User talk:BhaiSaab/A2

Archive (April 26, 2006 to June 20, 2006)

Ready for the Main Page?

On Talk:Mosque, Raul said: If there are no other issues, I'd be happy to reschedule this article for the main page. Oh, and sorry if you have Talk:Mosque on your watchlist and these messages are unnecessary; I'm sure this will be the last. joturn e r 00:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Al-Ahbash

Yes, I see you were right. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BhaiSaab, I just want the issue to settle down. I don't care how we want to archive previous discussions. --Aminz 01:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that McKhan wants to attack Ahbashis since he thinks they are not Muslims. I, personally, never really involved myself into the discussion. As to my part, I think we should be kind enough to consider everybody who calls himself Muslim as Muslim. Any who submits his will to God, be he Ahbashi, Shia, Sunni, Christian or Sabian he is Muslim and will have his reward with God. But that’s my personal view. When it comes to wikipedia, I note that McKhan has a wealth of material and I suggested making a criticism of Ahbashi section followed by a response section. He deserves to have a section in the Ahbashi article. --Aminz 01:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. We should be careful about the sources. We should first discuss the reliablity of sources one by one. --Aminz 01:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. But those sources may quote other sources that are more reliable. Still, if those sources are written by *renowned* Muslims, then I will have no objections to quoting them provided that we state that "X says Y is so" rather than "Y is so". Of course Shiasim can be criticized. No doubt! But similar to the critics of Islam, many usually lose balance or over-generalize their criticisms. --Aminz 01:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; in a few minutes. Salam --Aminz 01:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think what Al-Ahbash believe in about the TOTALITY of the Quran and Tawheed? Why don't you archive Talk:Islam, Talk:Dhimmi .etc which has way MORE THAN 300K and have got plenty of Personal Attacks. What is exactly so special about Tal:Al-Ahbash? And as far as your contunuous usage of "Polemics" is concerned, Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer .etc are all bona-fide Polemics. McKhan

It is always a good, logical and rational strategy to learn about the subject before commenting / editing on that. Good luck. You have already castigated all the material on Talk:Al-Ahbash Archives, without reading it, as "Generic" and "Polemics" and "Original Research" .etc. McKhan

Q: "What do you think what Al-Ahbash believe in about the TOTALITY of the Quran and Tawheed?" McKhan
A: "I'll have to read more about the Al-Ahbash before I can say what they believe." BhaiSaab talk 03:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

McKhan

It doesn't mean that you have achieved the knwolege-level of a religious scholar and therefore you should castigate expert opinions from mainstream scholars like Dr. Ahmad Sakr and Dr. Muzzamil Siddiqi and many more as "Polemics", "Original Research", "Non-Verifiable" .etc McKhan

Why do you insist only on your edits? Whats that? McKhan

I think it has got to do more with the control than the edits by themselves. What is posted up there on Talk:Al-Ahbash page is a compromise. I know Al-Ahbash / Habashies very well and I have done my home-work on them for years. I know plenty of them here where I live. It has nothing to do with animosity but pure logic and their practice of hiding behind mainstream Sunnis to seek legitimacy and recruitment. So, I am quite comfortable with the subject of Al-Ahbash / Habashies. As far as other pages of Wikipedias are concerned including Islam, I am not going to waste my time in haggling. I have already got enough on my plate. Thanks for the offer / invitation, though. McKhan

McKhan: Though, due to recent defamation, I have reduced my involvement in Wikipedia to a minimum, I can't help but notice that BhaiSaab is now facing the same problems that Aminz and I did earlier. Your comments suggest - as if this weren't made obvious a long time ago - that you have one and only one mission on Wikipedia, which is to demonstrate and declare that Habashis are not Muslims. This mission is simply incompatable with, and is prohibited by, Wikipedia policies WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:NOT, which is why you're getting pushback from editors of all religious denominations and creeds, most of whom have nothing at all invested in this dispute beyond the general desire to promote and preserve the encyclopedic quality of Wikipedia. As this will not be allowed, you are only wasting your time and frustrating others in the process. If anything, you generate sympathy for this beleaguered sect and lend credibility to their cries of persecution.

