in a completely different world, in which words have other meanings (even things which seem unambiguous to you), which one cannot grasp, if you are not in this world. If you don't, than that's a respectable position though. Just like being a pacifist muslem is a defendable and respectable position.

At least, I'm sure that gay people who flee from Iran, because they'll be hanged there, think our society is better for them, but our minister of migration wants to send them back. But that's our problem. C mon 23:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think our positions are to clear: but one final note the Quran can't be wrong, only your interpretations of that book can be negative. C mon 09:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that this is a translation of the original text in to English, (the Quran was not written in English!). I took a Latin and Greek in high school: translation of ancient texts is always a matter of interpretation. As a philosophy student I read Nietzsche and Heidegger: the same thing, you can't just read their German, you have to interpret the text, to understand it, in your own way.

Furthermore religious text are often metaphorical and can be interpreted differently.

Finally if you like me believe that truth depends on group opinion, like I do, than semen comes from your lowerback if you're a muslem, just like if you are an Aristotelean the things fall because they seek their natural place.

There is not one external objective truth, at least for me. C mon 10:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What I really believe is that there is no objective and realist way to tell where semen comes from. Anything goes. Only if you accept certain basic assumptions ("the scientific method leads to objective knowledge") this can be true. Off course I believe in evolution theory (I think this is an extremely convincing theory), but I have to accept that according to some people we were made from clay by God. These people live in a different paradigm, in a different world: a world where some God created the world in seven days, made people from clay and from other people's bones, and sent his son to be crucified. I might not believe in that but Christians do, and how stupid I may think such a perspective is, it is true for them. C mon 10:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The core of pragmatism is that there is no objective way to gain knowledge, so we have to deal with it in another, in this case pragmatic way.

The core of my argument is that all religion suffers from the same problems Islam does, so attacking Islam is arbitrarily chosing one religion and bashing that. And that's very dangerous. You appear to have chosen this group not because their argument is flawed but for some other reason. Why have you chosen to crusade against Islam? The United States could use some atheist missionaries to prevent gay marriage from being banned, end polygamy amongst morms, prevent evolutionary theory to be removed from schools and to end the grasp of the Christian Right within the Republican Party on the government.

Paradigm shifts are inherently problematic. Consider the copernican revolution, for one moment all the people thought the world was the centre of the universe and then the sun was. Their world radically changed.

BTW do you know where semen comes from? Do you know the exact translation of the sentence? If lower back just means "the area above your legs and below your chest" it is a pretty good description.

Although I really don't understand the last sentence, I agree with the previous bit, you can't hold an individual of a religion responsible for his beliefs he is raised that way. Therefore trying to convert them is probably not useful either. C mon 23:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't really care where semen comes from it is very useful to believe that it comes from somewhere down below, you have an answer and you can focus on more important things.

Ahh, the bloody edges of Islam, you do realize that two of the largest conflicts currently were caused by aggressive American (Christianity inspired) foreign policy (Iraq and Afghanistan) and one is kept in a cycle of violence because of American support for one of the two sides (Israel).

And the Old Testament does not sanctify rape and pillage? And as always how well you've read the Quran doesn't really matter, you can't understand a religion unless you're in it. The majority of muslems in the Netherlands do not rape, pillage or make war on a regular basis. Who are you to say that they practize their religion badly? It is there religion!

When Christianity was dominant in Europe 500-1500 Europe was characterized by war, rape and pillage, and Islam was a relatively peaceful and tolerant religion, that actually read and incorporated Aristotelean philosophy in their religion.

What are they supposed to do? "leave their own" what do you mean by that.

C mon 09:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

So group A pillages, murders, invades Iraq and Afghanistan and fares war, but you say "Hey they are not doing what their scriptures tell them, in my interpretation, but they do do the same as the entire Old Testament exemplifies so I wont bother them with that" and group B pillages, murders and fares war and you say "Hey they are doing what their scriptures tell them to, in my interpretation, so I am going to bother them with that". In both cases there is suffering but you chose one and not the other: because you are prejudiced against one of them. In my view both bring suffering.

Furthermore there are good reasons to say that Islam is/was actually the more enlightened religion.

The position of the Jews under Islamic control in the Middle Ages, in Spain and the Balkans was much beter then the way they were treated in the Christian countries. In Islamic countries (you the religion that starts of by murdering thousands of Jews) they have to pay some increased taxes and in Europe they suffered from pogroms, (while their saviour was himself a Jew). Did you realize that the reconquista triggered a huge migration of Jews to outside of Spain, because Islam treated Jews better than Christianity?

When the muslims invaded Spain it was ruled by warlords, when they left, they left cities, trading posts, culture and castles.

About Thomas of Aquinas, Islam incorporated Aristoteles in their religion when it was founded, Christianity only did so 1000 years after it was founded. Which one is the more enlightened religion?

C mon 10:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I keep up bring up Christianity to point your hypocrisy: Christianity is fine, but Islam is evil. It is extremely inconsistent. Both religions defended slavery, pillaged, fared war and raped. I don't see a difference: both religions interpreted their Holy Scriptures in such a way that this was acceptable. You agree with one interpretation but disagree with another. This depends on your interpretation and not the "nature" of the religion, because that does not exist. C mon 16:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The lack of civility in your tone is of the dogmatism of your position. To you it may appear that I have no knowledge of religion, but you are extremely dogmatic in your interpretation. Like I do not want to see the inherent aggressiveness of Islam, you do not want to see the simple fact that you are basing your dogmatic position on the subjective interpretation of an outsider.

The real issue here is that you attack one faith and defend another based on your own arbitrary interpretation of those religions, denying the simple fact that people who live in a religion best know how that religion works.

And that in the end is your business as well. But the danger of your position is that as long people feel the need to attack Islam the societies on this side of the Atlantic will further segregate into an Islamic minority and a liberal/Christian majority, where the Islamic minority feels the need to embrace its own religion, in the defense of fundamentalist liberal attacks and to defend its own interest. A natural reaction against such (intellectual) aggression, but this will not bring a harmonious and stable society.

Your dogmatism might be harmless on that side of the Atlantic, but on this side relativism is a necessity. C mon 08:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this discussion shows that you are not open minded to liberal interpretations of Islam. You know the truth about Islam and that the adherents of this religion practize it differently is their mistake. C mon 10:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There are tuns of liberal muslims in the Netherlands, since I'm very interested in politics, I can point you to prominent Dutch politicians who are both muslim and preach Dutch values: Naima Azough (greens), Tofik Dibi (greens), Mohammed Rabbae (greens) Fatimah Elatik (social-democrats), Khadija Arib (social-democrats), Samira Abbos (social-democrats), Nebahat Albayrak (social-democrats), Ahmed Aboutaleb (social-democrats), Fatma Koser Kaya (social-liberals), Nihat Eski (christian democrats), Coşkun Çörüz (christian democrats), Hikmat Mahawat Khan (populists). All of them are religious muslim but still operate within parties that preach western values. Euro-islam is reality! And we can foster this development by not crusading against these religions but show tolerance. You can't just wave these people away and say: they don't know islam, because for me (and them) you can know islam by being islamic. C mon 13:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed things aren't that bad as you think. We do not have to falling under the sharia soon.

Islam, unlike catholicism lacks Popes, mention me one living, influential protestant "leader". I can't. C mon 21:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

May be I will, if I ever get time for that. But I don't think searching for leaders or analysing religious text will ever get you close to finding euro-islam, because that's the islam practiced by real people, not by scholars. C mon 21:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Two things,

First, if you are so committed to truth as you say you are free-speech is one of your most fundamental rights: no government should ever ban an opinion because there is a chance that it is true

Second, jailing people (btw, because most of these Imams are non-European, we can send them out of the country) will do what now? It will only increase the feeling of segegration and discrimination of those muslems, making terrorism more not less likely. C mon 08:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I defend the freedom of speech, of any person, on basis of Mill's argument (in On Liberty). He's a famous pragmatist towards morality and a realist towards truth, but I think his opinion is compatible with pragmatism towards truth. He says that we should never forbid one opinion for two reasons:

1. There is a chance (even a minute chance) that this opinion is true, than you'd be banning a truth. Societies can have strong consensus about untruth (in your argument Iran for instance does);
2. If the opinion is untrue, it should not be forbidden because defending your opinion against those of others in an intellectual debate will prevent your opinion from becoming a dogma. If other opinions are allowed to exist, you'll be forced to constantly defend your own position: instead of hammering a truth in stone, you are forced to live it.

You shouldn't ban nazi rallies or deport orthodox imams, because it is beneficial for society to debate these issues. C mon 13:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

One point about your last post: you said that people should integrate into Dutch society. Simple question: which Dutch society. I don't believe that there is one set of Dutch values which 90% of the people share. There is a lot of debate and insecurity in the Netherlands about our own identity. In the end I think that migrants can not be assimilated into one Dutch society, because it doesn't exist. C mon 10:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Relationship that Doesnt Exist Between Islam and Science

Ill try to make those section one paragraph soon. Lot of work though.Opiner 02:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Take a look at WP:ARCAID I think Rosetta Stone and Cactus are worthy of our support. Can you BELIEVE we not have good article on Rosetta Stone or the cactus yet?Opiner 09:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood

You're wrong Islam doesn't give license for muslims to kill critics of islam. Of course Islam doesn't give license for muslims to kill any reviler who misunderstands Islam or was angry because of some reasons like terrorist actions. Islam gives license for muslims to kill reviler who reviles deliberately and understands Islam well. I mean anybody who wants to destroy Islam by showing wrong and obscene view .--Sa.vakilian 04:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think it's OK to kill someone who disagrees with you? Arrow740 22:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. Why do you think so. Islam is something and Muslims are something else. For example when you call all of the Muslims terrorist, although it's unjust but it doesn't relates to Islam exactly. Also this is not about critical viewpoint or disagreement and opposite beliefs. --Sa.vakilian 10:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

For example Mostafa Malekian is a thinker which criticize our beliefs in Iran and somebody accuses him as a heretic. But ha has been invited to participate in discussions in Iran's universities, even in Imam Sadeq University-the most religious one. You may hear something that we want to kill somebody because of his/her idea. But I'm sure most of them are political issues not religious ones. I mean in Iran may somebody accuses the others for political reasons but in the name of Islam unfortunately. If you were hear you find we have critical debates about Islam even in our mosque. --Sa.vakilian 11:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry again, but there are many verses of Quraan that tell that do not kill them until they slaughter you. I have examples in your own talk page(Arrow740). Brother, if all the people of palestine become Jews, Israel will welcome all of them. Here the difference starts. In the past, Israel has given its nationality to all the Jews of the world. We all know that. They only reason why they stopped this because they had many people converting to Jews just for nationality. In any other case, they say WELCOME. What you will say about this? If you are the citizen of USA, you will say that we don't have to do anything with Israel. No my respected friend, it is only USA behind the scenes. You can clearly see the USA protecting Israel in UNO.

When the great nations start protecting them, what will a person do whose son died by Israili Army. Someone has lost Old father, someone has lost young son, young brother, young sister, husband, infant babies. The remaining people cannot be the scientists, they cannot be the poets, they become wild anomals. You make them Wild by not stopping Israel. Builder w 22:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Reforms under Islam (610-661)‎

Arrow740, look at this new article. Aminz and Truthspreader now attracting the helpful reverters including Nielswik with the anti-Semitism history and undoing all my edits. Needing more neutral involvement for the NPOV.Opiner 09:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Im not putting ANY interpretation on them. Read them theyre all linked and citationed and it wont take long. Thank you so much for being involved. I put the article you mention on my watchlist. I think the real solution is to be involved in both.Opiner 11:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine. What Ive seen is editors giving up because they think they are the only ones and there is no hope. Individual decision make communal self-fulfilling if that make sense. When you can is great but please dont ever think youre alone because you arent. I only didnt come back to the science article because it look under control.Opiner 11:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Itaqallah, oh yeah, bigtime.Opiner 11:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Yeah i know just a hassle to drive up there. But gotta do it now. Thanks for the reccommendation.Opiner 11:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC) You're not having the e-mail enabled thats too bad. You can always enable notify me then turn it off if you want.Opiner 11:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

swadhyayee 09:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)== Killing & Rape figures. ==

I do not know but you could never get right figures. My request to you would be to stay away from bringing carcass out from the cupboard. Why do you want this? Do you think that the women raped go and report? Even in some cases they may not tell their husband, father, mother or brother-sister even. Killing was on both sides even rapes could be on both sides. The figures could be absolute false (on higher side). Why know this and compare or keep it open for debate? Most of the victims and accused may not be living now. Balance must be old. What is the sense of opening the wound and adding venom against each other? Not justifying but the rapes and killings on Indian women do not take place now by own relatives? My uncalled for advise, divert your mind to something else.

I searched on Wikipedia and found no results. Which invasion are you talking about?

swadhyayee 13:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have not read Kashmir article. Anyway, I will still feel to desist from adding fuel to fire. Muslim invasions of Hindu kingdoms? You have to read some history book. I have no idea? swadhyayee 09:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Administrator caution

Hello, I'm an administrator responding to a request at the Wikipedia:Personal attack noticeboard. In going over a situation I noticed this rather disturbing post.[2] Wikipedia discourages the formation of issues-specific cabals. Also, although your recent posts appear to be on a lesser level than last months's personal attacks and incivility, I probably would have issued a user block on you if they had come to my attention sooner. Please comment on content, not on character, and avoid slurs against other people's religions. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 17:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Your vandalism on Criticism of the Quran

I don't know what you're talking about - I only intended to redo my edits concerning that Mirza as you can see with my edit summaries. Please read them. BhaiSaab ^talk 12:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

the accusation of vandalism seems to contain an unhealthy dose of bad faith, as BhaiSaab did not remove the Spencer ref. ITAQALLAH 17:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. Arrow740 22:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop assuming bad faith. I think your repeated accusations of vandalizing are getting a little ridiculous and you have already once embarassed yourself. Thanks. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

getting close to violating 3RR on Criticism of the Qur'an

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 17:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is already in the Qur'an category. Please read carefully before you make unrestrained allegations of vandalism. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You can follow the Qur'an category to the Islam category in the following ways:

1. Qur'an -->Islamic texts -->Islam related literature -->Islam
2. Qur'an -->Aqidah -->Islam
3. Qur'an -->Sharia -->Islam

BhaiSaab ^talk 21:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Also you never gave any justification for removing the link quoted in the secondary source, or denied that it was vandalism to do so. You had no justiication and did not attempt to give any. Arrow740 21:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You've been reported at:WP:AN/3RR. TruthSpreader^Talk 11:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote farm

Were needing a quote farm template maybe. Warning: this article may be a Quote Farm. Maybe putting a pic of quotation marks.Opiner 06:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Re article protection

Aminz and Arrow740. This is too much. Remember wikipedia policies re to verifiabilty, notable sources and so on. Saying Muslims are anti-semites (re pigs and dogs) or Jewish are racists (chosen people) is OR. It is so damn obvious that there are people out there who are Muslims anti-semites or Jews recists. So what?! IMHO, as i always love to be clear and not looking to be mean or offend anyone but if you both understand this than you are into the game of wikipedia. If not than you are a pain in the ass just abusing your knowledge.

If Arrow740 thinks Muhammad was anti-semite than it is his POV and no problem w/ that. On the other hand, if Aminz argues that it is not the case than it is his POV and no problem w/ that. BUT DON'T MAKE A FUSS OUT OF IT. Your problem guys is that you got a temperament and that's not a good thing to edit this encyclopaedia. You got to leave that temperament in your closet and walk the way out w/o it. -- Szvest → ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 11:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I think this email is written itself in quite a temperament. --- ALM 11:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

you'd like that, wouldn't you?

thanks for the offer, but i'm not into taking wikibreaks. ITAQALLAH 01:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

hah. there is no "they". ITAQALLAH 01:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

looks like you've been granted a wikibreak of your own, Mr. Chola. ITAQALLAH 12:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the Quran

Thanks for your message. I dont edit here frequently so I apologize I'll not be able to participate much for now but I saw the issue. I think there should be an effort to split that page into more divisible sections. Its very long. The splitting up will help reduce the edit wars in my opinion and let you make your points. Also another way to make sure your edits stay in place is to make sure your view is balanced and includes the other side as well (thats the way it ends up here anyway). Splitting up is the first thing that should be done.--JohnsAr 01:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello! I've requested for a mediation, here Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Reforms under Islam (610-661). Please join it and sign your name. Thanks --Aminz 08:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It was not pro-Islam material, but a short overview of the academic view on the matter. The quote I mentioned as a response was the one from Michael Sells. --Aminz 08:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you please sign up for the mediation. --Aminz 10:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Aminz 10:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

if you think she is not neutral, then you can find reliable sources and add them as well. we can say prone says this and the other guy says that. we can then summerize it. --Aminz 10:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding edits made Nov. 16 to Criticism of the Qur'an

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Khoikhoi 08:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the Qur'an

I'd like to help, but it appears there are a number of highly POV coordinated editors there, and I don't see where I could do much good as long as they are trying to own the article. You might consider filing an RFC on the matter. RunedChozo 17:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved

Do you think you could make a strong argument based on the Quran and ahadith that show that the Qutbis are wrong in their interpretation? Or quote one from a source you like? Arrow740 10:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is only about Qur'an. I haven't read the views of Qutbi's etc etc but if there are such views, then one say Qutbi's say this verse means that. I dunno. As long as it is well-sourced(per WP:RS), it should be okay. we can have it --Aminz 10:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If you think the new section is not neutral, feel free to add POV tag meanwhile you are searching for more reliable sources. i.e. sources which focus on Qur'an alone(not Hadith). --Aminz 22:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Your posting

Could you please clarify what you were referring to in your last post on my talk pageß Thanks. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

24 hour block

For violations of WP:CIVIL, particularly this.[3] Durova^Charge! 18:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Arrow740 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Durova ignored my repeated requests, on her talk page, for explanation of her earlier warning to me, and has not answered my email about this one

Decline reason:

Labelling a fellow editor as "insane" is a clear violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --  Netsnipe  ►  05:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The block seems to be perfectly justifiable. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Answering Islam

Surely you've heard of Sam Shamoun's nasty little insults on all opposing him? And surely you know of Faithfreedom.org's constant insults to Islam (I.E showing pictures of Muhammad just to annoy Muslims)?

