User talk:Islami

Sahih Bukhari

Islami, you restored the dates. What do they mean? And what is your proof that those scholars recognized Bukhari? Can you cite anything that THEY wrote? If the article you cite had given its sources, you could check the sources. But it didn't. It just made an assertion. What makes you think that the article is particularly trustworthy as history? Melchert's article was at least peer-reviewed before it was published. Now that's not saying much, given all the recent scandals about peer-reviewed scientific articles that were later found to be fudged, but it's at least some check on arrant nonsense.

I actually spent some time tracking down the sources of the essays you cite. One of the essays seems to come from the Muslims of the Americas Islamic Academy. These are the Muslims who live in segregated communities and are said to be connected with the terrorist Al Fuqra. Their material has references to what is, IMHO, bizarre stuff like "Quranic healing". The other essay was posted on blog (which is not a good source); the blog had taken it from [1], which seems to be a Deobandi/Tablighi Jamaat group that believes in healing with honey. THESE are the guys you trust to write history? Do you really think that they spent the time trundling from library to library, seeing which manuscripts still exist, dating manuscripts, checking chains of transmission, etc.?

Do you think that all Sunnis believe this? I'm starting to doubt it. You didn't give any sources from more mainstream sites. I'm going to have to go take a look at what they say about Bukhari. Zora 04:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zora, I knew that story before I have seen that web site. The original referance is mentioned by Ibn Hajar in his book "Tahdhib al-Tahdhib" (vol 9|page 46). I have only used that web site to get the English translation of the original story:

قال العقيلي: لما ألّفَ البخاري كتابه "الصحيح"، عرضه على ابن المديني ويحيى بن معين وأحمد بن حنبل وغيرهم، فامتحنوه (وفي رواية أخرى: فاستحسنوه). وكلهم قال: كتابك صحيح إلا أربعة أحاديث. قال العقيلي: "والقول فيها قول البخاري، وهي صحيحة"».

I have mentioned too that I have used a study by Professor Abdul Fattah Abu Ghidda. As far as the death date, they are very well known in any Hadith book that mentioned them. --Islamic 05:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent changes in the article. I will try to support your changes in case of revert. --- Faisal 19:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please look at the article Tawhid. Can you try to end the wide gap made between Shia/Sunni there because it is the basic faith part of Muslims. And this basic article is written so badly. --- Faisal 19:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to work on it. I also believe the article Origin and development of the Qur'an needs a lot of editing. Islamic Awarness site has a lot of good information about the subject. --Islamic 19:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You can priorities things. Please keep doing good work in wikipedia. It is a very bad place for Islam related articles. You could make a huge difference. --- Faisal 20:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STOP DOING THIS KIND OF -----!!! --Striver 08:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't true? --Islamic 05:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jizya article

Assalam-o-Alliakum brother. They are changing the jizya article the same way they have change Dhimmi article. It neutrality has been compromised. I need your support to revert it back to this version. As I cannot do it alone. The article can be fixed right now otherwise soon it will be too late to fix it. Thank you. --- Faisal 18:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They have revet the article again. However, I have revert it back to your version twice. I will need you support to keep the article this way. Hence please keep visiting the article. Wassalam --- Faisal 07:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear brother Islami, Can you find online tafseer of Abdullah Yusuf Ali? I read it hard copy a while ago but not able to find the online version. That makes Jizya relationship with Zakat and also tell that Jizya used to be very less. Even if you could quote from hard copy of it, in the introduction of Jizya article then it would be great. --- ابراهيم 11:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mutah

Dear brother, I have copied the article at my user space. I will now start improve it there with different books and then copy the contants back to the original article. I think it will take me 2 weeks. I am yet able to get only one book after lot of struggle but hoping to find few more in the next week In-sha-Allah. Wassalam --- Faisal 14:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Muslims population.gif

Hi. I noticed you removed the {{PUIdisputed}} tag from this image and added a description of the copyright permission. Thank you for doing that. I have re-added the {{PUIdisputed}} tag and I just want to explain why. The description you quoted from the website doesn't actually make much legal sense, but interpreting it broadly, it suggests that the image can only be used for non-profit uses. Unfortunately that would qualify the image for speedy deletion under CSD I3. I have left the disputed tag as it is because the uploader said something else, and so that an experienced admin who deals with non-free images can make a second opinion. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be strange. Because we are really using it "for non-commercial use only", so I don't understand the point behind that policy. Anyways, we can contact the site to release that image. What should we ask them for? I mean what license type? --Islamic 13:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it does sound strange because you would think everything here is free, but that is not really the case - people are allowed to reproduce the content commercially as long as the GFDL is adhered to. The authority on the subject is here. Other relevant pages include this and this and this. If you are requesting permission it is important to have the image released into the Public Domain or under the GFDL, and be able to provide confirmation that this is the case - usually by the website owner making a statement on their site. See links for further info. To be honest it may be easier to just make a new map (I understand there might be some accuracy disputes over the current map). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, and thank you once again for correcting the information in the licence section. Although the non-commercial aspect is no longer present (which is good), there is another issue - that of derivatives. If you look here and here you will see that we can't accept licences which prevent derivatives. They are not really free. Now this has been confirmed, I think this image is now likely to be deleted. It would still be possible (from our point of view) to get the copyright owners to change the licence to one of the free CC licences, the GFDL or Public Domain. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fact