Thanks once again, BhaiSaab, for your efforts in this regard.Timothy Usher 03:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tim, for elucidating very clearly what I've wanted to say. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Usher: You should keep working with your buddies on Wikipedia Islam-related pages like Dhimmi and Islam .etc and leave the subject of Al-Ahbash / Habashies alone which you know almost nothing about - except - using Wikipedia guidelines as a stick to advocate your own sentiment (s). ;) McKhan

BhaiSaab: Well, if you are claiming that you don't need to know about the subject (s) of the Wikipedia pages you are editing then it comes down to only thing: CONTROL. And please, have mercy on the soul of Muslims, as Islam needs NO defense from the Muslims, and stop editing Islam-related pages as there is NO need to have knowledge about the pertinent subjects. Wikipedia guidelines will alone just do fine. McKhan

We don't need to know about the subject actully. We just need to be able to check reliability of the sources & check if the source says what the article says. McKhan, please go ahead and present your sources for us and show how they are reliable according to the wikipedia standards (WP:RS) Thanks. --Aminz 04:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. McKhan can present his sources to us and prove the are reliable (WP:RS). Then he can add it to the criticism of ahbashi section. We don't have to come into conclusion that Ahbashis are Muslim or not. It will be WP:OR. --Aminz 03:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BhaiSaab: By the same token, I do NOT appreciate this futile haggling and presumptious accusations. I will recommend the same thing again: Please, go and read first about the Al-Ahbash / Habashies before start editing and calling the content of the Talk:Al-Ahbash as "Useless", "Personal Attacks" .etc. on the premises of your own "feelings." McKhan

Wikipedia is NOT a Democracy. Besides, I am NOT making any edits. It is you who is doing all the edits and if I or somebody else (For exampple: Aminz) reverts them to reach to a compromise you turn around and accuse. McKhan

Good luck. Keep talking to yourself. Nobody is going to baby-sit you about the sources. McKhan

Yes, In your mind. McKhan

Prosecutions by Prophet Muhammad

Salaam, I was thinking that if an article can be created which would discuss all the reasons why Prophet Muhammad prosecuted these people. What I have understood so far, I wrote on Banu Nadir/mpov under Muslims explanation for prosectuion. It is very important because the battles and People killed by Prophet Muhammad is a very important part of Islamic history. And then a link to this article can be given on every page which would discuss such killings. This proposal can also be posted on Muslim Guild project. The work has to be top class because the way he is being portrayed, that doesn't make a good sketch of prophet Muhammad's personality in one's mind. SaadSaleem 07:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prosecutions under early Islamic governments SaadSaleem 00:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taj Mahal

salam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taj_Mahal:_The_True_Story —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mustaqbal (talk • contribs).

Article for Deletion: Dhimmi

I thought this might interest you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dhimmi His Excellency... 16:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Timothy's Talk Page: Mosque

The section was not changed because it was "controversial", but because it was too large. If you read talk, gren makes some good arguments. BhaiSaab ^talk 06:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I read talk, but "...controversial part moved to daughter article"[1].Timothy Usher 06:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right. On the debate goes...I would like to see your input on talk if you have the time. BhaiSaab ^talk 07:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to this statement on the Mosque talk page essentially saying that you were not correct. As the link shows, I was just removing the {{pov-section}} template because the controversial part had been moved to the daughter article. Its controversial nature was not the reason it was moved; that was just a side effect of moving the extensive negative material out of the article and cutting down the section that appeared on Mosque. Regardless you should have at least contributed to the discussion prior to reverting all of the changes made to the section. joturn e r 10:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, he wasn't correct; it was moved because it was too large. If a problem with an article is that it places undue weight on a subject, then moving a lot of information to another article for its size will of course result in an alleviation of at least some of that undue weight. joturn e r 03:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia

Hello Bhaisaab, I notice there appears to be the makings of an edit war over quotes in this article. You should know that generally quotes are added to http://en.wikiquote.org and linked to from the article. I believe that is why User:Karl Meier keeps removing the quote. Thanks. Netscott 18:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator

Salman01

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Salman01|action=edit}} Discuss here] Ending 21:45, SEVEN DAYS AFTER TODAY'S DATE AND TIME, MAKE SURE THIS IS THE ENDING DATE! (UTC)