I shouldn't have said "lies" (for some people will just reject that they're lies no matter what); but rather I should've said that they insult and violate Islam so much that you shouldn't use them as a source for critics.

Armyrifle 00:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Add on - About the "lies in the Qur'an", they claim that the Qur'an says stuff about "killing infidels" and such, but it's the Hadith that claim that. It may not sound like something to make an argument about, but it is (IMHO). Armyrifle

Add on - I can debate you about the Qur'an endlessly, but I don't want to. My main point is that Ali Sina and Sam Shamoun (of faithfreedom.org and Answering Islam, respectively) are known for their blatent insults to one's religion and violating one's religion thus ignoring what you (the Muslim) ask from them (such as Ali Sina posting pictures that clearly show Muhammad's face). Thus, you shouldn't really use them for sources of debate, seeing as to how they do these things blatently, what's stopping them from lying about the religion so that it can lose a few converts?

Armyrifle

It seems you have perverted what I said. I did not state that I don't like them because they disagree with me. If that was the case, I wouldn't continue to get into this argument because there would be no case for me to attack them with.

What I'm saying is that there is nothing stopping them from lying about Islam seeing as to how they hate the religion so much. If I debated a Christian, I wouldn't lie about his/her religion seeing as to how I'm a critic. These people (Ali Sina/Sam Shamoun) have shown their hatred for Islam and what I'm trying to say is that there is nothing stopping them from lying, and that some have even claimed that they were lying (and have contradicted themselves).

Armyrifle

I'll refer to what I said earlier.

"but rather I should've said that they insult and violate Islam so much that you shouldn't use them as a [reliable] source for critics."

Armyrifle

Dreaming

You wrote the following on CltFn's talk page:

• "I guess we're all dreaming of the day when we can prove that Esposito isn't a reliable source. Arrow740 07:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)"

Do you mind if I ask who the "we" are who are dreaming of such a day?PelleSmith 14:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you assume I was thinking about some kind of "conspiracy"? Or was that a joke? Conspiracy was the furthest thing from my mind. In fact I was really just curious, because of how you wrote it ... "we're all" and because you injected it into a conversation between two other people as if you wanted it to be heard. I think that's enough to make anyone curious. Thanks for the clearly logical response--the people who think he's unreliable dream of proving it. Cheers.PelleSmith 17:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

OOPS ... I made a bad change there. Initially it said don't think he's reliable ... but I read it wrong and thought I'd made a mistake writing "think he's reliable" ... so I added ... "un". Sorry, but I meant it as it reads there now ... and/or the first way I wrote it. Cheers.PelleSmith 22:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Reforms under Islam (610-661). For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC).

hello

i would have removed this inappropriate comment had it not made me smirk. first: ibn ishaq's text we do not have today. second: ibn hisham obviously saw fit to correct numerous inaccuracies in ibn ishaq, as has been confirmed by later experts of hadith. third, Allah Says: {كَيْفَ تَكْفُرُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَكُنتُمْ أَمْوَاتاً فَأَحْيَاكُمْ ثُمَّ يُمِيتُكُمْ ثُمَّ يُحْيِيكُمْ ثُمَّ إِلَيْهِ تُرْجَعُونَ} ,{إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِندَ اللّهِ الإِسْلاَم}. the last passage i want you to ponder over, if you can. ITAQALLAH 12:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"I think you're fighting a losing battle if you think your work on wikipedia will cause more people to believe that the religion of God is Islam." you asked me a question, the answer is there in the arabic. i don't know how you derived this statement though. quickly, i'm not talking about merely the poem which is accepted as a forgery. i am talking about Guillame's actual reconstruction of ibn ishaq for which he states he used plenty of other sources, which suggests we don't have ibn ishaq's original work today. regardless, what you may find 'morally objectionable', i do not in the least.

ibn hisham in general is not bad at all, for the most part it is pretty accurate. it is a basic historical text which even very new students of knowledge cover. yet you talk of it as if it's something you have just uniquely discovered (as you do with all polemic you espouse): do you out of naivety assume that all Muslims do not know more about the sira than you, Robert Spencer et al.? some of what the uneducated polemicists present in the form of evidences is true, yet many times it's either what they don't say, or how present the evidences which is the real deception.

i have no desire to e-mail you or discuss with you, unfortunately. not because of the impoverished arguments you pose, for i have been deflating such for several years now, but because there is no benefit in discussion with one whose heart is sealed. thanks anyway though. also, no malice intended, but i have removed your soapboxing from my talkpage. ITAQALLAH 13:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

i wouldn't ask as my interest has not been stimulated, and the answer is already in the Book of Allah. approaching something with an open mind necessitates not possessing preconceived notions, which i am not convinced you have achieved. these apparent external contradictions are all very easily explicable, internal even moreso, the answers are there if you would but sincerely search for them. i won't remove your lattermost comment per your request, though i repeat that i have no interest in discussing this with you. ITAQALLAH 14:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

come on.. you're into this business of internet critiques... don't you know of any apologetic websites? perhaps you could try [4] (use keyword search facility), [5], [6] (perhaps if you're really desperate: [7]). there are plenty of other very common websites available, maybe you should try google. i'll give you a helpful start regarding one you just mentioned: [8]. now please, find the rest for your self, and please do not post on my talk page regarding this any longer. thank you. ITAQALLAH 00:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the Qur'an

Do you think this encyclopedia is not neutral, and therefore should not be used in Criticism of the Qur'an? BhaiSaab ^talk 23:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What is your personal opinion on the neutrality of sites like faithfreedom? BhaiSaab ^talk 23:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be attempting to sway consensus by asking several users to comment. I'm sure if you actually understood what WP:RS says about this, we wouldn't be having that discussion in the first place. Wikipedia is not the place for hate websites, i.e. FFI/AI. BhaiSaab ^talk 14:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, actually I have carefully examined them many times and have read many of their articles since they are the standard Islamophobic hate websites. BhaiSaab ^talk 14:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well there's a lot I disagree with. That bigot Ali Sina loves cherrypicking. Bring him a quote from any book that seems to make the Prophet look bad and he'll love you. Bring him a quote that does the opposite and he'll start a rant about how it's not reliable even if it's from the same book. He also seems to have a big ego. If you happen to start a debate with him, he's already the winner (it doesn't matter what the opposing sides arguments are). Why? Because since he is the owner of the website, he's the judge of the debate as well. Do you know why Ali Sina would never debate in public? Because if he did, everyone would see that he is actually not a Persian, but an American born here in the states. That would shoot down the credibility of all the rest of his arguments. It has nothing to do with "I'm scared of Muslims." He's such "a big debater" and can't even get the courage to tell his own "Muslim family" of his own apostacy? But anyway, he was never Muslim, and there's no proof that he ever was other than his testimony and nor do I believe has a Muslim family. BhaiSaab ^talk 14:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What I think of his arguments about Islam are quite simple actually: I'm Muslim. People like Ali Sina and Robert Spencer don't need to tell me what "true" Muslims believe in and that the only true Muslims are people like Osama. Why? Because I'm Muslim and I can figure it for myself without the assistance of people who are simply riding the wave of and trying to cash in on the surge of anti-Muslim bigotry. BhaiSaab ^talk 14:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think I start compiling a list of errors or bias while I'm reading their articles? No, I don't, but there are a lot of other websites that already do that. All other Muslims are perfectly capable of finding the true nature of Islam as long as they are not brainwashed by people like Osama. BhaiSaab ^talk 14:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have found that it is best to examine the motives of the person who states such an idea. Ali Sina consistently names types of logical fallacies while he's debating, and yet you've never noticed all the sorts of evidence against his ideas that he chooses to ignore. This is called a "biased sample." BhaiSaab ^talk 14:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is consistency, which these arguments do not have. Ali Sina will pick any quote from Sahih Muslim, for example, that supports his POV and use it, and reject any quote that doesn't support his POV simply based on his POV. You are already familiar with this, I'm sure. BhaiSaab ^talk 15:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop inserting your favorite books into that article. If your edit was in good faith, you would have inserted a neutral list in the first place. BhaiSaab ^talk 15:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not see this biased list in past revisions of the article. BhaiSaab ^talk 15:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Tigeroo reverted it, meaning other users can see the worthlessness of this contribution. The IP address that inserted it in the first place seemed to pick some random articles to poison. If you want a list of books, let's do it well, not some Bat Yeor and Robert Spencer filled list, as if their works are the most significant to this field. BhaiSaab ^talk 15:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

revert baiting through introduction of factual errors

this edit is a deliberate manipulation of what Lewis says. 'prophethood' was not the objective of statesmanship. rather, as Lewis states, he became a statesman in order to complete his mission as a prophet. and as with your latest revert, you have proven unable to respond to the explicit, multiple quotes provided. ITAQALLAH 03:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There must be some confusion. Arrow740 03:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

no, as you have distorted the sentence with a possessive. the manipulation renders the sentence pointing to achieving "his objectives" i.e. attaining prophethood— instead of "the objectives" that prophethood achieves. please feel free to rectify that distortion. ITAQALLAH 03:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ali Sina

The closing admin decided that there weren't enough reliable sources to write an article with, that's all. His comment that if some can be found, the article should be written "by all means" indicates his acknowledgement that Ali Sina is notable. Arrow740 10:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the comment. If there are some scholarly resources, that make his notable, we can write the article again. But again, WP:RS and WP:V policies are there to decide, what is scholarly and what is not. TruthSpreader^Talk 10:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

When we're writing an article about polemics, we don't need to restrict ourselves to scholars. We need to include notable polemicists, like Ali Sina. Please put him back in the articles.Arrow740 10:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

you couldn't prove the notability there in AFD and then in its review. Why are you arguing with me? TruthSpreader^Talk 10:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Notable means prominent. I could and did prove notability, as did Matt57. Do you understand why the closing admin chose to delete the article? It is because of lack of sources, not lack of notability. Ask him yourself. Arrow740 10:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny that you couldn't provide sources for Sina's article to save his article, and you want to use his writings as sources in wikipedia. TruthSpreader

^Talk 10:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You're changing the subject. Admit that he is notable. Arrow740 10:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not changing the subject! you prove notability by scholarly sources and not by "I've heard of him". You seriously need to read WP:BIO. TruthSpreader^Talk 11:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to use someone who doesn't have any notability but have published in a scholarly journal. You need an independent third party source to prove someone's notability. Believe me! I had never heard of Sina before I came on wikipedia. Wikipedia was simply advertising him. TruthSpreader^Talk 11:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

per [9], [10]

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars.

and edits like these are known as canvassing for support in order to sway consensus. please refrain from that in the future. ITAQALLAH 17:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

i do not appreciate you trolling on my talk page, as you did here. i'm not sure who "grew up in Pakistan", but you've got the wrong person. ITAQALLAH 21:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

tasteless, trollish comments are not things i believe i am required to entertain. as for 'equally as worse', i think i explained that? though i would admit that even i am not beyond making mistakes. ITAQALLAH 00:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Re Ali Sina

You removed Ali Sina's name from articles citing WP:WEB, which starts with: "This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia." How does WP:WEB provide you with justification for removing Ali Sina's name from articles? Arrow740 20:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you kiddin' me? I'll assume good faith and consider this message a mistake from your part and not a kindav trollish behaviour. I haven't removed anything. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 10:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab

I agree it could be just about anyone from the Muslim Guild, and perhaps Itaqallah wouldn't be an unlikely guess. However, personally I have always suspected that the BhaiSaab account might be the sock of the well-known, long-time Islamic sock puppeteer Yuber a.k.a. Heraclius. His level of English, the articles that he chooses to edit, the languages that he know, his strong pro-Islamic and anti-Jewish opinions all makes him awfully similar to Yuber, that as mentioned was know to use a large number of sock puppets. -- Karl Meier 10:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Faith Freedom International page that has been created, maybe you could add it to your watchlist? I am sure it will attract a lot of vandalism and POV editing, especially from those disagreeing with what this organization is about. -- Karl Meier 10:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your RFM

I have volunteered to mediate your case. I am not a member of the Mediation Committee, but have some experience conducting mediations. I'll only do so, of course, if all the parties consent. Please indicate on the mediation page whether you agree or not. Cheers, JCO312 00:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you please respond to this query on the mediation case page as soon as possible, please? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Answering Islam

I have no idea, I've not been watching that page. --Matt57 14:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your vandalism

My dear brother, You said that Islam means Submission, not Peace. I agree with you. This is also a well known meaning, but there are many others. Islam means submission to Allah's will. I Honestly and deeply agree with you. But my dear brother, your study of Islam is not at all. Actually, you are looking at Islam from a false angle. I'll give you a little example, easy for the average person, who knows Muslims.
You may have observed that when the Muslims meet with each other, they say "Assalam-o-Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatu". Which means "Be Peace and Mercy of Allah on (all of) you".
Obviously, you can say that that it means that "be submission on all of you". I'll still agree with you my dear friend. This never forcing you to the Submission. The Anti-muslims will tell you only those meanings to you so that they can prove that the Islam forces to the submission.

My dear friend, I'll tell you an interesting fact. Many Muslims say that it is not right to say "Assalam-o-Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatu" to non-muslims. So, many Muslims who will not say this to you. They are not doing good. Our Prophet Muhammad himself said SALAM to many non-Muslims.

Now, if the Salam means Submission to God(Revert to Islam), then why some Muslims do not say these words to non-Muslims. The fact may be interesting to you that the word "Salam" means Peace, or exectly, it means non-violence. Islam is derived from Salam. It means Peace. If you have any Indian friend, ask him what the word "SHAANTI" means. He will say Peace, or "Be Peace". When the Indians quarrel, they use these words:"Shaanti! Shaanti!" to attain peace. The word "Shaanti" of Hindi(Indian) is the same of the Word "Salamati" in Urdu and "As-Salam" in Arabic. All these mean Peace.
Now you may think that if they have the word Islam from Salam, then the meaning will also be changed. No my brother, not at all. 'Salam' is the VERB and 'Islam' is its NOUN. This difference is just like the difference in 'Be Peaceful' and 'Peace'.
I hope that my brother's question is answered.

Regarding your next question related to your Quraanic verse against non-Muslims, Please read the following carefully:

This is a Quraanic Verse: 2:191, "And slay them wherever ye catch them"

Imagine for a non-Muslim to read this simple yet highly thunderous line under the heading "Quran's teaches about non-Muslims". Initial thoughts? shock? horror? what a cruel and disgusting way of deluding people. What Mr Sina doesn’t tell the relatively unaware reader is; if you read verse 2:190 all the way through to 2:194, you gain a very different picture, one which if read in full may even provoke alternative thought. Lets read it in full and see….

"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers. The forbidden month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things in retaliation. And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off (evil)." 2:190-194

Now my brother, Fight against fight is 100% according to the Golden rule!. You might say that there is no need for fighting in the MODERN WORLD. If the world is so modern, why the fight will occur? And when there will be no fight(attack), there will be no response as attack. Also, This verse does not means that every one starts fighting with wrong ones, but this the duty of the state to stop the attackers. The civilians are never asked to fight. However, in the days when the Islam was spreading, there were so many jelous people all around there. The tried to kill the Prophet Muhammad. There were no courts at that time, no Law, they were thirsty of the Muslim blood. That is why, Prophet had to migrate from his hometown Mecca, to the nearby City Madina. Those killers were again jelous, they tried to prove the Muhammad false, as there are enemies for every good man. If you were at that time, what could you do?
The reason why Islam was against the Jews is that there were many Jews neaby and all around the city Madina. They were also against Muhammad due to their faith.

<vr><vr> Once the Muslims had to buy a well from those at much high cost, to drink water(yes, high cost for water!!! even when those jews were rich. They didn't allowed muslims to drink water from their wells). After buying the water from them, Muslims opened the well free for all. Not for only Muslims, but for all. For those Jews also.

Now, Ali Sina can prove that I am against the Jews. So he can tell the jews and ask them to kill me by his LOGICAL GUN. But my brother, am I calling the jews bad as a whole? But the Ali Sina can think of that(he can also prove!!!). He was never a Muslim because Muslims read these stories in schools. Ali Sina never told any of them to you. He just says that he is an ex-Muslim, so that you people believe that those translations are true.

Dear brother, the person Ali Sina tells you the big big lies. You can browse the following link to have some of your answers: Ali Sina Exposed

I don't know who is behind this website. This is just a small website. But Ali Sina represents this site to be the Major Opponent to make the visitors fool. Thats a few pages website.

If you want to know about Islam, go there: Harun Yahya.com

You can also read the RELIGION OF ALI SINA(are you shocked when I used the word religion?) here:
Ali Sin'a RELIGION!!!

I hope that you'll not mind if you have to read some of the text by open eyes. No other Faith has such great Idiology. The other religions are nearly vanished(its hard to find a christian, all those you see around are just labled christians. Many of them are athiests). Islam is the only religion(left) which cannot be vanished by sword because it has the power of reply, the Power of Resistance. It has the sword for defence. Ali Sina wants to take this sword from us. It just like a robber may have to steel the gun from guard before he can play the GAME. But the rules of Islam are very strict. It can not be vanished by logic, as it itself has the Logic. Similarly, it can not be vanished by Power, as it itself has the Power. But my dear, this power is the power of resistence. The more you punch a wall, the more you get injured.