Please stop removing "fact" tags. --Striver 11:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And please note that there is no "birthplace" and "deathplace" in the template. --Striver 11:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, I think you are a great contributer to Wikipedia, but you are going way extreem with the Fact tag. See other bios. They don't ask for a reference for every sentence. They don't ask for a reference for every date. You are going way too much when you place the tag fact on the school of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal. Does it really needs a reference to tell that Ibn Hanbal is Hanbali?!! Most of the information that you are looking for are in the article itself. Almost all dates are already referenced in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib. Really there is no need for a Fact tag if all people agree on the information. --Islamic 14:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the praise, i appreciate your work to, you correct many of my misstakes. The reason i want ref for everything is that in my work, i have disscovered that there are many errors in the biographies, wrong dates and so fourth. Then there are some claims that is hard to distinguish if they are views, praise or facts... so i try to reference every single sentence in order to keep it straigh. If it is in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, then great, just reference it to the book. One more thing. Could you please stop removing references and information as you did here, without explanation? It really hightens my stress level! Its great that you added Tahdhib al-Tahdhib to the references section, and even better if you did it to all sections that use that as a source. If we do a misstake in this article, it will be very hard to detect, its not like writing something wrong in the Michael Jackson article, since its like only we two and maybe a few others that even look at this pages. Peace, and lets keep up the good work. --Striver 13:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

i appriciate your help in preserving islam by country from some islamphobic people looking forward to your assistanceMadman 0014 16:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

I have created The Quran and science but it required some references and addition material. Can you please help me so that we can keep the article and improve it? I will be thankful if you could spend sometime on that article. --- ابراهيم 01:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Brother I agree that sufism is not a division of Islam & sufis are both Shia or Sunni . But it stillis an important branch of islam ( as the header says ). Putting it in Societal aspects is not a good idea since Sufism is not restricted to one geographical location, its prevalent all over the world . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^{^/c} 05:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right in that sense. However, it should be in a seperate line so it does not cause a confusion. --Islamic 05:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Muhammad article

W'salaam aleiekhum, Islami,

While I realize that the portions that you deleted from the article regarding the Prophet (pbuh) may seem less than useful, they are important to the article, especially in increasing the understanding of Westerners such as myself. If you still feel that those portions are not positive contributions, I invite you to discuss your disagreements on the talk page for the article. Justin Eiler 05:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. --Islamic 05:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed the image of Muhammad from the Muhammad article again showing link to a discussion on the talk page as an edit summery. I have read and participated in this discussion and it is far from a consensus to remove the image. In a lack of consensus the status quo takes precident, it is standard to have images depicting the subject of an article and a strong consensus against this practice is required to remove this image. Please discuss instead of reverting. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad

he underlying issue to be resolved is whether the guideline WP:Profanity is applicable to the Maomé.jpg in the context of the Muhammad article. The guideline text under consideration is:

Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."

That image is considered offensive by many Wikipedia readers
Its omission does NOT cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, because it is a false image. --Islamic 03:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Islam

Hey, I noticed you've been re-adding the same material to this template over and over again, and it keeps getting reverted. Unsurprisingly, this really isn't getting anywhere. It seems that at the moment most people do not support your changes, so could you consider establishing consensus at Template talk:Islam before adding it again? Edit wars are frowned upon and don't really lead anywhere. -Elmer Clark 04:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact you are very worng on this. It is the opposite case. Please read the discussion before you revert. --Islamic 04:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see User:Cunado19 and User:Itaqallah disagreeing with the changes and no one else supporting them. There isn't ANY support for your changes, let alone consensus. Please read the article about what that entails. -Elmer Clark 05:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support User:Itaqallah --Islamic 05:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, edit warring isn't the way to go. You can always request mediation of one sort or the other. -Elmer Clark 05:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Muhammad mediation

I think that you may be interested in taking part in mediation regarding Muhammad pictures. --- ابراهيم 10:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am just dropping you a note because you signed up to participate at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. We have not heard from you since we started discussing proposed criteria for including images, so I'm just asking whether you plan to participate further. If so, we need you to agree or disagree to the criteria we have developed. Important note: The criteria will be used only if the group decides to include images, which will be later in the mediation. Agreeing to the criteria does not mean that you agree to including any images. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I was away from my computer for a while. --Islamic 03:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will you now take part in Muhammad mediation? --- ALM 15:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation

Just to notify that mediation has renewed at the Muhammad article, after a delay due to Ars Scriptor's leaving, in case you still wanted to participate. I'll be the mediator, but I may call in help from someone more experienced later. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 13:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate 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. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what OR is, right?

Your edit here - the people were trying to remove OR - you know what that is, right? --Matt57 21:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Block Review

Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I respectfully request a review of the indefinite block placed on my account. The block reason states that my account is a sockpuppet of Serenesoulnyc, but I want to clarify that I only have one Wikipedia account and have never engaged in any form of sockpuppetry.

I was not given any warning prior to this block, and I am not aware of any actions that would have violated Wikipedia's guidelines. If there is any specific evidence or actions that led to this suspicion, I would appreciate it if they could be shared with me so that I can address them directly.

I am committed to contributing to Wikipedia in a constructive manner and following all community guidelines. Thank you for considering my appeal, and I look forward to resolving this misunderstanding.

Sincerely, Islami

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).

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

Request reason:

I only have one Wikipedia account and have never engaged in any form of sockpuppetry. Islami (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please include a decline or accept reason.

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.

There's no WP:CHECKUSER evidence of recent block evasion, at least. Islami, why after 17 years are you wishing to resume editing? --Yamla (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? I was not doing edits and now I want to do that. Islami (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The account for which you are accused of sockpuppeting was so massively abusive, they are considered banned by the community (see WP:3X). That means no individual admin is free to lift this block and we'd have to take your case to the community noticeboard. I'm afraid you are going to need a more compelling explanation. However, if you wish, I can take just the above to the community and you can try your chances. Note that I am definitely not making any claim that you are related to those other accounts, only that this is the accusation against you. Even if true, it was more than a decade and a half ago. --Yamla (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, we're interested in knowing why you decided to ask to edit today, and not last week or last year or 15 years ago. Why now? 331dot (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]