Salman01 (talk · contribs) – Hello everyone, How are you? My name is Salman and I have been editing articles in wikipedia for a while. I have been through all different kinds of things at wikipedia; see my talk page for more details. Others wikipedians and I also believe that I have improved a lot since the first time I started editing at wikipedia. I would like an opportunity to become an administrator at wikipedia because even though I have posted “I am willing to help whoever is looking for help in their work”, I haven’t been offered for help. So I would like to become an administrator so I can help others wikipedians. Thank you Salman Sallu 21:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Support

Oppose

Cuñado - Talk 02:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

--Street Scholar 11:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I highly contributed to the Islamic pages at wikipedia, since they are very likely read these days by everyone. I wanted to make sure that the Islamic pages contain only Islamic information in a neutral way. I am going to continue editing at wikipedia for as long as possible.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: Well, I am really pleased with all most each and every article that had been written in detail by wikipedians. Whenever I need help with school work I always come to wikipedia for guidance and information about my project. I am very pleased with most of the articles written fully in wikipedia. The only thing I don’t like about wikipedia is that there are so many wikipedians around and there are still some articles that are incomplete so I am willing to contribute to the articles that are incomplete.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Yes I have been, not a lot of times though. Recently I have been accused by our friend Grenavitar for violating the copyright rules of wikipedia and he blocked me from editing articles on wikipedia. But now I am back and I am going to try my best to solve the issue in a nice and professional way. I am innocent as far as this accusation is concerned.

Asma bint Marwan

BhaiSaab, what's happening on this article? Why does it appear that you and User:Karl Meier are fighting over content there? Netscott 19:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote link? Netscott 21:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-) No I mean for the quotes you transfered there... that's what you meant by "following the rules", no? Netscott 21:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder User:Karl Meier is reverting... lol! Netscott 21:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll suggest that he post them there. ;-) Netscott 21:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BhaiSaab, a bit of clarification. If the text of a given article is based nearly solely on a given quote then it's logical that said quote remain in the article. This logic on Asma bint Marwan is in stark contrast to islamophobia. Do you understand that? Netscott 09:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom case against me

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#His_excellency_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29

You're familiar with Timothy Usher and Pecher, and their involvment in the Islamic articles. See Dhimmi and Criticism of Islam. The obhective here is apparently to ban me permenantly. I'm not exactly sure how Arbcom things work, but if you could observe what's going on here and give your input, that'd be great. His Excellency... 01:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BhaiSaab, the arbitration is going through dispite my earlier nonsense. I'd like to bring to light the POV-pushing on the Islamic articles as my reason for being "incivil". My allegation is essentially that these users (although there are many more engaged in this game) have turned Islamic articles into indictments against Islam and Islamic history. You've seen alot of it, and you've been harassed by TU as well. I remember you commented once on TU stalking me- the diffs would be useful. If you'd like to say something, your input would be appreciated. ALOT of input would be even more appreciated.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency/Workshop. His Excellency... 01:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Would you please help in writing this article ? Thanks.--Welondekaw 11:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Current#Section Template

{{current}}

{{current|section}}

{{current|other element}}

etc. — Jul. 14, '06 [13:41] <freak|talk>

Qur'an

Sorry, some of the stuff seemed to be of a Western POV. reading some of the stuff changed my mind quickly Pure inuyasha 20:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woops

My mistake...Tewfik^Talk 00:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok ;-). Happy editing, Tewfik^Talk 00:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who did I personally attack

I left no message on any page. There was a revision that took away the truth against wikipedia policy and there was multiple citations on various news sources totally unacceptable. Personal attacks are subjective, I thought wikipedia was anti-subjectiveness. Stop imposing your Muslim morals onto me. I don't impose my atheist morals upon you.--Jerluvsthecubs 03:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying is I cannot be angry for someone making a incorrect change? There was a link...the most up to date link and yet they reject it. I don't find cuss words as a personal attack but emotional expression of anger.--Jerluvsthecubs 03:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I apologize for my over reaction. I know it is a constantly changing article that won't be settled until this 'conflict' ends. But, it is very fustrating. --Jerluvsthecubs 03:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I did not see the source