Again, my dear friend, Ali Sina will tell you that this person thinks that ONLY Islam has the power and only Islam is true. My dear brother, if you read christianity, you'll find Muhammad there. If you read Hinduism, you'll find Muhammad there. There are clear indications in those books. But those books are changed by man. No christian can prove that the Bible is word of God. Even if he proves, the which Bible will he prove? My dear brother, we have the Quraan. We also have Hadis, but the Hadith is not exactly the holy word of God, it is a collection made, years after Muhammad. Quran was always kept in the same text. After 1400 years, no word of it has been changed. But again, Ali Sina changes it while the translation. Or he only shows you one side. If I say that "My student said that 2+2=5", then I am not wrong. But Ali sina can prove me wrong with his stupid LOGICAL gun by taking the text "2+2=5". He can prove me wrong. But in an illogical way, while using the LOGICAL GUN. Isn't he really great.

At last, my dear friend, we call the Christians and Jews as the "People of the Book". They are our brothers. May be you are also. Islam never forces a non-Muslim to become Muslim. BUT those who deny ALLAH, Allah will punish them. Every man born in the universe, at least once in his life believes in ONE GOD. But then he becomes BUSY. That's ok, but when he denies Allah, Allah does not like this. My friend, today, please look in the mirror at yourself. Are you created by a chance? You are composed of trillions if cells. Out of them, only once cell is a super computer, far more faster and perfect then the one computer in front of you. Can man create one single cell? Even if after all the scientific improvements, it creates life, then how the first life was created? If the man created a man is no proof that the man is created by Chance.
On the other hand, the creation of a man is again indication to the creator. The one. Who is not born, He does not has children.

Can you take me to the end of the universe? Can anyone. Can anyone???? Can you just Imagine it?????
Then for what you deny the LORD, the Allah, the creator?
If I use a pirated copy of a software, the software house will start case against me in the court. I cannot use a copyrighted CD while changing the credentials to me, or anyother. This will be illegal. In this modern world, the man has learnt the RESPECT OF COPYRIGHT. Allah never says to stop efforts. He says that more you go deep, more you will find the signs of Allah.
But respect the credit to Allah, being the creator. That is what the humanity tells and this is the real GOLDEN RULE that you have to respect all and their credentials. If you do not respect this, then how you can be called a modern human?
My brother, again, Ali Sina can warn you that I am adressing to you as a ____. He can use any word, he has a good vocabulary, but of of bad words.

Dear brother, I stop here and please, I do not want a debate with you.

At the end, I would like to say you "ASSALM-O-ALAIKUM", which means "May Peace and Mercy of Allah on all of you".

<posted by User:Builder_w>

Answering-Islam.org

No I do not know the history of that article , perhaps there never was an article until the recent december creation.--CltFn 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

the Religion of Disbelief

I believe that there will be a day when man will be finally able to create a man. That (artificial) man will have lot of more power then us. He will have lots of more abilities then the man we have today. Dear brother, we will give him its own will. How we will stop him frim the sins.
We will teach him:"O Robot! if you will be doing the sins, do not forget that we have set a time period in you! After that, you will be expired. You cannot go anywhere, we will identify each and every of your cell. Then you will have to turn to us and that will be your Day of Judgment. You have to answer the question we will ask. If you were found guilty, we will burn your IC's, your CPU and We will distrub your communication system. No one will be able to help you, the sinners. SO, always be away from the sins." May be you will also like to add these lines:"If people try to use you for sins, stop them by hands, this will be the best option for you. If you could not stop by hands, stop by your tounge. If you cannot stop them by your tounge, never believe in them because this the least we can expect from you. If you believed in them, you will be in great loss."
Actually, we will be teaching him ISLAM, the true religion, the religion for us by the creator.

The God gave ourself the power of will, the idea of good and bad. Every person in the universe, at least once in his lifetime believes in a single God. Nearly everyone believes in God, but the people who convert to disbelievers, they have just one or two points to prove their logic.
On the day judgment, Those people will be asked why they denied the God? and they will give the logics like you. There will be a question:"Didn't you see the clear signs?". They will have no answers. In fact that those will be in graet loss that day!

You can disbelieve God if you never saw miracle in your body. But no person disbelieves honestly. They are not honest to theirselves. they kill their innerself by their own hands. The God never kills the innerself. This is the man who kills his human nature for superiority.

We are sent to this world to worship God. But it is the SATAN, who will not let us worship the God. He is our enemy and he gives us great rewards when we do sins. He gives us great initiatives.

I believe that the Person like Hitlor can go straight to heavens if there were no signs of Allah for him. But this is not possible. This is the satan that agreed him to have the temporary joy. Temporary is always temporary. He did this for joy. He also had the innerself like all of us have. The Satan did not killed his innerself. The Hitlor killed his innerself with his OWN hands. That was a deal between Satan and Hitlor. Hitlor wanted the temporary fun/joy/happiness. Hitlor paid in human skulls and satan returned the money, the land and many other rewards to him. I believed that many times, Hitlor thought that it was not good, but then, he found his joy again in the bloodshed. He denied God. If this was not happened, Hitlor will go straight to heavens.

That is case with you and me. We have done many sins that we don't know. May be i have killed a person by some accident. I disobeyed the redlight and gone away, may be there were many killed behind the scene due to this. If I don't knew that, I'll not be questioned.

But in this case this question will be asked to the state, my parents, my teachers. Why you did not told him the law. So my brother the God did not created any problem for us. we create problems for ourselves by diobeying or disbelieving God. If you disobey God, may be sometime you obey him and revert to the truth. If you disbelieve, you have no logic. You have denied the truth. You have denied the true signs.


God is never injust with the man. He says clearly that stop the evil by hand. If not possible, stop by tounge. If still not possible never believe in evil, this is the least expected from man. My dear respected brother, I am glad to know that you believe in One God. The message of God I just written is the Concept Of JIHAD in Islam. This is actually the Golden Rule. This is the most misunderstood philodophy.

So, you can be a great mant in the sight of Allah, even if you disbelieve in evil. But this does not means that close your eyes before the evil comes. Try to stop at any level. Try to defeat him. Even it is defeat of evil if you disbelieve in evil. The evil will cry. You will win and you will go straight to heavens, no dout about that.

The cause we reject the other religions is not that they are bad. We first believe in Jesus and the other Prophets. No muslim is a muslim if he does not believes in Jusus.
But you also know that these are religions have nearly no power against evil. You may never find a true Hindu in USA. In america, you cannot believe in Hinduism. This clearly takes you to the disbelieve in God. You become a disbeliever of God. Same case with Christianity. The weak logics will make people disbelieve in God. Islam is the only religion which has the force of resistance, the force of reaction. The harder you punch the wall, the more you get injured.


The people like Ali Sina clearly tell lies to you. They are not new in Islam. Islam has clear instruction about people like that. They cannot make a single believer to disobey God. But they produce questions. If a Muslim rejects Islam, he rejects all the other religions. Will you give a thousand dollars and take one dollar instead? So a muslim can not be a good christian, he cannever be a hindu, he can never take other religion. The only option left is the religion of disbelief. So my respected brother, if we start believing secularism, it initiates to disbelief in God. So the non-believers usually come to you as seculars. My friend never obey them. The are not seculars. Why they come to you if they are seculars. They just initiate the disbelief. Islam is a challange to them.
My dear friend, com and defeat the evil just by disbelief in evil. You don't have to do anything difficult there.


I hope that my brother's question is answered.


Yours respectfully,
Waqas Mehmood --Builder w 13:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

for wp sikh editors

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2006/December#.7B.7BSikh-bio-stub.7D.7D.2C_Category:Sikh_religious_figures The stub people wanted input from WP Sikh editors. While you're at it please check out {{User WikiProject Sikhism}} as well.Bakaman 04:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

hmmm

I'm not touching Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)/Partisan and extremist websites. It's basically a kangaroo court and in my opinion it will only gain a pretense of validity if it stands up to non-Muslims. In order for it to stand up to non-Muslims, non-Muslims have to touch it. So I'm not touching it. Maybe I'm wrong but I think this is the better course, to emphasize that they are making up their own rules as they go along, it's special pleading, and not worthy of attention. — coelacan talk — 09:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The verses of Holy Quraan and the Humanity

My dear brother, forst of All, I would like to say Assalam-O-Alaikum, which means may Peace and Mercy(of Allah) be on you all. Then, sorry for not reading your first message completely.

Undesting a Text
You may know the great English writer William Shekspear(please correct me if the spelling is wrong). If you translate the books of William Shekspear to Hindi and give the translations to an Indian ans request those books to read himself, may be he would stop reading after reading some pages and get bored. By chance, if he reads them fully(this will be a difficult task), he will tell you that the author is mad(remember that hi is saying to william shekspear). If by chance, you give this book to a person who is against English or Mr. William, what he will say, you know it better my friend, there is no need for me to explain. Now, concider if you give this book to a person who is against English and William and you also REQUEST him to write against these books. In this case, if you give him on book, he will write 100 against William and his writings. That is why the William is only studied in English. The people who teach his books are from english background. Isn't this a possibility that every person gives you a different meaning. But if an English-knowing person will tell you it will become interesting for you to read it. Brother, I hope you understand that fact.

Telling Lies: A human right??
Same case is with Islam. We believe it to be the word of God. The second authentic book(s) near us is the collection of Hadith books. Majorly, we believe 6 books to be authentic. No SINGLE person who has average knowledge of Islam believes that these 6 books are completely authentic. By using word authentic, we do not say that it is the word of God Almighty. By authentic, we do not say that these are 100% the words of our beloved Prophet Muhammad. These are not even the words of their companions. These are the referances. We have methods to verify a hadith. I do not want to go into detail, but my dear brother, these were collected in the form of books years after Muhammad(may be centuries), and by different personalities. The Quraan is authentic near us. It was written on thousands of HEARTS!. There are millions of People who may not know the meanings, but have preserved all of its words into thir memory. Still, after 14400 years, this is never changed. There is no tolerance for those who change it. If someone tries to change this, I'll be the first to stop. I'll have no fear. I'll like to die but to preserve the Quraan. I believe that every Muslim will be the first to stop. We have NO FEAR when we defend our religion. We do not request ANY benifit to protect the religion. My dear friend, those people have found tricks!. The come to you you and tell you that the religion is wrong. That's Ok, every one has the right to say, but the truth. They come to you and tell lies. Is telling lies a HUMAN RIGHT?

Mother of all the Sins
My respected brother, telling lies is the sin that is the cause of nearly all the other sins. The prophet Muhammad said that Lie is the mother of all the sins. I can send you to jail or put you to death(not in all states of USA) by paying a few people to tell some lies in the court. So, this is not the HUMAN RIGHT. There is nothing to judge the statements. But my friend, when a person is exposed, he must have something in REWARD. The punishment must be able to have fear in the minds of general people to stop them from telling lies.

Mistakers vs Liers
Sometimes, people tell something to you that is not true. If they also didn't know that. The are not the liers, they are mistakers(not a correct word, i am not very good at english). But they must be warned. Brother you can think that Ali Sina may be a mistaker, but you can judge by his statements. I suppose you to be the respected Judge. I don't know you. Still that is clear to me that every one can understand my message, but he must be a HUMAN. I believe that you are!. I have already given examples to you.

You can follow this link.
To know about Islam, Follow this link.

Regarding the verse you advised me to read. Quraan says that "Killing one innocent person is like killing all the mankind". You told me that this verse is about Jews only.

I am very glad to know that your anti-Islam knowledge is quite well. My dear respected brother, I am sorry to say that your knowledge about Islam is not at all, not at all, not at all.
First, read the single verse correctly, by open eyes, as well as open heart also.

(Quraan 005.032)Translation(YUSUFALI):

"On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land."Holy Quraan(005.032)

The Reason Behind!(the words NOT IMPORTANT to you)
May be you forgot to read the first three words:"On that account:". OR, you may have ignored those words as they are NOT IMPORTANT and you readed the IMPORTANT or relavent part, or the ACTUAL CONTEXT(according to the Ali Sina). Dear respected brother, here the game starts. I am sorry to say that it is a football match starting with (1000/0) score. The opposite team can never achieve that target in any way because there is a given rule of time. In this case, the rule is humanity. When we start answering, we must have to defend us by violating the humanity rules(e.g. time of play, in the football case). Here we are caught and get trapped. All the stadium says us to be bad. If we insist, we are the violaters. If we fight, we are the terrorists. We have no help, just absuses from all over the stadium. My voice is nothing against the crowd. The camera man displays the crowds and we are defeated by the Golden Rule of DEMOCRACY. Here we start campgain against the Democracy and according to the golden rules, we start behaving like animals. Then the evil starts and our football team is banned. Our practice grounds are banned. If we still resist, we are put into death!!!....???

Cause Of Fight...Money???
Brother, if you have to take the money, say $1000000000000000. You will never take it from a person who has a tank and you have a small stone. You will not fight to take this money when you are alone and they are hundreds. You will never fight if you are a child and they are grown up. You can clearly see many children stoning on Israili tanks. Sometime you will find in India, and there are many other examples. Are they fighting for Money??? For women? For sex? Actually, they are put into this fire and the evil is very happy when their dead bodies burn in fire, when they are shooted, when their mothers and sisters are raped, when their Old fathers, young sons and brothers are killed in front of them and there is no justice. The remaining people cannot be the scientists, they cannot be the poets, they cannot be good for mankind. I'll say that that those who remain will not be the animals, they will be the WILD animals. This is the way the evil produces the wild animals and he is happy on the fast production.

Loss on BOTH Sides
The evil is more happy when those animals again kill MAN on other side. On both sides, there is Man, The evil has played the GOLDEN MOVEMENT in the game and is now far away, just enjoying the rest of the game. All the Golden Rules are now against the innocents(of past). He(the evil) enjoys killing on both sides. He has no religion, he has no fear of God. That is why my brother, I do not believe in irreligion, or no-religion. The secularism also leads to irreligion.

I am not the final authority
These problems start from the initial evils taken by the people like Ali Sina. I may be wrong. But O my friend, I suppose you to be the JUDGE of today. I suppose that you make the good decision according to your own sole.

The philosophy of Reason
Comming to the point, if some one says to you:"Because of that reason, I'll kill you". You cannot prove him the killer until you prove that reason wrong. So, you may ask:"For what reason?". He will tell you that reason. (IMP:)He cannot say you that you have two eyes because that fits on himself. He will never say that you have brown hair, as this fits to many of his lovers. He will never tell you a reason that fits on a ggeneral man. AGAIN, he will not tell you a reason that fits on himself and on other people as general.

So, the Prophet Muhammad must have to give the reason (that he believes or he has) that does not fits on Him, and the Muslims as a whole. So he will give a reason that does not fits on Islam as general.

The verses NOT IMPORTANT
Now, what reason he gave can be read in the previous verses that were NOT IMPORTENT TO YOU. I hope that your english is better then of mine.
Click here to read the reason. (Quraan: 005.027 to as long as you can read!!!)

(Quraan 005.027 and onwards)Translation(YUSUFALI):

"Recite to them the truth of the story of the two sons of Adam. Behold! they each presented a sacrifice (to Allah): It was accepted from one, but not from the other. Said the latter: "Be sure I will slay thee." "Surely," said the former, "Allah doth accept of the sacrifice of those who are righteous. If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear Allah, the cherisher of the worlds. For me, I intend to let thee draw on thyself my sin as well as thine, for thou wilt be among the companions of the fire, and that is the reward of those who do wrong. The (selfish) soul of the other led him to the murder of his brother: he murdered him, and became (himself) one of the lost ones. Then Allah sent a raven, who scratched the ground, to show him how to hide the shame of his brother. "Woe is me!" said he; "Was I not even able to be as this raven, and to hide the shame of my brother?" then he became full of regrets. On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land."Holy Quraan(005.027)

What are the actual Meaning
I'll not tell you the Actuall meaning because. . . . . ..... I may be a lier in sight of you!

Use your Golden Rule or Humanity or anything to understand
Alhamdulillah(thanks God), Alhamdulillah, and 100s and thousands of times Alhamdulillah, that the God has given you the eyes to see and the brain to understand. He has given you the world's most complex machinery. Man has not created a single computer like your ONE cell. You are the best of all the creatures. You are not an animal, you are the Human, the perfect. My friend use this gift from the ALLAH to understand these lines. If these verses are against the Golden Rule, come and take me in the court, in any court. If this is not the Golden Rule, if this is not the Humanity, I'll not be away from you at the Day of Judgment, I'll be in great loss if this is not the Golden Rule!!!. May my Allah protect me from telling a single lie. What you understand from these lines? Tell me my friend!

I am not The Judge
My dear friend, I am NOT the judge. The final judge is OUR Allah. One can understand that the person told you this verse may not had read the Quraan. I accept my dear brother. Any thing can happen. BUT it is now your responsibility to tell the truth(whatever you understand now, whatever according to you and only you and your Golden Rule and your Humanity and your/OUR anti-terrorist philisophy) to that person.

The people, like Ali Sina are not mistaking, the are denying Islam and spreading the misconceptuans. If you do not stop them, you are from them. The least accepted or expected is to not believing in them. If you believe or spread their evil thoughts, you will be a sinner and one day WE have to be in the court of Allah, wo will do justice with all(not only with the Muslims, but with ALL).

Dangers of these Lies
The people who spread the misconceptuans are ACTUALLY responcible for the bloodshed ON BOTH THE SIDES. If you spread these misconceptuans, you will be responsible for a muslim killed by a non-muslim AND a non-muslim killed by a muslim(BOTH). Regardless of the the fact that who wins the game, you will put yourself in a GREAT LOSS, that the Quraan tells us about. And every man faces loss is due to some benifits that he had sawn before. BUT no one has seen the FINAL DAY. My dear brother, if someone becomes a billionaire or a trillionaire just due to telling one lie, the Golden Rule, the Quraan tells us that you cannot purchase happiness with money. Those millions and trillions of dollars will not help you in the grave and at the DAY OF JUDGMENT, those will be proofs of your sins.