I'll change it back. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 21:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcomm

Actually even if you repeat yourself, the appearance that other users see the same troubles will be helpful. Aminz is defending Timothy Usher...Aminz says he's Muslim, and so the effect on the arbitrators might be that since one Muslim sees Timothy in a positive light, he can't be all that bad. If more Muslim (or non-muslim for that matter) editors can give their review of the evidences, that will be useful. His Excellency... 04:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 26, 2006

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Railer 812 02:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling on WP:AFD, that's what. --Railer 812 02:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. End of discussion. Be gracious that I didn't list you on WP:AIAV. --Railer 812 02:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah I won't report you yet, cause the dumb fuck admins who watch it usually make wrong choices. --Railer 812 02:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cause I gave you a Test4 warning - you aren't quite blocked yet but getting close. --Railer 812 02:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't push it. I don't like to block people but may soon report you - you better watch out! I also note you are a 3RR violator. --Railer 812 02:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above user was banned for being a vandalism-only account. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for You

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I hereby award BhaiSaab this Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for his efforts to protect the mosque article from vandalism during its stay on the Main Page. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very kindly for your welcome. I am looking much forward to contributing to this magnificent site. MikailMoolla

Spelling

If you knew that, why did you change it? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's a real commitment to detail. ;) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for ur kind replies

thanks for ur kind replies on the quran page.

but as far as point #5 is concerned, i think something might be written about it in hadith because it is widely followed in India and is justified on the basis of Quran or Hadith.

and for #7, i have heard various comments by Wahabi groups, that Sufism is not allowed in the traditional Islam. it amounts to the crime of being not accepting muhammad as the last prophet.

for #1 and #2, these are written in bible. gallileo was hanged for saying that earth revolves around the sun and not sun revolves around the earth. And most of the Islamic scholars had the same view as Christian. even Islam accepts the books of Old testament and Bible as sacred. that is why i asked this.

thanks for ur links to Quran page. i was wondering that if i could get a simple translation. like we get for bible. thanks again for ur link to quran page and ur kind replies.

nids 15:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My answer to your question

Although it is of a personal nature, I will be brief: It's not reconciliation with my faith but reconciliation with Allah. It's actually recognition and acceptance by Allah than "reconciliation" with Allah.

I must also point out that being that I only follow the Qur'an, there is no explicit condemnation of homosexuality anywhere. Surely the story of Lut is mentioned several times, though there are factors that differ from the idea that the references to Sodom was a subtle condemnation of being queer.

1) These men were married, yet fornicated with other men. I have a theory that the culture in Sodom could have been that if a married man slept with another man, it wouldn't be considered adultery. 2) They were comitting highway robberies, murders and rape, which is no different than breeders having lustful thoughts and committing lustful acts on people of the opposite sex, often against their consent. 3) A lot of homophobia is sexually based rather than genuine romantic attraction, be it physical, emotional or spiritual. When it comes to sex, my theory is the reason behind sex being forbidden or restricted is because of the lack of necessary means of contraception and procedures to terminate a pregnancy, such as condoms, birth control pills and abortion. 4) Nowhere does it explicitly condemn homosexuality as an issue itself. Such explicit condemnation exists in the hadith ("Whomever you find doing the deed of the People of Lot, then kill both the doer and whomever he is doing it to.") which bears an uncanny resemblence to a passage in Leviticus ("And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.").

I must also point out that I find it disgusting for anyone to use religion as an excuse to persecute people simply because men like men, women like women, or both like both.

"We also sent Lut: He said to his people: Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." (Qur'an 7:80-81)

As for the in preference part, it should be noted that this is a question of choice, not the fact of being born gay.

"Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant!" (Qur'an 27:55)

""If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way. If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful." (Qur'an 4:15-16)

It does not say anything about homosexual love, only lust-driven desires which can be empty. The idea that homosexuality is only sex and not love is illogical, irrational. It should also be known that Allah is very merciful and understanding in his creations. And since homosexuals have been persecuted Allah is on side of those who are persecuted.