My dear brother, do not collect the proofs of your sins as these are against you. Do not get shares in the evil, you will have to share the punishment too. That punishment, no one knows about. We all have to revert to the origin, no one can hide. Cut yourself in thousands, what you(physical) will do with you(the not physical body). All of you will go to Allah and he will do the Justice.
I hope that my brother's question is answered.

Concept of God in Islam
At the end, my dear brother, I'll like to tell you the concept of GOD in Islam, with a common example that you can understand, being a computer user.

There are many popular games in the computer market/field. There are FPS games, there are turn-based games, there are real-time-strategy games. Many Programming languages are used to create those games. Nearly every pupular language has functions and sub routines. Please search if you are anot familiar to these words.
I'll give you the example of Real-Time-Strategy games.
The real-time strategy(RTS) games produce real time results. You can see reports at real time. Nearly in all gamea, you can view the real-time results when you pause the game. In RTS games have there is the option to view results of anynomous user at any time. The example is AGE of Empires, StrongHold Crusader, and there are many others

So, if you play the RTS game, you can get report whenever your army kills or when it is killed/attacked. This report is real time, and for humans(us). There is report of nearly every thing that you want. The game developers can make anything in this game. The reports are every time the real-time reports. Do not forget that this system/software is created by man.
In sight of Allah, we are like those characters of the game(not for fighting). The report is automatically sent to the God in real time, when we do any thing. Everything is recorded. To count our sins, the Allah has no need to place two physical bodies on our shoulders. My dear brother, these are the Sub-riutines and functions executed in real time when we do the sins. This simple logic may give you an idea(may be, not prove) of the existance of God and how the God gets informed of us.

My brother, in those games, you can go anywhere. There can be no limits. You can go to -1000000000000000000x or +10000000000000000000x(dimensions), or -100000000000000000000y, or +10000000000000000000000y, same is the case for z-axis. There are virtually no limits. You can open the 3G Studio and can create a game af any dimensions, may be infinity.
So, those characters of the game can go anywhere in the game. They can find everything in the game. They can go every where. They will never find the Human/Actual player. Where ever they go, cay cannever hide. We can find them by clicking one button. They cannever hide. They can be killed, vanished, burnt, lost, drawn. My dear brother, you have only ONE button to undo, so simple it is. Even when you are the end-user. The developers have even more options.

God is more perfect then Man. He has created Man. The man can go anywhere, but there are two function or two sub-routines attached with him. Each and every of the sin is counted, the same for good works. Man can go to moon, he can go to mars, the sun, any other galaxy, anywhere he want to be, but he cannot reach the God. He(man) can create a Man, but he will remain created. Creating a man never means that first man was created by CHANCE. Man cannever hide himself from God. He has an age and he has to die one day. All the reports will be shown to him and he will not be able to deny them.

This is the concept of God in Islam that is the BEST of all. No concept is so clear in that if you look it as open minded. If you deny God, There will ne no fear in your mind and this is the root of sins(may be your children, may be their children start the disbelief). You will have no fear. You'll break the rules if there is no police, or no fear of being noticed/catched. That is why my dear bother, I believe in God. Islam gives you no fear, but the fear in Allah ONLY.

I hope that you do not mind as you do not mind those who tell thoses verses(true or lie, its now up to you!). You always have option to delete this content. I'll never say a word to you at all. But my dear brother, Please please read it ONCE carefully, by understanding and then delete this article. You are the FINAL authority. I AM A little CREATURE OF GOD. But my brother, do not neglect my message at all.

Assalam-O-Alaikum --Builder w 05:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Your vandalism

In fact Islam means submission, as (almost) everyone knows. Your statement that killing one person is the same as killing all of mankind is also incorrect. You can read three translations of the Qur'anic verse here. In fact you'll see that it is Muhammad telling the Jews that if they kill a Muslim, they'll be in serious trouble. The next verse gives possible (harsh) punishments for them, as well as for anyone who causes Muhammad "mischief." As regards Muslims hating rapists, that is another matter. In a modern country, this (or read it here) would be prosecuted as rape. Arrow740 02:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the stuff in your post was true, and I already knew it. I believe in God too, just not the storm god who started out as one god of many and ended up the god of Abraham. You might be interested to know that India is the most religious nation on Earth, and that is largely because of the Hindus. You said you didn't want to debate, and that's fine. Here's a question that's not really about Islam. Is God not perfect? Yes. Does that mean he is as forgiving and merciful as possible? Yes. Then why would he send a man to eternal hell? Why not give him another chance on earth, if he screwed up? Arrow740 08:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad's kindness and tenderness is now widely accepted in scholarly sources. See Professor Montgomary Watt's passage from his book: "Muhammad:Prophet and Statesman"[11] . The persecution which was conducted was of special nature. You've already read the article Itmam al-hujjah. This was purely a Divine judgement and now no one can repeat this and no one can say that he has been asked by God to separate good people from bad and finally punish them in this very world. You need to widen your view to see the world from a different angle. We need to create a better world where we all respect each other. Just like Qur'an says to direct addressees of Muhammad who were Christians and Jews, :Come to the point where we all agree that Abraham was neither Jew nor a Christian. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 11:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The foul play, again and again!(Very World)

Response from a brother: Muhammad's kindness and tenderness is now widely accepted in scholarly sources. See Professor Montgomary Watt's passage from his book: "Muhammad:Prophet and Statesman"[1] . The persecution which was conducted was of special nature. You've already read the article Itmam al-hujjah. This was purely a Divine judgement and now no one can repeat this and no one can say that he has been asked by God to separate good people from bad and finally punish them in this very world. You need to widen your view to see the world from a different angle. We need to create a better world where we all respect each other. Just like Qur'an says to direct addressees of Muhammad who were Christians and Jews, :Come to the point where we all agree that Abraham was neither Jew nor a Christian. Cheers! TruthSpreaderTalk 11:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Lies in article "Itmam-al-Hujjah"
The writer(Itmam_al-hujjah) gives a referance of a Quraanic verse:

"Indeed those who are opposing Allah and His Messenger are bound to be humiliated. The Almighty has ordained: I and My Messengers shall always prevail. Indeed Allah is Mighty and Powerful".—Quraan(058.020-21)

According to the writer: (this verse means that)The Qur’an asserts that when the truth is unveiled to a people in its ultimate form by a Messenger of God such that no one has any excuse to deny it, then the rejecters of this truth are punished in this VERY WORLD. The decision for this punishment is made by the God after various phases of the preaching mission. In this way, the court of justice that will be set up one day before the God is set up in this VERY WORLD and the reward of punishment which will take place on the Day of Judgement is rehearsed in this VERY WORLD.

Knowledge of Islam
The writes has no knowledge of Islam, not at all, not at all, not at all.
The writer may has never read the Quraan by OPEN EYES. He may have a search from any online version of Quraan with keywords:"punishment, day of judgement", etc and he was successfull to find a verse. He never read the Quraan with open eyes!

The Golden Movement
The Golden Movement has been played before the game is started and there is no court in this world for me to take the writer in. BUT I believe that this writer will not be away from me at the Day of Judgment. He had collected proofs against himself and published these on Wikipedia. May Allah revert him to the religion of PEACE, only Islam.

Teachings of Quraan
Dear brother, Alhamdulillah(thanks God), the Quraan is exactly the humanity with peace. You talked about the mission to make this world peaceful.
Dear brother, according to Quraan, LIE is a single sin, but produces nearly all the sins. Lie is the mother of all the sins, all the wars. Nearly behind every sin, there is a hidden lie.

Question(s):
My question to you is that:Can we make the world PEACEFUL if we allow the liers to speak whatever they want? Is telling lie the Humal Right? What your golden rules(not the Quraan, as you don't believe in it) tell? Here I must say that the Quraan states clearly that such people must be stopped.

Jihad, the Golden Rule of Humanity
Allah says that stop them by hands(i.e. power). If this is not possible or suitable, then by toung(i.e. speach and writings). If still not possible/suitable, then do not believe in them and this is the least accepted.
Alhamdulillah, this is the Golden Rule of Islam called Jihad. According to this defination, I am doing JIHAD. I am a mujahid. Now tell me that Jihad is against Humanity. No my brother, telling lies is against humanity, but you don't feel that! Stopping anythig against Humanity, at any SUITABLE level, is Jihad!

LIE, a single sin?
If you analyze the history, all the wars start from some lies, so my brother, I know your answer to the questions. However, it will be my pleasure to have your answer. I repeat the Question:"Can we make the world PEACEFUL if we allow the liers to speak whatever they want? Is telling lie the Human Right? What your golden rules(not the Quraan) tell?"

Where the lie is?
So my brother, you may think that I am just asking for the punishment of the writer without proving him wrong. Dear brother, I make you the Judge of today. Read the verses of the Quraan:(058.018-as long as you can read!)

translation:"One day will Allah raise them all up (for Judgment): then will they swear to Him as they swear to you: And they think that they have something (to stand upon). No, indeed! they are but liars! The Evil One has got the better of them: so he has made them lose the remembrance of Allah. They are the Party of the Evil One. Truly, it is the Party of the Evil One that will perish! Those who resist Allah and His Messenger will be among those most humiliated. Allah has decreed: "It is I and My messengers who must prevail": For Allah is One full of strength, able to enforce His Will." Quraan(058.018-as long as you can read!)

The actual Meaning: 'Very World', or the 'Day of Judgment'?
The actual meaning of these verses are:.....NO!, I'll tell you. I make you the Judge without knowing you.
What these verses mean(tell me whatever they mean according to you)? Where you can find this very world? Don't these verses telling about the Day of Judgment?
Are those writers telling you the truth? Have they read the Quraan? Have they any knowledge of Quraan? Does the Humanity allows them to continue spreading this message?

My dear brother, If they are wrong, stop them. If I am wrong, stop me. You can defeat the evil by not believing in it. This is what the Golden Rule of Islam tells. They are not fooling a muslim, you non-muslims are becoming fool. I'll stop them in favour of you. They are telling that every man with sword is your enemy, while they hide their swords.
No my dear brother, if a Muslim kills any innocent non-Muslim(or any man), this Islamic sword will be against that Muslim who kills the innocent. Actually, this sword of Islam is against everyone who kills any innocent, regardless of a Muslim or a non-Muslim.

The Final Decision
Dear brother, we muslims are not to announce the FINAL decision. There is no court in the world who can identify the truth. Why we have courts in every city? If Islam is wrong, they are also wrong. But if both are wrong and we ban the Judgment in this very world, I think that day will be the worst day for humanity. You must have some resistance, but against evil. In this world, there is no FINAL judgment. But we should stop the evil at any level.

Rules as well as forece to implement!
Can you prevent yourself from snakes by creating rules? Can you? Can anyone?
But you can prevent man from sins by making rules. These rules are not against man, but to protect man from the evil of man. It is a truth that these rules stop many sins, but not all. Sometimes when that man behaves like a snake, your rules cannot do anything. You must use force, otherwise, it'll be toooo late. Using force, you must not be evil, as there is the FINAL day of Judgment and you will know the actual truth!

By telling lies, those writers are actually hiding themselves behind you. They are creating a human shelter. They are telling you that this person is Mad. He will also kill you. So you also become against the Muslims. Those people never tell you about their sins. Someday, you will be finding them. They can be the Nazis, they can be the Israilis(not jews!) and similarly, they can be the Al-Qaida and Saddam. My dear friend, it will be interesting to you and a fact that the Talibaan, Al-Qaida and Saddam had very good relations with USA in the Past. This a half truth, the full is that USA produced them. Taliban were produced against Russia. Saddam against Arab. Now, America got enough power that it does not need them. So it'll try to destroy them.

USA can drop the Atom-bomb. This country can play the magic shows like 9/11. This can use Islam against Russia as well as Islam itself. We must stop this country. Stop does not means that you go and fighting. The best thing you can do is:"Tell the truth and deny which is untruth". I hope that my message is clear to you!

 

The Second Lie, and there is NO END!
The writer(Itmam_al-hujjah) says:"If the Messenger migrates with a considerable number of companions, he morally cleanses and trains his followers and prepares them for onslaught with adversaries".

Again, the Golden Movement has been played before the game starts
According to nearly all Islamic books, The prophet Muhammad migrated with ONE companion, Abubakkar Siddiq. The purpose of migration was to protect Islam. The people in Mecca had planned to KILL prophet Muhammad. Do the writer thinks that he may have killed like the Jesus be crusified? The prophet had many companions in the nearby city Madina, so he migrated to Madina. BUT the non-Muslims of mecca, upon knowing, stopped the Muslims to migrate to Madina. Many muslims had migrated, but later, the non-Muslims started torchuring the rest.

Were they prepared to fight?
If Muhammad wanted to fighted back, why he fought with non-Muslims when mislims were 313 and non-Muslims were 1000???????? This was the first war against them. The 313 muslims had nearly nothing to fight with 1000. They were poors at that time.
If someone migrates to come another day to slaughter, he will not come with one stone in hand, while they have swords.
Those wanted to kill each and every Muslim. They prepared the army, attacked amd the Muslims had to fight. Otherwise, you know it better!

My dear, those writers just tell you the lies. They have the Logical Guns that are more dangerous then the real Gun. Their Logical Gun is the mother of all the Sins. Who will stop them? According to your humanity, telling lies is a human right, then what can we do? We are really in great loss. Our Allah tells us that we must be patient. The day of Judgment is a reality. At that day, they will not be away from the final authority, the God almighty, the Allah.

Undesting a Text
I would again like to say that:You may know the great English writer William Shekspear(please correct me if the spelling is wrong). If you translate the books of William Shekspear to Hindi and give the translations to an Indian ans request those books to read himself, may be he would stop reading after reading some pages and get bored. By chance, if he reads them fully(this will be a difficult task), he will tell you that the author is mad(remember that hi is saying to william shekspear). If by chance, you give this book to a person who is against English or Mr. William, what he will say, you know it better my friend, there is no need for me to explain. Now, concider if you give this book to a person who is against English and William and you also REQUEST him to write against these books. In this case, if you give him on book, he will write 100 against William and his writings. That is why the William is only studied in English. The people who teach his books are from english background. Isn't this a possibility that every person gives you a different meaning. But if an English-knowing person will tell you it will become interesting for you to read it. Brother, I hope you understand that fact.

So brother, the ball is in your court. You can also play the foul game, or a fair play. Do not judge the game according to the laws I tell. Use the Humanity to judge. I hope that your final decision will be according to Humanity, as you said that your mission is PEACE!

My mission is Islam and your mission is PEACE. Are we fool? Why we fight?
Brother, actually, our mission is the same, PEACE. My dear brother, Peace cannot come from disbelief in God. You cannever make Peace in this world, unless people have Fear of the Day of Judgment. Islam is the only religion that makes this fear as a part of daily life. So, that fear will take the people away from the sins evenif there is no police. If you cannot catch me at this time, it doesn't means that it will never happen. If I believe that I'll be near you at the Day of Judgment, I'll never play the foul game. If I do not believe in God, you cannot stop sins when there is no police and no danger. You cannot have two security cams on each person. It is the fear of God that takes us away from the sins.
My dear brother, Islam is the best of all the religions. Islam has the MOST resistance against the religion of disbelief in God. You may have many Hindu,Christians,Jews and Muslim friends. They all come from many poor countries. If you say that there is no God, Hindu will ask a proof. So shell do all, but the Muslim will stand against you. He will stop you without demanding any proof. We muslims believe in one God, Allah and we do not ask any proof to deny as well as to accept the God's existence. We just believe and this our religion.
Dear brother, that is why all the other religions are weak against the Religion of Disbelief. So, the non-believers come to you as seculars. My friend never trust them. If they are seculars, why thay are against Islam? Actually they use secularism to defeat Islam. That is why every religion other then Islam produces seculars and these seculars are easily converted to non-believers. That is why Islam is the only option to stop the religion of disbelief. This religion of disbelief is actually the religion of Money, status, etc. In that religion, there is no fear of God. They just want workers. They just want Ants to work and to OBEY all the day, without any question. They just want to give you money to buy your happinesses. Can you buy happinesses with money?

I hope that my message is clear. I apologize if I hurt the feelings of any disbeliever. They are not bad, but The Religion of Disbelief is the Worst of all the religions.

AsSALAM-O-Alaikum(may PEACE ond mercy of Allah be on all of you)
Builder w 22:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Never believe in a lie

My respected brother, Assalam-O-Alaikum

You said:

"Please stop posting essays to my talk page. Nothing but a gun to my head would make me convert to Islam. The Quran contradicts science, morality, history, logic, and itself, and that's just the beginning of the problems with Islam. See WP:SOAP. Wikipedia is not the place for these essays. Arrow740 03:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Your last essay was interesting (though inappropriate). I think all religions work against unbelief equally. Islam goes too far by advocating death sentences for people who stop believing in Islam. Arrow740 03:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)"

Thanks brother for giving time and reading my posts. I'll not write on your page after this post.
Brother, there is no hidden GUN in my posts and I am not here to convert you to a Muslim. Brother, I am against Liars. Even a gun, a tank, a bomb can not stop me opposing the lies. My brother, I am not against the people like you, the mistakers, but those who tell these lies to you.
I always respected you, but sorry to post lengthy ESSAYS on your page. Brother, My page welcomes you. We can have discussion there.
I was not the one, but you started against Islam, the religion of Peace. My brother, One of your questions/arguments against Islam is remained unanswered. That is the Marriage Of Aisha with prophet Muhammad(read it here). Brother, I had ignored this assuming that you have no knowledge of Islam. BUT now, you are showing to have a GOOD understanding of my religion, the Islam. May be this is very difficult for a muslim to reply this argument to a non-Muslim. However, I don't want you to accept Islam, however, I want to expose the evil that some people tell you. So, you may agree to debate with me on this single argument, which is really difficult to answer.
Again, my job is not to convey any message of Islam, but to expose the lies which some people tell you. And my friend, never believe in lies even when there is a gun to your head!
Assalam-O-Alaikum--Builder w 13:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Reporting Itaqallah

I have caught Itaqallah blatantly lying in his edit summaries and reported it at WP:ANI. RunedChozo 19:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

lie? moi?