I may be using the wrong words and I'm presenting my case in fragments but I hope you understand where I come from.

Harun Yahya

I noticed your addition of the cleanup and sections required tags into the Harun Yahya/Adnan Oktar article. I've removed them. The article which you saw was cut/pasted from the official HY site and was horribly one side (as you can imagine). I've reverted it (I've forgotten how many times) into the proper article. Do keep an eye on the article if you get the time. Is there any way to ban the IPs that are trashing it? --Nkv 05:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to do that. Only problem is that they're not using usernames but IP addresses. --Nkv 05:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Al-Musta'li; Al-Zubair ibn Abd al-Muttalib; Nizaris; Islamic science; Shaiba ibn Hashim; Fatima bint Asad; Salaf; Maymuna bint al-Harith; Awn ibn Ja'far; Islamic religious leaders; Divisions of Islam; Hamza ibn Abd al-Muttalib; Battle of the Trench; Harith ibn Abd al-Muttalib; Zainab bint Muhammad; Marja; Tawalla; Islamic marital jurisprudence; Sawm

Cleanup: Muhammad as a warrior; Islamic view of the Bible; Hind bint Utbah
Merge: Islamic concept of God; Sargam; Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan
Add Sources: Sunnah; Nubuwwah; Zaynab bint Jahsh
Wikify: Layla bint al-Minhal; Rulers of Mecca (book); Muhammad ibn Ja'far
Expand: Islamic art; Shi'a view of Umar; Ubayd-Allah ibn Jahsh

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyed / Sayyid

Should the wiki article Sayyid be namechanged to reflect that, then? I'm not really all that knowledgable about linguistics and spelling variations of this nature. Tarc 05:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qana quotes

Hello, can you discuss this on the talk page? Thanks 82.29.227.171 09:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a cousin

who tends to get very caught up in the news of the day. Since late 2004, especially, he has been in a state of personal red alert: tsunamis, forces bogged in Iraq, earthquakes, Madrid train bombing, Katrina, Zarqawi and sharp steel, and now-- Israel vs. Hezbollah, which really means Israel vs. Iran and Syria. I tell him to relax and to be thankful we were born when we were. "Don't you realize", I said, "the last 40 years have been among the most peaceful stretches of time anyone can remember? Recall what the generations before us had to deal with. We're sobbing over the 2000 lost in Iraq. Yes it's tragic, but compare it to 55,000 lost in Vietnam. Then triple that to our damage in WWII. And that was barely 1/10th what the Russians endured... Be calm. Aside from one group of people, the world is fairly gliding along. Yeah, the Chinese are still Communist in name, but in reality they're fine. Born non-aggressive, unlike that one group. Born aggressors, man. But if you hear and understand one thing, let it be this: The Muslims simply don't have the power to tip off WWIII. Let the "Arab street" stamp, moan and wail all they want, let them set off roman candles in southern Lebanon and then hide behind some children, let them even fly a few planes into a few buildings: none of it adds up to a world sunk into violence and chaos. as could have happened any moment throughout the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. Compared to the possibilities we faced before the Berlin Wall fell, all the concentrated power of the entire Muslim world isn't anything to lose even five minutes' sleep over! And you know what's more? They waste the tiny bit of geopolitical power they do possess in killing each other off in the Sunni/Shiite split! So rest easy, cuz. These are the days, don't you know? If we are "Crusaders" and "Zionists", let us be laughing, content crusaders and zionists. Our enemies loathe us to our very marrow and would behead every last one of us given the chance. But that chance is as far from them as the chance that the mountain, in reality, would go to Mohammad! These are the days! Wind it down in Iraq, mute Hezbollah for another twenty years with a month's work, fish out bin Laden or his bones, go Yankees all the way to the Series and sweet dreams. Jim Tour 09:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Edward Said:

“

I have not been able to discover any period in European or American history since the Middle Ages in which Islam was generally discussed or thought about outside a framework created by passion, prejudice and political interests.

”

--Aminz 08:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have assumed good faith

When someone is engaged in the Talk page, I have no problem assuming good faith. However when a credible entry is deleted without comment on the Talk page, it is nothing less than simple vandalism on a small scale. The criticism of Wafa Sultan is significant based on current events and historically significant. In other words, her criticism is not a criticism of current Islamic leaders or interpretations, it is a criticism of the founder. Her call to change is also significant. She is attempting to start a real paradigm shift in Islam by her call to reason. RonCram 19:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have missed the point. I did not say the founder had not been criticized in the past. I said Wafa Sultan's criticism has been valid since the founding of Islam. RonCram 19:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request goes far beyond wikipedia standards. Wikipedia asks that entries be historically significant. Wafa Sultan's criticism goes to the statement of the founder of Islam. You cannot get a more historically significant basis for a criticism. RonCram 19:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is important to me is that the criticism be tied directly to Islam and not to specific Islamic leaders alive today. Criticism of Islamic leaders is not criticism of Islam and does not fit the article. But criticism of the words of the founder are significant. The fact Wafa Sultan makes a call for the teachers of Islam to choose a new path is significant. Is it the fact she is a woman that bothers you? Is that why you do not want her mentioned in the article? RonCram 19:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not accuse you of anything. I asked you a question. You can answer it on the Talk page. I asked you there as well. RonCram 20:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

email

I do not use email but you can use my talk page--CltFn 02:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at this time --CltFn 17:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

BhaiSaab, Do you have any feedback here[2]? we are trying to write a mannual of style for Islam related articles. Thanks --Aminz 04:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHERE!!!???!! --Aminz 04:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But this one is merely focused on "sources". That one doesn't touch the sources in detail. But thanks for letting me know. --Aminz 04:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. After it was completed. --Aminz 04:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, BhaiSaab. As with the dysfunctional Habashi debate, you're helping Wikipedia. There are a few users there with whom I've had my own problems, but that doesn't mean they deserve to be placed on an enemies list.Timothy Usher 07:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attack

You're absolutely right about [[3]]. Stop attacking D-Boy.Bakaman%% 16:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never type on my talk page again, Bhai.....--D-Boy 06:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted your complaint about D-Boy's rephrasal of your comment. Also, I would say that this attempt to personally discredit D-Boy's "vote" on the MfD is inappropriate - to ascribe motives - please debate the merit of the matter being considered for deletion. Further it may not be the best idea to complain too much in case you do not want others to complain about yourself. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 06:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also noted that you asked a rhetorical question to D-Boy about yourself and that he said that "jihad" was the correct word, which although unfortunate, he did not call you a "jihadist". Blnguyen | rant-line 06:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be apprised:WP:ANI#Spam solicitation for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AMbroodEY/Fundy Watch.Timothy Usher 06:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Wikistalking. It doesn't help your case. I copied the list of articles just to keep a record of articles that may be POV. I have a watchlist, but I don't want it cluttered. Bakaman%% 15:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Bakaman%% 15:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of ~~trolls~~ trolling I have on my page is amazing. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Bakaman%% 17:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Muslim Caste stuff is NOT from the site you stated. [4]. The info on that site was totally different than the article (therefore no copyright violation). Nice try.Bakaman%% 21:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. 4 for you Bakaman%% 21:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can ignore the 3rr rule for vandalism. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romney page

My mistake. I accidently put in the source tag instead of the fact tag.Notmyrealname 05:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Hi, you made this edit but the latter user has not been blocked. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! If you look at [5], the IP editor has been blocked for twelve hours by me. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant User:Bakasuprman. Thanks. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is former rather than latter. My block log showed a block but now does not; the user is now blocked for three hours for incivility and vandalism. (aeropagitica) (talk)

He has requested an unblock on his talk page. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded. This correspondance is now closed. (aeropagitica) (talk)

3rr Report

Thank you for not blocking me. Regarding your statement that some parts were not copyrighted, please see the 3rr report page. Thanks again. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and I could not find all the paragraphs on the website linked. Stifle (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Ajlaf on the other hand are the Indian converts and are considered to be of common ancestry..." See the last two sentences of paragraph three of [6]. Then the remaining parts of the same paragraph posted on Wiki are in the fourth paragraph of [7]. Anything else? :) BhaiSaab ^talk 22:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I don't think so. Thanks for the reply. Stifle (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]