"Yes he does lie in his edit summaries, occasionally" -- that is an unsubstantiated bad-faith accusation, and will probably remain so. you've been known to dish out accusations of vandalism in bad faith also. i don't enjoy all this needless obsession with little old me, why don't you come over to Talk:Muhammad as a diplomat and respond to the numerous points i have made? you don't need the help of anyone else, do you? ITAQALLAH 23:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Islamic extremist terrorism

This article was nominated for deletion. Make sure to vote on it.--Sefringle 04:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Enlightenment

What is the basis for your first premise? If it is false, your conclusion is false. Grace Note 07:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"To be enlightened one must have complete understanding of the self."

First, learn there is no self. Grace Note 09:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad as a diplomat

I have commented on talk and tagged the article. Beit Or 19:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Sikhism

Hi - (1) spelling mistakes, (2) no references - w/o them, you're expressing opinion and re-interpretation of data. That is not the purpose of WP. Rama's arrow 04:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The spelling was fine and the material was common knowledge. But I guess I'll cite someone. Arrow740 23:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Hinduism-related Collaboration of the week

You have been invited to help improve the article Sita Ram Goel in this weeks's Hinduism collaboration. You have once written something about him. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. See also these related articles. [12]

You can also vote for next's week collaboration at the project page: Wikipedia:Hinduism-related Collaboration of the week. Unfortunately, the Collaboration site is little known, that's why the reminder. --Bondego 14:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Misrepresentation

Not only must they know full well that they are misrepresenting the Qur'an, but they are using an anon IP to do their reverts for them. It's the first thing that really gets to me: are you familiar with the concept of doublethink, not its popular usage but its very specific meaning in the book in which this phrase first appeared? On the one hand, the Qur'an is the literal, directly authored and inerrant word of God. On the other, it relies on us to misrepresent it in order to preserve its reputation. The latter contention is incompatible with genuine belief in the former, raising the question of why one should bother in the first instance.Proabivouac 07:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

thesis

Excuse me! I am a PhD student myself. All PhD thesis are fully checked by professionals (atleast by three international experts who are professional in that field). All PhD thesis are scholarly. Kindly read some reference guide for more information. TruthSpreader^reply 08:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well! Atleast in Australia, they have a panel of three experts in checking your thesis. One is within the country and two are overseas. All of these are unknown to you! Even if these experts agree, the syndicate committee of the University has to pass this thesis as well to grant the degree. I am pretty sure that a similar procedure would be followed in Germany. TruthSpreader^reply 09:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Reminder of WP:NPA

This edit is a personal attack against another editor. Please refrain from doing so in the future. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Evangelicals

What I mean is not that Robertson and Falwell aren't notable overall, but they aren't notable as critics of Islam. Guys who publish lots of books, columns, and web articles on that topic like Spencer and Pipers are more notable as critics of Islam. Likewise, Noam Chomsky would be more notable than Osama bin Laden as a critic of US-Israeli relations, even though bin Laden is a more notable person overall. - Merzbow 00:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling radical Muslims "satanic" like Robertson does is invective, not criticism. Anyways, you don't have to take my word; a Google search of +"critic of islam" +spencer returns twice as many hits as +"critic of islam" +robertson. The reason why this is important is we had an editor a while back who was quite obviously trying to discredit the Criticism of Islam page by edit-warring to force the section on evangelicals (and their utterly non-scholarly comments) to be the most prominent section of the article. - Merzbow 01:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

a perfect God would not damn an objective person

Hi Arrow. Perhaps we should talk about this (?) objective truth here? What on earth is an objective person? --BozMo talk 14:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC) PS I don't think the God I worship damns anyone... but I could always be wrong. --BozMo talk 14:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

ok. I will be going offline for the day soon too. I don't really know enough about Islam to discuss it. I lived in an Islamic country for three years but never met a fundamentalist or someone who was aggressive in ascerting their beliefs. However I have only very rarely come across Christian or Hindu or Jewish fundamentalists either so perhaps I am lucky. Personally I think most religions converge when they become fundamentalist... but I am probably wrong. --BozMo talk 14:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeat: I am an evangelical Christian and certainly don't think anything of the sort. But I understand there is a US type of virile fundamentalist Evangelical Christian who thinks like that and I apologise if you've ever met one. I think the mormons also think the only people who go to hell are lapsed mormons. The other bit I've written on this (don't read it you'll die of boredom) is at [13] which gives my view (cribbed of course) about why we should expect people to believe silly things and how to treat these beliefs. If you understand evolution then viewing religious belief systems as self-propagating and evolving like DNA helps (Genomes competing to get on the gene). --BozMo talk 14:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR notice

Please discuss on the talk page of the article, instead of revert-warring. Edit-warring does nothing but escalate the situation into becoming personal. Please think about the long-term future of the article, something which edit-warring cannot achieve. Keep in mind the five pillars of Wikipedia. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 07:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Islam and modernity

It looks like the beginnings of a POV essay. If so, we'll nom it for deletion.Proabivouac 05:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

removing well sourced analysis

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Constitution of Medina. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 04:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The relation between Islam and science

I'm reluctant to edti this article for several reasons:

1. I'm not a Muslim apologist. And to get the Muslim position stated clearly needs one. I would like them to address the deficiencies in the article before I come in.
2. I disagree with the apparent Muslim position to require literal interpretation of scripture on this point. This pervasive fundamentalism is not only something I don't agree with, but a position I can't effective edit from. So I couldn't present their case honestly. If I approached it the way I would, that'd be OR.
3. My real life is more important. This only sits on my watchlist because I thought the subject merited inclusion and I gave it some months to settle down.

Personally, I have no problem with science and religion, and consider them entirely compatible. My problem is when relionists insist that their theology is universally applicable, even to material phenomena; and scientists and materialists presume that nothing exists that they can't see. I render unto Hawking that which is Hawking's.

Please see my notes on the talk page for details of its neutrality/accuracy failings. MARussellPESE 14:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

May I ask a personal question?

Arrow740, It looks to me that when you edit you display quite a lot of frustration/irritation with Islam, fundamentalist Christianity and perhaps other religions. You also strongly assert lots of things about them (e.g. in edit comments including about some things which are pretty much impossible to know ...what the the Prophet was really like etc.). I do not think that these kind of feelings ever grow in vacuuo and I'd be interested to know why things like this make you irritable? --BozMo talk 14:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually I find really fundamentalist Christianity as scarey just because there is potentially more access to important resource. e.g. the aide to Reagan who said in response to concerns about global polution "the world is a used Kleenex, Christ will come again before these concerns matter", or equally the stuff being put around a decade ago equating the Soviets with the ant-Christ demanding we attack them. A few thousand people in a plane isn't really on my radar screen but nuclear weapons are, its true. Still gun crimes in the US kill far more than terrorists: why have the religious guys got to you? But it sounds like you are cross about people invading your homeland rather than making you feel bad which makes sense. In the US (where I guess you live) there seems to be deep nationalist symbolism in many people's psyche (saluting the flag at school etc.) which is hard to understand from elsewhere.I ask partly because 25 years ago I was on the edges of fundamentalist christianity (it exists a bit at universities here where people are susceptible). 20 years ago I was an angry young man about it but now I am a rather mellowed about the whole thing. --BozMo talk 09:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice bold claim but I'm not sure that's true. Off the top of my head one of the longest standing local terrorist problems which we have here is Catholic versus Protestant in Northern Ireland. The Sudan is basically ethnic (black versus white) rather than religious. North Korea doesn't seem to be at all related to religion and is as a minimum right at the top of the danger list for war. It is very hard to argue that the civil war in Cote d'Ivoire (where I used to live) is related to Islam (as opposed to French Imperialism). And you could make a pretty good case that in Palestine Afghan Iraq cases the Islam groups were reacting to being persecuted/invaded/occupied rather than being the responsible party (I am not saying I agree with the case; but it is complex and has strong elements). Besides the first millenium and a half of Christianity was fairly bloody... --BozMo talk 09:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a Christian but don't feel the need to defend it either:). However, people are still being kneecapped in Northern Ireland and on plenty of the problems around the world the Islamic party is as close to being the victim as anyone is. Isn't there quite a lot of problem with fundamentalist Hinduism and Sikhs in India though? I guess on track record on peace we'd all have to convert to Buddhism...I really don't think you are right to blame Islam but the question is so complicated that I am not really qualified to do the analysis. Anyone could write a leader in a paper about it but what the truth is behind it who knows. On principle trying to identify and attack a guilty party on a global scale though I don't think is likely to help: in general most religions do pretty well when attacked (they are developed to handle this). Endlessly patient dialogue is a much more effective approach. --BozMo talk 09:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

When you say look into it, where do you think one should start? I have friends who are Islamic but many the liberal African version: they all say "jihad is an internal spiritual battle not about fighting other people". Amm off for a bit now--BozMo talk 10:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"jihad is an internal spiritual battle not about fighting other people" This is wrong. Quran never mention Jihad as spiritual battle and many Ayats about Jihad came during battle times and clearly in that context. Those people use a weak-hadith to misguide themselves and others. Ask them their references from primary sources (like Quran and hadith). They will have only one hadith which even does not mention spiritual thing directly (but that what they infer from it) and weak-hadith too. Nothing else they will give you. I know it becasuse, I have asked them already. --- ALM 11:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless the view seems to be prevalent (e.g. http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/islam/blfaq_islam_jihad.htm) . Perhaps they take a different view on what primary sources are and how doctrine is derived from them. Generally, when I ask why I tend to get authority stated in terms of "my Imman is a good Imman and he says" rather than anyone refering to primary sources; Islam has a social construct definition. In the end even sorting about what constitutes Islam does not look to me like a trivial question: at least the analogous question for Christianity (which I understand rather better) is very complex (very many Christians including a majority of Roman Catholics do not consider the Bible as the unique ultimate authority: the authority is often considered to be the Church which wrote and chose the Bible). --BozMo talk 11:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I am against following any imam. I want to ask people (imam or no imam) their sources and make my own understanding. Some people due to criticism from west start preaching that view (superior Jihad is self-struggle) which is very disgusting. I dislike Tablighi Jamaat because of such very wrong views. However, even if Jihad is referred to fight in Quran, it is very important to understand when to fight and what are the principles of fighting. It does not at all involve killing innocent people. --- ALM 11:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In terms of your own belief you are quite entitled to state what you think is "very wrong" or correct, as am I, but in the context of Wikipedia you of course we need to state our opinions as opinions. An example I see quite often is where Wikipedia contradicts the Roman Catholic Cathecism on what defines "the Catholic Church" (e.g. because the Church of England defines itself as a "Catholic Church" and these words are not registered trademarks owned by the Pope). There is a repeat re-edit by each new arrival. Equally pretty much every Islamic believer believes that their viewpoint defines what is true Islam, but the word is used of a much wider collection of liberal and modernists than some would like. I will have a bit more of a look through Islamic belief to try to understand it better. It is intersting. --BozMo talk 12:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I was telling you only my POV because I have done some research on this. However, if I have to edit an article I will use sources without giving any extra weightage to my POV. --- ALM 12:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I did not mean to imply otherwise! :)--BozMo talk 12:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

BozMo: I recommend that you read this article on the subject by Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid: Ruling on jihad and kinds of jihad. There is a lot of useful information in that article. -- Karl Meier 14:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Beit Or/Rfc

I have started a draft RFC. Please take a look if you have anything to add. Beit Or 20:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead sections

I will go through some of them later today, and I am sure that I'll find plenty of things that will have to be changed. The last few articles I have been visiting has quite simply been awful. -- Karl Meier 12:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

re: [14]

Ibn Taymiyya. ITAQALLAH 12:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Banu Qaynuqa

I remember you pointed out problems in other article related to Muhammad and the Jews. I've recently tried to fix Banu Qaynuqa. Beit Or 20:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Watch out for hagiogrpahy being added to Banu Qaynuqa. Wikipedia is not a collection of Muhammad's supposed quotations. Beit Or 16:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Comments

I've replied, and have some more questions please answer when you have the time. thanks ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 07:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Islam and antisemitism

The same pushing for hagiography as fact is going on there. Beit Or 16:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Banu Qaynuqa, again

Kindly give the warning to User:Beit Or as well, as (s)he is also at his/her limit on the article. You do realize that WP:3RR, applies to all users, and not just me?

"The Sealed Nonsense..." I'm sorry I don't know what you are talking about.Bless sins 16:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or did three reverts: one, two, and three. In edit "three", Beit Or removes the following: "Muhammad regarded this as casus belli", which was added by me 2 days ago [15]. (Even the deletion of a word, to undo a user's edits, qualifies as a revert). However, you have yet to warn Beit Or of 3RR. Like I said, WP:3RR applies to all users.Bless sins 03:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no knowledge about that author (as this actually not my field). However, from what you wrote, he seems at least realiable enough that he should be dismissed out of hand. Having said that, I dont think that the characterisation that Muslim slaveholders in general sought sex slaves is accurate (though of course it was permitted while in Christianity it was not). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just be careful not to attribute the behaviour of some Muslims to Islam in general. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

About the Last Paragraph on Your User Page (Homepage)

And Here's the problem with anti-islamists, If Islam says fight to diminish cruelty (and that is the way of God) and these anti-islimists immediately catch the word 'fight' and say Islam preaching hatered. Now why does this above happen, Take an example:

Please carefully read the following conditions.

1- Given that a religion 'A' is the only true religion (way of life) acceptable to God.

2- It is told in this religion 'A' to fight and fight/kill those few infidels so that they cant harm manifold number of humans on earth.

3- Given that condition '2' is called the ways of God, then God asks people to fight in 'the way of God' and promises them the reward of fearless and eternal peacful paradise.

4- That religion 'A' covers the guidance on all the aspects of human living. It not only tells how to rule the humans, it not only tells how to behave in community and family but even it tells how to do daily little things in better way (even the minor looking things like manners of using washroom). While other religions dont cover many many aspects and are either theme based and are abstract, or they have human's intervension/curruption on them.

5- That religion 'A' Does not have any explicit sexual (literal or metaphorical, whatsoever) language in its scriptures while other some religions have.

6- That religion 'A' gives the most harsh punishments for the crimes which can be fatal for the society immediately as well as in the long run. So that religin 'A' stands the maximum resistent for the crimes and cruelty (by ordering capital punishments even considered very harsh by opposers of that religion 'A').

7- Given the condition '1', the devil will try his maximum to increase the hatered of that religion in the non-believers of religion 'A'. Also devil will try to decieve the believers of religion 'A' so that they weaken their faith (in that religion 'A').

8- That religion 'A' accepts some other scriptures to be from the Creator (God) but currupted by the Men with the passage of time, while that religion 'A' retains its scripture 100% intact alphabet by alphabet , to date.

9- Given that the '1' is true, i.e. religion 'A' is the only true religion of Creator, then all the evil forces will use their maximum energies to oppose that and decieve the people against that using what ever means such as Media Hipociry, Weaponary, False Allegations against them as well as declaring them terrorist on the basis of some decieved/weak believers of religion 'A'. While those evile forces commint terrorism by themselves, e.g. killing freedom of other nations in the name of 'freedom of speach' or 'democracy' or 'war on terror'.

10- Given the condition '1', i.e. that religion 'A' is the only true religion of God, it will ofcourse preach his believers to diminish cruelty by force, while this same religion asks not to take revenge as an individual, warn about the panalty of God for the believers who commint Un-Just acts. At the same time, this religion 'A' warns the believers of the order of death panalty if they kill any single human Un-Just. This same religion 'A' gives the respect to the females of its believers by telling them to cover their body while warning the men to lower their gaze if they coincidently happen to look at femals. That same religion 'A' orders the maximum capital punishment to the person who commits the worst crimes of humanity (and fat to society in the long run) such as rape, adultery, murder and theft.

11- That religion 'A' has many its holy book having many signs for the people of wisdom including many scientific predictions which would only be known to creator in the time if revelation of this religion. Those prediciton could only be known to man in very recent history such as 20th and 21st century.

Please have assumption of the condition '1' in your mind and brainstorm on all of the points.

which is the only religion having that? VirtualEye 14:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

debate

I've read it. The debate was good in the beginning, but now after looking at the responses from Ali Sina (who is simply complaining about Muslim attitude and taunting and not focusing on debate) are not encouraging at all. Hence, I think Khalid Zaheer would have withdrawn by now. Actually, it is Khalid Zaheer, not Ghamidi who is involved in correspondence. But anyway, I would strongly doubt that if such a debate would finish with a conclusion. TruthSpreader^reply 21:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure! TruthSpreader^reply 00:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hadith by its very nature, is not authentic but it has historical significance, and this is why it is studied by religious scholars. Before contemporary times, people with Ilm ar-Rijal used to criticize hadith, based on their content (e.g. if it goes along Qur'an) and its narration chains etc. But these days, scholars have taken such a strict action that no one is allowed to criticize hadith, even if it is completely against Qur'an. This is why, when people like Ghamidi criticize some hadith(not all, which would be ridiculous as well), people allege them that they reject hadith. Which is completely wrong, as it is very well known from his own books (and he also gives weekly hadith lecture on public TV as well). Regarding Ibn Kathir, even good scholars don't look at it as a very authentic source as it has collected very weak hadith in it as well. But in any case, happy reading books mate!! TruthSpreader^reply 07:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Sina, just like you believe that Sina has put strong questions, similarly I believe that Sina hasn't understood Zaheer's argument properly, otherwise he would have been in the trouble of giving $50,000. But in any case, I find Sina really amateur when we talk about technical things like literature for example. TruthSpreader^reply 07:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Very good question, Arrow! Nobody is rejecting hadith or Tafsir. Just as much contemporary scholars can be at fault, classical scholars can also be at fault. Imam Shafi'i once said: “I am convinced about the veracity of my opinions, but I do consider it likely that they may turn out to be incorrect. Likewise, I am convinced about the incorrectness of the views different from mine, but I do concede the possibility that they may turn out to be correct.” So no scholar is considered infallible. They used their own rational to prove their points and if someone else using the basic sources, come to another conclusion with a better logic, a good person should accept it. The basic sources of the religion are intact in any case i.e. Qur'an and Sunnah (which is not equal to hadith)

Regarding exegesis of Qur'an, it has always been a challenge for muslim scholars to explain Qur'an with hadith and then combining hadith to different parts of Qur'an. This approach is not fault-free. As hadith is not very reliable, and superimposing theme of hadith over Qur'an can be dangerous. What Farahi, Islahi and now Ghamidi has come to the conclusion that Qur'an itself gives you enough clues that you can tell that which part was revealed at what point. This point is strongly purported in Tadabbur-i-Qur'an. Ghamidi even considers Qur'an "Saga" of prophet's life. How this is done? This is done by extensively researching on Qur'anic Arabic in classical Arabic context. Using poetry from pre-Islamic society, they interpreted Qur'an on that basis (as Qur'an is in the Arabic of 1400 years ago). A whole concept of coherence in Qur'an came from this approach. Encyclopedia of Qur'an has complete section on Coherence of Qur'an attributed to Islahi. This coherence was never seen before by scholars and was always a challenge, but now it seems that it has been very well exposed. Hence, now Qur'an is not an erratic book which starts one thing and then starts something else, but rather every surah has a theme and it is coupled with its immediate surah in its subject and there are seven different themes in Qur'an, each one of them in the order of revelation. Because of this very reason, these scholars differ from traditional scholars at various points. TruthSpreader^reply 09:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Abrogation, Ghamidi believes that only Qur'an can abrogate itself. Hence, hadith cannot abrogate Qur'an. So if Qur'an says in ^[Quran 9:5] that all Arab pagans have to be killed, similarly, it says at other place a general rule in ^{[Quran 5:32]}, which is applicable after the prophet for all times. Cheers! TruthSpreader^reply 10:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again this is NOT at all main stream view that Quran Abrogate itself etc. These are view of few and those people are not much famous (at least in Sunni). It just like Allah did not know what will come next hence he decided to first give one Surah and then Abrogate it. These people decide whatever they wish to called abrogated. Reject hadith and give help to Mr. Mushraf. how to present Islam to west. --- ALM 21:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Your objection, ALM scientist, is inconsitent with the views of Islamic exegetes, who differentiate between Allah's knowledge and Allah's will. Allah had known that a certain verse would be repealed; it was some sort of a pre-planned process. The theoretical basis for the naskh comes directly from the Qur'an: "And for whatever verse We abrogate or cast into oblivion, We bring a better or the like of it; knowest thou not that God is powerful over everything?" (2:106) Beit Or 22:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or! for the first time I am going to agree with you on something. Your point is indeed very valid, as far as Islamic philosophy is concerned. TruthSpreader^reply 03:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is extremely wrong concept. It might be Shia philosophy because most groups of Sunni do not follow this philosophy and majority of people I admire do not follow this. For example some thoughts Read here. I think I am losing patience on this one. Hence truthspreader please do not talk to me for sometime until I start feeling normal again. I am sorry but I cannot take it any more for few days.... :( --- ALM 10:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

With all respect, the person who translated the verse in the given article divided the verse from the middle and has taken its own meaning. One should atleast keeep the verse intact while translating, see ^{[Quran 2:106]}. TruthSpreader^reply 10:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about abrogation but here is the view of one of the most prominent contemporary Shia scholar on a hadith saying that verse 9:29 has abrogated some other verses asking for good behaviour toward dhimmis: The author says: In this tradition the Imam has taken the "speech" to mean behavior. We say: Do not speak to him but good; what we mean is: Do not deal with him but in a good and decent manner. This meaning will apply only if we take the word, "abrogated" in its terminological sense. But it may also be taken in its literal sense (as we shall explain under the verse: Whatever signs We abrogate or cause to be forgotten . . .2:106); and in that case this verse will not be in conflict with that of the fighting. It should be pointed out that such uses of words in their literal meanings (as against their terminological ones) are not infrequent in the traditions of the Imams. [16] --Aminz 11:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I read somewhere that Bin Baaz (a salafi) thinks that ^[Quran 9:5] and ^{[Quran 9:29]} has abrogated all other verses related to non-Muslims, as Aminz pointed out as well. I find these exegesis dangerous, when done differently by prominent contemporary scholars from classical schools of thought. Very dangerous! And I think here the aspect of looking Qur'an in its context becomes more important, otherwise taking random verses and then correlation with hadith (isolated reports) is a major issue. If these verses are seen in their context, there is no problem at all. TruthSpreader^reply 11:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think all Quran is abrogated? Step 1: Reject all the hadiths Step2: choose controversal versus of Quran as abrogated. Hence now you have a new Islam. Good way to go...

Non of them are abrogated. Its pity that those so called freaky scholars decided about the versus to be abrogated. And people like Kahalid Zaheer give rosy picture of Islam. Not a single verse is abrogated that is part of my faith --- ALM 12:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree! as per ALM's talk page. Cheers! TruthSpreader^reply 12:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

I am tired Arrow. Please add whatever you want. --Aminz 22:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam

Please see WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS. Content not supported with reliable and VERIFIABLE sources cannot be included in an article. If you believe the words I deleted can be verified, do the work of verifying it. Please do not revert to include content that is not supported with sources. MinaretDk 01:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean?

In you edit summary here, you wrote: "He is currently debating the only hope for Islam, don't knock him". May I ask what this is supposed to mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bless sins (talk • contribs) 03:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Aminz talk page

Arrow740, You have left a message on Aminz's talk page implying that he is not allowed to delete material from his own talk page unless it violates WP policy. Please could you tell me on what you base this bold assertion? AFAICT with the exception of certain types of warning notices in general users are free to remove material from their own talk pages for any number of reasons including that they have read them or wish to archive them. --BozMo talk 13:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

hello

please don't accuse others of "blind revert[ing]", wikistalking or other such unfounded claims, as you did on Islam and slavery. thank you. ITAQALLAH 01:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

per [17], Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

considering that you've been using this unfounded insult rather frequently i think your behaviour is bordering upon harrassment. please re-assess your approach. ITAQALLAH 10:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attack in the linked comment. Beit Or 10:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

ridiculing others' grasp of english, as he has done to me several times in the past, is indeed a personal attack. ITAQALLAH 10:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No ridiculing is visible, at least not to an outside observer. Beit Or 21:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740, it has been shown on Talk:Dhimmi#al-Hibri that she is sufficiently qualified to be used in topics of Islamic jurisprudence. her writings on the topic have been published by reputed journals, she has an award from the school of shari'ah from the university of Qatar, and she is a university lecturer on Islamic jurisprudence. that makes her an entirely legitimate authority. your objections to all three points have been meek, and other editors seem to agree upon her relevance. ITAQALLAH 10:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There was no personal attack. As regards al-Hibri, her writings on the topic have been published in a journal of a different subject, spending 3 months somewhere doesn't give you any qualification, and it doesn't matter what she lectures on as graduate students lecture on things every day but aren't considered authorities. Arrow740 21:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

she has published various articles (as far as i can remember) on topics pertaining to Islamic jurisprudence in numerous journals. i'm having difficulty finding where it says she spent 3 months at the university of Qatar, was that your own deduction? for encyclopedic purposes, that she is a prolific lecturer on Islamic jurisprudence in academic universities and elsewhere makes her appropriate for use on wikipedia, especially when it is compounded with the other factors pointing to significant credibility in this area. ITAQALLAH 22:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

She is about a third as qualified as Bat Ye'or (I'm going to order some of her books since the standards seem to have dropped), a more prolific lecturer who actually publishes in relevant journals. I get the three months from this line of al-Hibri's CV: "Fulbright Scholar Award, University of Qatar, School of Shari'ah, summer, 2001." Fulbright scholarships are for a specific period of time. She got funding to go this school for three months. Arrow740 22:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the Quran

Aminz is at it again: see here.

Itaqallah is at it tag-teaming with him. RunedChozo 20:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

canvassing... nice.. ;) ITAQALLAH 20:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning an editor that you've pulled this crap on before, that you're at it again. If you'd stop acting in bad faith, it wouldn't be necessary. RunedChozo 20:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

I checked my e-mail, but didn't see anything. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion contined

The prophet wrote letters to the head of states in his life, hence their denial was equivalent to denial of the prophet. The Caliphs launched attacks against them as part of the religious obligation plus Qur'an made Sahaba shahid (witness) over the whole world of truth (^{[Quran 22:78]}), hence they were entitled to do so, as they built an ideal society which was shown to the world as a role model. But if you look at history, after the sahaba, no one attacked other for the same reasons.

Regarding your other objection, it is the content of the book rather than act of writing a book. Cheers! TruthSpreader^reply 03:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for a quick note, kindly see Tadabbur-i-Qur'an article, and Surah 5 and Surah 9, both came at the end, as both are at the end of their groups. Secondly, a ruling can still come at the end, but because that ruling has particular addressees, the verse is still valid, it is just that the addressees don't exist anymore. And Arrow! Just a last comment that please, if you really like western progress so far, as you've mentioned on my page, try to read Islam through western scholarship rather than people who are willing to do anything to willify Islam. TruthSpreader^reply 02:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding hadith, it is wrong that Ghamidi rejects alot of hadith. You need to read his writings. He uses hadith in his works extensively and explains them through Qur'an, rather than explaining Qur'an through hadith. The authentic source of religion is definitely Qur'an and Sunnah, both of which come to us through perpetual adherence of whole umma, rather than invidividual and mostly isolated reports (this is the principle argument). Ghamid has very well explained all the actions of the prophet in his books. You should atleast look at Mizan, its polygamy section for prophet's marriages and Islamic Law of Jihad for military actions.

Regarding why this has happened, you should see itmam al-hujjah article. God rehearses its judgement in this world through his Messenger, which the God will do on the final judgement i.e. separation of good and bad people and then bad people are punished. This act reminds that we will also have to be answerable to God one day. But to play the role of messenger i.e. to rehearse it again, thats not sanctioned by the Qur'an or by the prophet rather it is contradictory to Islamic teachings.

And lastly, regarding Muslim history, I'll tell you something very interesting which I just came to know recently, but I've to leave now. TruthSpreader^reply 07:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

My only mistake is that I gave you explanation for just one aspect of prophet's life. If you look at prophet's complete life, even from western scholarship, your conclusion would be different. It was not prophet's personal griefs, for which people were executed. At other places, when the prohpet was given choice, he has always forgiven. The prime example is of conquest of mecca.

I'd be alot more surprised if God sends his ambassador, and people challenge him even to the effect that his life is in danger and God doesn't punish his ambassador's enemies, which eventually becomes God's enemies. And God is definitely merciful, but it is merciful to those atleast who ask for mercy. What to do of those who challenge the God out of arrogance? Just as you think that my argument is absurd, I believe that your argument is also absrud. TruthSpreader^reply 00:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. As Qur'an puts only two sins big enough for eternal damnation. 1) Making partners with God (which if happens with arrogance, I believe there is no way that person is going to be saved) 2) Killing an innocent. And secondly, Muslims don't need a Savior like Christians to bless their sins, they have a very merciful God to forgive them. TruthSpreader^reply 00:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Mate! If this would happen, as you describe, it can only happen with some being which doesn't have free-will and freedom. If we have a free-will (which is wonderful - and I hope that most of us would go to paradise to enjoy it to its fullest), then this world is a place to test that who is worthy of going there. Otherwise, God could create animals and send them in paradise. TruthSpreader^reply 03:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Who says that hell is temporary? I've told you earlier about the sins which can bring eternal damnation, as Qur'an at one point says for such people that they are such that even if they will get another chance, they will commit the same sins. Regarding Qadr, I think Beit Or made the exact comment, with which I fully agree. God knows what we will do, but our actions are because of our freedome of choice (and definitely only in a limited manner as we don't control the environment or choose our parents etc.). And lastly, it is true that environment does affect your actions, but then your actions will also be judged according to environment. If someone is born in a bad society and he decides to do something good, his reward will be a lot more than the person who does good in a society, where that good practice is norm. But the point is that human concious can be perverted if someone convinces himself to do bad so much that he doesn't feel bad about that action, but intrinsically, every human knows the basic ethics and has the ability to know about one true Diety. TruthSpreader^reply 03:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-incarnation is stricktly against the basic islamic philosophy. TruthSpreader^reply 04:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

<reset>No body is born as a serial killer. Every human is born with the same soul. Environment can make someone do something really bad, but by the time he reaches his age of conciousness, he has to choose this lifestyle conciously. I am very hopeful that even a little bit of struggle from a person in such a situation can make a huge impact on his life and God would open new oppertunities for him. But if he (counciously) become hopeless from the God, and starts giving in to his desires, then he can finish up in something, which could definitely be avoided. TruthSpreader^reply 04:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But the important thing is that you must first see that on which principle God created this World. Reward? (there are people who are suffering in this world, hence NO), punishment (there are people who are enjoying their lives, hence No), Justice? (there are people in this world who oppress the weaker ones, hence NO), Test (people are in different environments, good or bad conditions and are being judged accordingly, a poor is judged for his patience, a rich is being judged for his gratitude to God). The last one seems to fit the model of the world exactly. Hence, this whole life should be considered as a test. People who argue about God and His mercy, they try to think that God created this world on the principle of Justice or Reward, which God's scriptures definitely deny (and also evident from this very world). TruthSpreader^reply 04:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding recession in Muslim society

I was listening to a talk. It was said that when jurists (especiall, four imams) and their followers were writing the fiqh, they were facing a certain situation. Muslim society had dominated Persia, Media and Byzantine. It grew as the most powerful and advance society in its time. The real issue with the jurists in those days was, "we are in control, now to how to run this world". Hence, those parts of the Qur'an were just looked and tried to be followed, which could be implemented in such a situation (whether rightly or wrongly), but the unfortunate thing happened that the next generations of Muslims simply reproduced the work of these early jurists and came up with a certain philosophy of worldview. The side-effect of this whole exercise was that those parts of Qur'an which talk about patience or when people don't have power then how to act etc. were all overlooked and never seen seriously. Examples are of prophets (heaps, almost all of them with the exception of Moses' later life and Medinan period of the prophet's life). For example, now if a Muslim reads Qur'an, he wouldn't try to take any help from the example of Jesus, which the Qur'an has given purposefully. Hence, I subscribe to this belief that we are stuck with the Islamic Jurisprudence of Islamic Golden age, which was done with a certain mindset, but in the same Qur'an, we can find another picture, which has always been overlooked but it has alot more occurings than the verses on which Islamists insist. TruthSpreader^reply 08:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems completely reasonable and rational. It is consistent with what I have read (e.g. the comment Lewis was making on the difference between the attitude of early Jurists and later Commentators and the reason for that). BTW, which wiki article can contain these sort of researchs? --Aminz 08:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Maybe Dissent in Muslim world. TruthSpreader^reply 08:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well. The article is supposed to include the madrasa point you raised as well. Dissent in Muslim world seems a bit awkward, doesn't it? --Aminz 08:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

But worldwide domination is the goal of the umma and the weakness of the Muslim world is viewed as a temporary setback. However your ideas about emphasis seem reasonable. Arrow740 08:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, the goals which contemporary Islamists have set, I believe that they are completely unrealistic, would bring the whole umma to frustration and no results. Past two centuries are evident. And secondly, the domination of world has never been an issue in the Qur'an. It is a self-made goal by Islamists to revive (their version of) Islam without going through the rigorous path of education, which is indeed much more difficult and asks for more patience. TruthSpreader^reply 08:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the goal of umma is a worldwide domination; just monotheism and belief in hereafter. --Aminz 08:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the righteous deeds. ;) TruthSpreader^reply 08:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. But it is up to people and I don't think it may be ever achieved. --Aminz 08:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Religion by sword

Only direct addressees of the prophet were punished for denying the prophet. All the conquests beyond Arabia, to the best of my knowledge and what I've read, no one was forced. Rather classical Islamic Jurisprudence clearly prohibited forced conversions. Those lands were conquered by the "first four caliphs" as part of their religious duty, and not even fought with the same aggression, which prophet was himself asked to deal with polytheists of Arabia. And after Sahaba, all conquests are normal conquests with minimal religious reasons. Abassid went to Spain, not because they wanted to convert Spain to Islam, rather they were being persecuted by Ummayyads. And then Muslims were struck with Crusaides.

And to the best of knowledge, Moses' followers conquered canaan quite the same way Muslims conquered Arabia, and religion was expanded by other Hebrew prophets more or less like Caliphs did in their reign i.e. Saul, Joshua, David just to name a few. TruthSpreader^reply 17:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've answered on my talk page. Helps in keeping the discussion tidy. :) TruthSpreader^reply 18:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up

• Qur'an and miracles
• Islamic view of miracles
• Prisoners rights in Islam
• Animal welfare in Islam
• Children's rights in Islam
• Social rights in Islam
• Environmental protection in Islam

You might want to take a look at these articles--Sefringle 04:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Religions and you

I notice that you posted some, denigrating messages about certain religions, You have a perfect right to your views, and I respect that. I also read from your posts that you have learned about religions from a neutral point of view, if you'd like to learn more about Islam please get in touch with me, it will be of great help to you to improve Islam related articles, at this point of time I believe you dont have the correct picture about Islam, if you have any questions on unclear areas, please feel free to post them to me in a professional manner I am more than willing to answer them. (If you have questions regarding Christianity and Buddhism also I can help) thanks ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 11:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Islamic Ethics

Please see the source here [18]. --Aminz 04:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Islamic

Please answer the following question:

Do you hate Islam?

Thank you,

206.126.83.79 00:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Banu Qurayza.png

I was wondering how long it would be before someone tried to remove this. The justification in this case was particularly entertaining. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

A good response

Reguarding your recent response, [[19]] I must say that was a good answer.--Sefringle 02:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I sent an email to you. --Aminz 07:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you get it? --Aminz 07:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Linkspammer blocked

I have blocked the linkspammer for a month. Let me know if they come back (most people change IP when the block is that long). In general you could note such people at WP:AN/I or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam and you might get a quicker response depending if I am around. Cheers --BozMo talk 20:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have also posted this at wikiproject spam because there are 30 links left to his site which haven't been cleared and someone needs to find out what the correct links are. See [20] which is how you check for spamming of a given site. --BozMo talk 20:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Spencer

Hi Arrow740,

Please have a look at the following link [21].

It is written by Professor Carl Ernst, William R. Kenan, Jr., Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies and Director of the Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

Cheers, --Aminz 23:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Khaybar

Salam (Peace), You have been reverting my edits on Battle of Khaybar. I request you please join the talk page and explain yourself. Bless sins 00:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Returned

I have returned. I am endeavoring to help the project in a peaceful means now that that nutbag isn't harassing me and it seems people on the PSP page came in later and did precisely what I was suggesting we do.

Can you suggest anything that needs working on?RunedChozo`

Welcome back. Islam and slavery and Women in Islam are in bad shape. I'm going to overhaul the first at some time. We could use some more hadith and Ibn Ishaq quotes there and in the An-Nisa and An-Nisa, 34 articles. These can be found at answering-islam, and then you could link to the USC versions. There have been problems at Banu Nadir, Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Qurayza, and Battle of Khaybar. You might want to put those on your watchlist. That's all I can think of right now. You should try not to rock the boat too much. It's easy to get extremely frustrated about this stuff. I often have to wait for 5 seconds before posting a response and then completely change what I'm going to say. Arrow740 00:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The articles on Robert Spencer and Bat Ye'or need some help right now. Arrow740 06:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Conversion

I am as well. I would guess at least some of them have really converted, but there are probably others that have picked up on this. I'm all for freedom of religion, but I do feel that modern Islam has been perverted into a religion of violence, which is terribly sad. These may be some sort of more subtle anti-Christian expression, as opposed to the... questionable comments of some users (I won't name any names, I think you know who I'm talking about). I'll try to AGF. --Hojimachong^talk_con 00:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw that and am writing something (finding quotes for you). Please wait a minute. --Aminz 05:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see [22]

The section title is "THE NEO-LACHRYMOSE CONCEPTION OF JEWISH-ARAB HISTORY". Cheers, --Aminz 05:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Spencer

Dear Arrow740, Please discuss b4 removing contents from the article your edit summary "Cute, but criticism of him is already adequately covered. Please read the whole article." is cute too..the same goes for many biography articles that contain lot of unnecessary criticism, but end of the day as long as they are from reliable sources and informative we should keep them, most importantly we shouldn't remove good content without proper discussion. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 06:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad as a diplomat

They're at it again. RunedChozo 18:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

VirtualEye

I am becoming increasingly concerned with VirtualEye's continued incivility and stereotyping. Since the beginning he has been making incivil comments, most recently accusing you, me, and HighInBC of hating all Muslims. I was going to warn him on his talk page, but given your higher level of respect on Wikipedia I would appreciate it if you could find a way to convey to VirtualEye that his incivility will not be tolerated anymore. Think you could do this? Thanks, --Hojimachong^talk_con 05:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to simply remove any further trollish comments on his part. Anywhere he posts turns into an incoherent, incivil and off-topic mess. It's crossed my mind that he may actually even be for the inclusion of images, and is trying to discredit the case against them by aggravating as many people as possible.Proabivouac 05:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ping. Check now.Proabivouac 07:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

canvassing

attempted votestacking from users with a specific and known viewpoint as you have done here [23][24][25][26] is completely unacceptable. please refrain from doing so in the future. ITAQALLAH 14:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

that's an extremely weak reason. you knew full well that there was already significant divergance of opinion on that page, thus rendering WP:SNOW inapplicable. ITAQALLAH 17:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

one can only assume that you either did not actually read WP:SNOW, or the "reason" that you provided was not one at all. assuming good faith, i will incline towards the former. ITAQALLAH 17:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but as I'd been involved in the article, it's entirely legitimate for Arrow740 to have informed me, and for me to have responded.Proabivouac 21:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation

If censorship of the image does indeed succeed, I am fully prepared to nominate this, this, and this to demonstrate the absurdity of the censorship on Muhammad. Do you think this would violate this guideline? I don't see anything in there that specifically would prohibit their nomination, but somebody will inevitably throw this guideline out. Thoughts on this? --Hojimachong^talk_con 22:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, I think this epitomizes the discussion at Talk:Muhammad. --Hojimachong^talk_con 22:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Religion

So you're a Sufi but not a Muslim, or what? KittyHawker 23:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There are Christian mystics, too, you know. KittyHawker 23:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edits

Arrow, your recent mass removal of reliable sources has made me considering opening a case for you somewhere. Of course I don't wish it to go that way but more and more I am feeling that it is necessary. --Aminz 07:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, this is not just now. From the very beginning there was times I thought about this, but now I feel it might be the time to do so. --Aminz 07:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I saw the question now. But I need to run. Will respond later. --Aminz 16:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• re: [27], in what way? ITAQALLAH 01:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • not me, if that's what you're insinuating. ITAQALLAH 01:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's Itaqallah; rather it looks like another editor who merely forgot to sign in. No big deal either way.Proabivouac 02:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I knew it wasn't him. Arrow740 03:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You reverts on Battle of Khaybar

You reverted my edits [28], suggesting "It was perfectly accurate, all you did was introduce syntax and spelling problems".

Actually, you intorduced spelling problems yourself when you reverted my edits, as you wrote "Montogmery" instead of "Montgomery".

You also quoted Watt as saying "eager for revenge, were intriguing of the neighbourhood". This is also incorrect as Watt states " eager for revenge, were intriguing against Muhammad along with the Arabs tribes of the neighbourhood." The quotation you attributed to Watt is also incorrect grammatically.

Next time you suggest that I am intoducing "spelling problems", look at what you yourself are doing.Bless sins 22:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Gilbert

Clearly you refuse to co-operate. You don't want to respond to others' questions, which you call "trollish". You can go ahead and remove these comments as well. But remember, by removing questions from your talk page, you are not going censor legitimate criticism.Bless sins 01:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

there was nothing "trollish" about Bless sins' comments whatsoever. ITAQALLAH 01:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I was irritated by his pointed questions. But your analysis is appreciated as always. Arrow740 02:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

AN/I

a discussion concerning you has been raised on WP:AN/I here. ITAQALLAH 18:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

i can see right through your theatrics. you've accused me of impersonating you: all i can say is that you're incorrect, as any checkuser would prove. i am rather tempted to make some uncivil comments about your deception on AN/I, but i think we both know the game you've been playing here. ITAQALLAH 21:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

it's rather obvious that you are G=W. it's certainly no error of mine that your shoddy work in covering up your identity convinced me that it was none other than you. accusing me of impersonating you was all too expectable a charade. ITAQALLAH 22:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Khaybar

Hello Arrow740. It is easy for us to get tangled up in an edit war. However, this time you must seriously reconsider the scope of your reverts[29]. While some aspects of my edits (that you revert) can be disputed, others are very legitimate. Consider the follwoing:

• You removed "Muhammad also ordered the restitution to the Jews of their holy scriptures." It is sourced and NPOV.
• You replaced the previous Watt statement by "According to Watt, leaders of the Banu Nadir paid neighboring Arab tribes to go to war". It is clear Watt says no such thing. Watt's quote is available on the talk page, and I'll post it below. Bless sins 04:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Montgomery Watt has drawn attention to the fact that the Banu 'l-Nadir, driven out of Medina, had taken refuge in khaybar and that their chieftains and the chieftains of other Jewish groups, eager for revenge, were intriguing against Muhammad along with the Arabs tribes of the neighbourhood. So Muhammad had not only a just motive for attacking them, but there was also the positive necessity to destroy these enemies, more formidable even than the Quraysh because of their adherence to their own religion, their intelligence and their superior culture.

If Itaqallah and Aminz act unreasonably, that is no reason for others to do so. Infact, I can't be held responsible for thier actions. However, please cite a few examples where Aminz has committed such behavior. Post them on my talk page as well as on Aminz's, so we can improve ourselves.

Also, if I already do, or in the future, revert blindly, please post the example on my talk page - you'd be doing me a favor. Thanks.Bless sins 05:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey you asked for Watt's "full quote". WHat do you mean by that? I presented it above. I am not sure I understand what exactly you want.Bless sins 17:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Above is not a quote from Watt. It's a quote from Veccia Vaglieri. It would be really strange if Watt talked himself in the third person. It's even more strange that you want us to believe that he did so. Beit Or 18:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless it represents Watt's views. I doubt Vaglieri is lying - if she is then that's not good for many of the info you inserted in the article.Bless sins 03:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Due to your involvement in the discussion, your input is requested at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion (untainted). --Hojimachong^talk_con 06:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Not relevant to the mediation, but VirtualEye has just posted a vicious personal attack against you here. --Hojimachong^talk_con 06:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Totally unacceptable that attack. I have given him a final warning. --BozMo talk 19:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel really sorry that he had said following "Are you people paid the part time also? to cunningly work for evil researchwork? Wikipedia will be better off by removing such wound creating hidden worms from its body. The moment you bow towards such evil editors , the moment you losed golden chance to identify." We all are not like that. I wish if some block him for really long time. --- ALM 19:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well he has a 24 hour block now. I hadn't spotted the prior warnings, I just stumbled across the first one. --BozMo talk 19:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Khaybar, yet again

Again, I'll quote what Vaglieri says Watt says about Khaybar:

Montgomery Watt has drawn attention to the fact that the Banu 'l-Nadir, driven out of Medina, had taken refuge in khaybar and that their chieftains and the chieftains of other Jewish groups, eager for revenge, were intriguing against Muhammad along with the Arabs tribes of the neighbourhood. So Muhammad had not only a just motive for attacking them, but there was also the positive necessity to destroy these enemies, more formidable even than the Quraysh because of their adherence to their own religion, their intelligence and their superior culture.

Before, you inserted the statement "According to Watt, leaders of the Banu Nadir paid neighboring Arab tribes to go to war against Muhammad, leaving him no choice but to attack Khaybar." Watt is presented in EoI (which is the source provided for Watt) as saying no such thing. I told you this before. Yet you inserted the same thing in again[30]. Please stop, (or provide a source).Bless sins 03:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you also introduced a spelling error (negotiate->negogiate). I'm not blaming you for it, but just make sure you don't make the same mistake twice.Bless sins 03:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

re: summary on Ibn Ubayy

it has already been addressed, thoroughly, and numerous times. i have provided several reasons why Ibn Ubayy should be used to preserve formal and encyclopedic style. i don't see much from Str in terms of substantial points, so any 'concerns' (although addressed) have no basis in my view. maybe you'd like to step in for him? if not, could you please restore what you undid? ITAQALLAH 00:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean

I am sorry, but I don't know what you mean by this comment.Bless sins 19:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Your last comment is also vague. Why do think I need to "update" my user page? And what should I update my userpage to?Bless sins 20:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Lancaster, England"? Where did I suggest that?Bless sins 20:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Your talk page is getting pretty long. You might want to concider archiving.--Sefringle 05:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation at Talk:Reforms under Islam (610-661)

Mediation was requested a while ago, and Ive responded. None involved in mediation has responded however. I am requesting your presence at the article to resolve any disputes. Thanks. -Ste|vertigo 01:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

How am I violating NPOV here, like you accuse me of?Bless sins 20:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what Watt says. Infact I'm attributing that view to Watt. Any more "NPOV" in my edit?Bless sins 20:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? My edit states "William Montgomery Watt sees the intriguing of the Banu Nadir at Khaybar as the primary motive for the attack. " Clearly the view is attributed to Watt.Bless sins

Please read it carefully. The sentence begins with "William Montgomery Watt sees...". The sentence describes Watt's perspective. The sentence does not attribute the intriguing as fact.Bless sins 02:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Haykal's bio

You should restore Haykal's biography and put in in the top of the section - it is more notable than Mubarakpuri's, and is actually a rather good read. Unlike Mubarakpuri, he actively engages orientalist literature, and argues the reasons for his judgements. It is certainly biased, but far more scholarly and honest.Proabivouac 23:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Painting a turd

Looking at underlying POV and the state and history of articles such as Muhammad's slaves, slavery and islam, and even women and islam, the phrase 'you can't paint a turd' springs to the forefront of my mind. DavidYork71 02:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

i see that you are offering "help" on Muhammad's slaves, but DavidYork's changes are neither productive nor neutral. either justify these changes on talk, which editors agree is a violation of OR, or self revert. you also- knowingly- reinserted material that you are unable to verify. ITAQALLAH 17:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

i know it's quite funny. the changes are not productive, as i have already said. there is plenty of OR (as you know), and frankly nothing of use is salvagable from his contributions. ITAQALLAH 18:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

this is not biting. Mr. York persists in inserting subjective original research, to which reasonable editors have opposed, without the courtesy of a response to my message, and will unfortunately be reverted until he can bring his edits in line with content policies. ITAQALLAH 18:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I don't have time to look at this content dispute right now, but maybe you can reconsider section titles like the one above. I see what you're trying to say, DavidYork71, but it's really not a good idea to use this kind of language with such a sensitive subject. Let's button up and use terminology appropriate to a serious academic enterprise. Even though we're often bound to disagree, it will help us all get along. What do you think?Proabivouac 06:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Cfd notice

[31] Do you have an opinion on this?--Sefringle 05:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll think about it. Arrow740 18:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP

I suggest you read WP:BLP. Your baseless accusations[32] (relying on an extremist, unreliable, unpublished source) are a clear violation. Also note that until you provide a source for the accusations, I am not bounded by 3RR.Bless sins 03:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC) :That section doesn't say you are not bounded by the 3RR.--Sefringle 05:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the "allegations" are what he's claiming. Arrow740 05:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins I strongly advise you to stick to 3RR anyway. Arrow740, I am inclined to agree that repeating reported allegations (X issued a fatwa on Y) of this sort about someone who is alive isn't wise, unless the reporting is very credible. Even if you make it clear it is a quotation etc. I don't think it is appropriate. --BozMo talk 09:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay

The gist of it is, Essjay (an admin/beuracrat/checkuser-privileged editor) lied about his college credentials; he claimed he had four postgraduates, when in fact he had none. --Hojimachong^talk 08:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that no one is saying Essjay is any kind of failure - he would not be expected to have these degrees (and may one day earn them,) as he is only 24 years old.Proabivouac 08:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, do you have a private eMail I could contact you at for purposes that would violate Wikipedia's userpage and user talk page rules (non-Wiki related discussion)? --Hojimachong^talk 08:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not just that he lied about being a tenured Ivy League professor with several higher degrees and a lifetime of study in his discipline, it's that he appealed to this authority in content disputes and, perhaps more crucially, in relations with the press and the public. This deception has now been heartlessly noted by the New Yorker, and this may not be the end of it.Proabivouac 08:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

And that he knowingly used these false claims to assert his position. This may have been OK in some parts of Wikipedia itself, but when you start talking to the media, lies aren't a good thing to be telling. It just, crossed a line there. Jimbo's asked him to step down from his "positions of trust" (heh, read the first lines of Jimbo's talk page... guess who archived those discussions? ME! I hope he leaves a message on my talk page) --Hojimachong^talk 08:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Re archiving, per [[WP:BE BOLD}], good work!Proabivouac 08:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

March 2007 Denmark Riots

Help desperately needed in creating redirects/building this article! As a side note, may I archive your user talk page? --Hojimachong^talk 07:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please reply my question on Mukataba talk page. --Aminz 07:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Annom vandal

you might want to wait a few minutes before reverting again so you don't violate the 3RR. I put in a request for semi-protection for those pages (Wikipedia:Requests for page protection--Sefringle 01:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What is this?

[[33]] It is an IP address whose contributions are only reversions of other users, including 10 reversions of your work in the space of seven minutes. DavidYork71 07:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Levy

I thought I added it to the references section of Islam and children, Islam and slavery. Why would it be removed? Levy, Reuben (1969 Cambridge University Press) The Social Structure of Islam. He is/was Professor in Persian at Cambridge University. DavidYork71 08:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice edit

This was a nice contribution. The whole opening of that article really sets the topic in context -- highlighting that Islam suffers from the hands of believers unwilling to look at the texts in anything other than a literal manner the same way Christianity does. Nicely done. MARussellPESE 13:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam and slavery

New introduced content, new headings and subheadings, reorganisation, revised lead, new references. Most importantly, the elements of the old convoluted & apologetic lead have been move down into the main article. Please review, be brutal & notify any likely suspects. What are the precise reasons that article still doesn't meet GA? My GA-now failed. Need a link which shows this. DavidYork71 23:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you haven't noticed

The List of converts to Islam is excessively long. If you have time, you might want to check some of these people out and see if they are notable, because I have a hunch many are not, and if so nominate them for Afd.--Sefringle 01:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalked moi?

Looking at these last two edits including large reversion of one of my contributions would you say I attracted some wikistalking? DavidYork71 02:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Would it be a banned user by the name of BhaiSaab?DavidYork71 23:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on my page: I am not a Liar, learn to be civil

I am not shia and I don't belive in "taqiyya" (what you imply is I am a liar). I'm not even sure what it entirely is from a Shia point of view, but I have studied it in Uni, and believe it is to lie about what religion you are to protect yourself. Anyway I am Sunni & don't believe in taqiyya, If you look at my edits you will see I have had a number of confrontations with zealous Shia, so I cannot be one. See my edits in: Sunni-Shia relations. I Shouldn't have to justify myself to you, and you shouldn't be so uncivil to think of me as a liar, but to put your doubts to rest you can see my edits in that article to prove I am a Sunni who rejects "taqiyya" Aaliyah Stevens 12:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Taking action

I think I know who that individual is but I am not 100% sure. You might like to add to this thread about what is going on. (→Netscott) 19:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You're' welcome to edit my talk page and remove any content there that you feel is inappropriate with respect to yourself by the way. (→Netscott) 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There's the place for such things. Otherwise just make a post on WP:ANI as obviously there's a pattern. I'm in fact a bit surprised that not one of you has already brought this issue up there. I'm not sure which one of you it is (although I have a strong suspicion of who it likely is) but someone's created a sockpuppet to counter the IPs edits. That behavior will need looking into as well. (→Netscott) 20:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Having seen your WP:AN post, you should know that I do not believe the editor here is BhaiSaab. (→Netscott) 20:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A neutral party in the whole affair would be ideally suited to deal with the unacceptable editing going on on both sides of the issue. Can I ask you a question relative to how I have percieved the nature of your editing on Wikipedia? (→Netscott) 20:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not wanting to question your motives but I tend to get the impression that your edits related to Islam are of a negative nature. Am I wrong in my perceptions? (→Netscott) 20:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Inaccurately mild"? As you are no doubt aware articles are supposed to have a neutral point of view. By your wording is one to gather that you intend to spin things negatively then, is that it? (→Netscott) 20:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here is a request that I will respectfully make of you. Since you don't seem to deny what my perception of your edits is then why not concurrently edit to generally improve Islam related articles. You must be able to admit to me that as much as there are those who go around Wikipedia glorifying Islam that there are folks who equally go around villifying it. Have you ever found yourself seeing that wording in an article was villifying (not presenting a neutral point of view) of an Islam related topic? (→Netscott) 20:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

With IP editors who edit using IPs it is called Whac-A-Mole. As soon as you block one IP another pops up. About the only thing that can be done is what is known as a range block where all IPs from a given ISP are blocked. The IP editor in this case is editing from an IP range that covers one of the most heavily populated areas in the world, New York City/Newark/New Jersey so range blocking of that particular ISP would be a massive nightmare for at least hundreds of other editors if not thousands. (→Netscott) 02:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This type of edit (a revert in this case) is what I am talking about in terms of the negative editing I see you do. Obviously the site "Prophet of doom" is a Hatesite. Try editing in a scholarly fashion towards Islam... Wikipedia is not a soapbox and obviously that type of edit is a soapboxing edit. (→Netscott) 02:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It is unacceptably hatefilled regardless and has no place on Wikipedia. You can be sure that if the editing that was bringing that site onto wikipedia was brought to a wider forum there'd be plenty of condemnation of that site and users repeatedly linking to it would likely be subject to blocking. (→Netscott) 02:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, try moving away from the soapbox editing you've been doing and actually edit in a scholarly fashion. You can start here for some pointers on what scholarly criticisms of Islam and responses are out there. (→Netscott) 03:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You know that comment really is uncivil and unecessary. If you haven't already done so you might want to apologize for it. (→Netscott) 04:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Over-reaction and out of context quoting...

I'm not sure what is to be gained by making what IMO is quoting out of context, childishly precious over-reactions, and thus feigning insult helps anything – particularly on the edit summaries is poor form. If you have a problem use the talk pages, if that fails, use the appropriate place to file a PA complaint.

As for the article at hand, the fact remains that an American conservative right website is hardly the place to find a balanced NPOV reference to Islam. It's mere opinion, and if it is to be used, it should be presented as opinion. Furthermore, I’m not even sure how that article links in with the article – it’s not clear at all. I suggest it is just a gratuitous placement of opinion by people with POV agendas. Any reason why you support such openly POV editors? Merbabu 03:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Muhammad

Since you posted on my talk page and since you posted the dubious tag, please review my changes to that article. Thanks. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Concealed Identity

See here and please add to it if you find any more puppets. Thanks --ProtectWomen 18:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Netscott an admin?

His page doesnt say he's an admin. I thought he was? User:Netscott --Matt57 22:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, thats really surprising. It looks like he's trying to hide the fact that he is. I dont see any "Admin" stuff on his page. I will get that fixed. An admin should have themselves available for people openly, otherwise they should stop being an admin. --Matt57 22:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No he's not. Full list is at Wikipedia:List_of_administrators#N--BozMo talk 17:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam and slavery reactionary pov-tagging

Can you identify the point-of-view, yet uncovered in that article, which justifies the current POV tagging and precludes its nomination for GA?

Is there any solution for users who employ those tags as some sort of a protest without listing their specifici pov concerns with a corresponding message on talk?

Frankly, if I don't see a corresponding pov-label discussion on talk I delete the tag. This helps discover who wants the tag but not their reasons for maintaining or their editing proposals in favour of the point-of-view claimed to be notable and unrepresented.DavidYork71 16:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Favour?

Arrow740,

There is one week left for final changes to the 2007 Wikipedia CD Selection. I am after a couple of people of different religious views to have a quick look through the relevant pages on Islam, Israel, Palestine etc. I intend to ask Aminz as well. I don't promise to make any changes but I will seriously consider it if you think some of the version adopted are POV.

The 2006 CD has an estimated circulation of over 50,000 so its worth getting as good as possible. The most recent viewable copy is at : [34]. Changes planned are listed at Wikipedia:2006 Wikipedia CD Selection in terms of (1) articles currently included to exclude (2)articles to add (3) articles to update because the version listed is vandalised (4) sections to exclude (mainly on appropriateness to children) (5) string deletes and spelling corrections (to UK English) (6) redirects of common article names to the main article. Navigation and search pages are being sorted separately. Please let me know of any issues if you see any. Thanks. --BozMo talk 20:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Avoiding contraversy was exactly the aim so I am reassured. --BozMo talk 19:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources for articles on Islam

A recent editor pointed this out to me: http://books.google.com/ We can find books on the topics we are looking for, search within the books and quote relevant statements into an article while providing the reference of a book. This way we dont have to buy these books. Google doesnt provide all the pages, but it has quite a few from each book. I've also mentioned this advice on the WikiProject Islam's home page. This is a very useful tool for us for finding sources opinions relevant to an article. I wanted to tell everyone of this but I went ahead and just put this advice on the project's home page so that should work.--Matt57 23:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam and slavery lead

Dear interested editor:
Please visit here: [35] in the next few days and give your vote and your proposals on how the lead may be reworked and reformed to meet GA criteria before next nomination.DavidYork71 04:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the current lead of that article does justice to concisely recording the totality of article content and describing the importance of the subject? It seems Itaqallah cherishes every part of it, you and I are much the opposite, and no-one otherwise steps forward to venture their view despite being asked. It is one of the things that needs surgery or replacement for that art to have another chance at GA, as we learned from last review. Also, the same user has been making a [WP:POINT] about much of the picture content I've introduced to address another of the four highlighted GA-review issues. Have you noticed that? DavidYork71 02:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A Cfd which might intrest you

here--Sefringle 04:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Incivility

I request you stop your recent incivilities. Okay? --Aminz 21:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP violation

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Zakir Naik. If you would like to experiment please use the sandbox. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 07:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• personal attack removed *per ProtectWomen 05:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC) ... What "defamatory content" ? Zakir Naik espouses those beliefs, to Naik it is not defamatory, it is simply his belief. There is no need to feel embarassed on behalf of Naik- he is a grown man free to believe what he wants and share his beliefs with others as he wishes.

Also, there is no need to attack this user with the improper use of templates (I made this mistake myself early on, but learned my lesson). Please mind [[WP:NPA]] --ProtectWomen 05:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam and slavery

I'm glad you can agree with me that slapping NPOV on without justification on talk is a disruption. What's up with these people who can't even give the courtesy to express their issues understandably in words in a way that can then be addressed by those taking care to edit and review the article?DavidYork71 12:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

re Islamist opinions. So I can finish my editing on it. This has to go in as last para: Professor William Clarence-Smith of the University of London describes the 'worrying trend' of fundamentalists or literalists who have called for the reinstatement of slavery as an integral part of the shari'a in an Islamic state. He describes the 'dogged refusal of Mawlana Mawdudi to give up on slavery' and the notable 'evasions and silences of Muhammad Qutb' as unhelpful in the regard of promoting slavery abolition. He also names contesting (anti-slavery) rationalists from Pakistan and Indonesia. Cheers, DavidYork71 02:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Exellent work at Islam and slavery. Your hard work and effort is appreciated- at the very least, by yours truly :) --♂♀--ProtectWomen 05:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is farcical nonsense that in its current state is nothing but original research. Give me a break... this image is just the most egregious example when it is labeled as, "Probably a photography of slaves in chains, probably somewhere in East-Africa.". It could equally say, "Probably a photography of prisoners in chains, probably somewhere in West-Africa.". There's nothing backing that up either way. Give me a break. (→Netscott) 03:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The original research is written in such a way as to villify Islam. Look there has to be decent academic sources saying plenty about Islam and slavery. To rely upon one's own ideas and edit based upon that (particularly in regards to villification) is pure soapboxing. You've got to know that. As I've told you before Wikipedia is not here to villify nor glorify Islam but to present a neurtal point of view within its policies for article content. (→Netscott) 03:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Right from the get-go, "Islam and slavery have a long history of accommodation defined by the existence of the Islamic (or 'Arab' or 'Oriental') ", What are we talking about? "Arabs and slavery," "Orientals and Slavery" or "Muslims/Islam and slavery"? David Yorks is just pulling these other terms hoping to broaden the scope of the article. That is wrong. (→Netscott) 03:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole article needs an entire rewrite. It is disturbing to see that type of OR and POV pushing going on there. I see User:Itaqallah and User:Aminz have been doing there best to fend it off... seriously... I've seen people banned for similar types of pov-pushing/biased editing. (→Netscott) 03:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Who uploaded this image and this image? I have labored hard and long on the article that corresponds to those images against the POV pushing you are talking about... There is a reason I have a barnstar about it. (→Netscott) 03:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've included the Feisal's slave pic at the appropriate place as documentation of the persistence of slavery practice under Muslim rule into the 20th Century. Now I await the predictable cries from predictable sources of 'oh he's not muslim, only arab' etc. I'm aware that the Sultan of Oman an others attended Queen Elizabeth's coronation with slaves in their party but I don't have pictures of it.DavidYork71 04:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

←Perhaps you're beginning to better understand me now. No soapboxing = better encyclopedia... simple as that. (→Netscott) 05:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, cite it. The original research nonsense has go to cease. (→Netscott) 03:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations that support that the images are exemplary of slavery under Islam. All I've found is that they're exemplary under Arabs. (→Netscott) 03:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You can't be serious. One image was uploaded as being "probably" something, "probably" somewhere. Well it could just as well "probably" be prisoners on a chain gang. The other image's citations mention 0 about Islam and instead discuss an Arab slave trade. By all means use the image there as the one decent maritime citation supports it there. The other AP photo is against WP:FU guidelines (and isn't even properly sourced). (→Netscott) 04:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, have you read Wikipedia:No original research? When we want to include content in a given article we have to attribute what is being said about that content so that the article has standing. All I've seen so far is editors saying, well it is an example of Arab slavery and thus it is Islamic.... sorry but Arab≠Islam. Cite a reliable source for that image clearly indicating that it has to do with Islam and slavery and you'll have no more complaints from me. (→Netscott) 05:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're finished with your revisions of the article then I would suggest GA-nomming. Shall I do? It now has a lead it can fly with.DavidYork71 10:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just GA-nommed it. Lets see what the outside reviewer has to say. Will be a wait till someone picks it.DavidYork71 11:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

3rr

I've seen him (Aminz) do that before, trying to silence Karl Meier. So the person whose work I was amending and reverting in the course of dealing with his POV complaint (ie. Netscott) didn't take it up but someone else wants to. I better check it out.DavidYork71 05:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC) I respondedDavidYork71 06:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Quoting sources

Please use quotation marks when quoting sources word by word. Otherwise it is copyright violation. --Aminz 08:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Emailed you

DavidYork71 19:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

p.11

you cited page 11 on the Abd article in support of the notion that the child must be alive for her to retain her status as umm walad. could you provide the relevant passage please? also, you have been citing Lewis and then conflating it with EoI under the assumption that they must be in agreement, which as we know is not necessarily true. ITAQALLAH 00:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

are you one of them

http://paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?173041

My userpage should give you the answer to that question. Arrow740 05:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism issues on Advaita Vedanta page

Hello. I did not understand the points which you were trying to raise regarding Buddhist views on the Advaita_Vedanta article. Perhaps further discussion about them would be helpful on the talk page for that article. I will look forward to hearing more about these points there if you feel that is appropriate. Buddhipriya 05:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

At-Tawba 5

I recently created this article. If you can help fix/expand it, please do.--Sefringle 04:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

The quotes would be easier to understand if you could please wikify them. For example, "bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara", Shariputra, "the four Noble Truths", perfect enlightenment, SGGS, Maya etc are not very clear to those who are not familiar with Buddism. --Aminz 00:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

]]Islam and slavery]]

You can edit this now.DavidYork71 04:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

SORRY I REPLIED A BIT LATE BUT HERES YOUR ANSWER IN REGARDS TO SURA 9

Please read the sura from the beginning and the following verse to understand that it is ENTIRELY IN SELF DEFENSE: [9:13] Would you not fight people who violated their treaties, tried to banish the messenger, AND THEY ARE THE ONES WHO STARTED THE WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE?... Also note this verse: [2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those WHO ATTACK, BUT DO NOT AGGRESS. GOD does not love the aggressors. This prob only arises when one ignores the context of the Quran and quottes individual verses from here and there thus not understanding the Quran at all. JonnyK

Edits to Upanishad

Greetings. I applaud your efforts to ensure that articles are accurate and neutral in tone. I do not disagree with the facts of your recent change to Upanishad ([36]) but it is important that we be consistent in citing sources for any new content that could become a new point of disagreement. I will look forward to seeing citations to WP:RS in support of the changes which you are making. Many of the Hinduism articles are in very poor shape and lack references. Don't hesitate to place tags on any statements that you feel may be wrong. Placing a tag is an alternative to removing content immediately and gives other editors such as myself time to see what points you are concerned about. And just to restate for clarity, I am not defending the content of the article, just making a request that any changes cite reliable sources so we can gradually raise the bar on the quality of all of the text. Buddhipriya 00:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Arrow740/Elst

per WP:NOT#USER, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOT#MYSPACE, WP:USER#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F, i would recommend you remove this content from your user space, as it is an inappropriate usage of Wikipedia. thanks. ITAQALLAH 02:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest Itaqallah I would support Arrow's right to keep it in user pages not article space. He is an established contributor, it doesn't appear to be an attack page and he could well be keeping this type of material to harvest, draft or cross check WP content. My own view is that this kind of thing is fine as long as not excessive: about 1% goes to MfD and its never clear cut. I mean User:BozMo/NoughtyFour has survived for three years and its not relevant or funny. If your pages get MfDed let me know and I would defend those too. --BozMo talk 07:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, BozMo. That page will help me plan on what material to seek out and add to articles on Buddhism, Hinduism, and the relationship between them. Arrow740 07:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

BozMo/Arrow, i think there should be a sensible balance, and using Wikipedia as a webhost to publish a refutation against an author crosses that line i think - in the same way that pages like this cross that line. i don't really see how this material would be helpful Arrow, unless we started allowing original research in our articles. ITAQALLAH 15:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Itaq, for someone who is always applying Wikipedia policies to get their way, you are violating policy yourself by placing that Quranic verse on your user page (and thats on the front page, not even on a sub page). But thanks to your example, I went ahead and placed a nicer verse on my own user page. When pointed out by Netscott, you grinned and said "oh, but its a little untranslated Quranic verse". So, thanks to your verse, I was able to put a verse or hadith of my own. There's so much good stuff in hadith to choose from, I'm sure you will agree. --Matt57 11:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

it's rather amusing that you accuse me of "violating policy", but you end up spectacularly shooting yourself in the foot by confirming for us all that you have thus, according to your own standards, violated WP:POINT by reciprocating. i wouldn't brag too much about that if i were you. please try cutting down on the childish "thanks to you" rhetoric. i don't see how Netscott fits in here, and please do not misquote me in future. thanks ITAQALLAH 15:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Itaq, YOU violated policy first by putting that verse on your page. If i see you using Purple on your user page and I use Purple too, how is that violating policy? And I did not misquote you. Dont make me search for your exact quote and bring it here. --Matt57 17:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

you maintain i violated policy. you then reciprocated this action (which you believe is policy violation) thanks to "my example", thus by your own standards violating WP:POINT. i don't recall saying these exact words: "oh, but its a little untranslated Quranic verse." ITAQALLAH 21:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I am kind of dumbfounded by the complaint. I have literally seen dozens of pages similar to Arrow's, i.e. with material about the user's interests. I am not even sure what in particular offended Itaqallah as he hasn't specified what "this content" is? Does the entire material of the Arrow's userpage offend him? NN 19:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

i don't recall saying i was offended. i don't see anything detailing the user's interests on that page. ITAQALLAH 21:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are a couple of clues. If the user quotes the Heart Sutra or the Guru Granth Sahib, he is likely interested in Buddhism and Sikhism. NN 09:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Reminder

[37]. (→Netscott) 08:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your message. NN 09:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Please note that you have already made 3 reverts. --Aminz 08:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't break my comments/copy-paste it instead. --Aminz 06:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on a move

You had originally proposed this move and ItaqAllah has opposed the move after I made it, you might be interested in the discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam/Islam_and_Controversy_task_force#Requested_move --Matt57 18:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)