User talk:Jedi Master MIK

I JUST REALIZED I HAVE A LIFE TO ATTEND TO. LEAVE A MESSAGE AND I'LL RETURN THE CALL WHEN I CAN (WEEKENDS/HOLIDAYS USUALLY).

Welcome!

Hello, Jedi Master MIK, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for the links/tips/advice; they'll no doubt help me get a better hand of all this. Jedi Master MIK 22:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Banu Nadir. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Arrow740 20:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi,

In you edit here[1] you said that I remvoed source content. However, I think you have made a fairly common mistake. What I did is moved the content you think I removed down a little bit, and put some other content in its place. I did that because of the chronological order of events. Hope that explains things.Bless sins 23:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, my apologies then, I did not notice. Jedi Master MIK 18:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You also lied in your edit summary. It was not an Undo: [2]. Arrow740 06:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lies on top of lies is never a good base: (One intermediate revision not shown.) [3] Jedi Master MIK 18:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stillman

Hi JDM,

Re your addition to the Qurayza article, I think the bit "Furthermore, disregarding part of Abu Lubaba's testimony," is an editorial comment and can constitute as an original research, so it is better to be removed. I think it is best not to judge scholars. The reader can do it himself/herself. I haven't read Ibn Ishaq but the other parts seem okay :) --Aminz 00:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, I wasn't too sure when I added that remark. Mind you, I have read the Guillaume translation regarding Abu Lubaba and on that I added the extra part of his testimony and then I saw what was written about what Stillman thought and it didn't quite make sense together so thats why I added the extra remakr, just so you know. Jedi Master MIK 03:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert warring

This is not on. Please engage on the talk page and find a constructive solution. Refdoc 10:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What??? Jedi Master MIK 11:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Asad

His view is an extreme minority view, as non-partisan scholars agree about the meaning of that phrase. Further, he appears to be a polemicist without qualifications. Arrow740 04:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? Uh I think you've been a little too presumptuous. I'm not Studentoftruth if thats what you had in mind with this message. However I'd be happy to discuss this matter too with you if you'd like. Jedi Master MIK 06:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. That's why he picked up right where you left off and you only returned here at just the right time to respond to my claim of sockpuppetry. It's more than two big coincidences. Arrow740 06:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or it might just be that, 2 big coincidences. Trust me when I say I have a lot more important things to look after in my blocked time than subversion of wiki rules and conspiring against your edits :). Jedi Master MIK 06:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to argue for your material. The burden is on you to explain why it should be included, not on me to argue why it shouldn't (as I have already done). Arrow740 02:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already argued just fine for it and even included why your assertions as it stands are incorrect. [4][5]. You on the other hand have yet to show us why your assertions are right past just b/c you think so. Jedi Master MIK 05:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both on this account and the other one you said "even if he is" when I said he's a partisan religious source. You haven't argued that he is a reliable source, even though you have been requested to do so. Your continued use of partisan sources is becoming a cause for concern. Arrow740 06:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One, lol you still think I'm him. Two, "even if he is" represents a Qualifier for possible condition of rebuttal and nothing more, I listed a lot more than that yet you choose to ignore it. I requested you to first prove he's partisan and before you bring up who's responsibility it is again, unless you live in France I'm pretty sure the saying goes "innocent until proven guilty". Three, your continued dishonesty and lack of responsiveness to other users' requests is becoming a greater cause for concern than anything else here and now. Jedi Master MIK 15:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research to wikipedia like you did at Ma malakat aymanukum. Thank you. Arrow740 05:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about that conspiracy theory that I'm supposedly Studentoftruth again o_O??? Lordy Lord... Jedi Master MIK 12:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Administrator

I'm not sure what to make of this. I was blocked 2 or so days ago but my block was scheduled to lift this morning and I was able to use my username fine in other places but when I got back home, it came back in this form.

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 69.250.255.36 lifted or expired. Re-post if the unblock did not work Request handled by: —Wknight94 (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jedi Master MIK 23:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pesky autoblocks. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol, ah no matter. Jedi Master MIK 23:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eid Mubarak

Eid Mubarak!

Wishing you and your family a blessed Eid.

Your friendly neighborhood Muslim.

If you object to the above message, please remove it, accept my apologies and notify me on my talk page.

No no, jazakmullah for the message, Eid Mubarak to you as well good sir. Sorry I can't post anything for you but I've been blocked for not being tact and patient with a dispute :-( (though if you've disputed with the person, you might agree it isn't easy to be as such >_>, nevertheless no excuse) Jedi Master MIK 02:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit warring

Both you and the editor you disagree with have been blocked for 12 hours for edit warring on Satanic Verses. Please use the talk page next time before making successive reverts. You may contest this block by adding {{unblock|<reason>}} below. Sandstein 16:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, no need to contest it, you're correct in your decision. Nevertheless, my apologies for letting emotions get the best of me. Jedi Master MIK 02:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banu Qurayza

I saw this edit of yours: [6]

You didn't need to revert it because the source itself uses the word "executed" and not massacred. Check it out yourself [7].Bless sins 00:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I justed wanted to get your opinion on my edits. Do you agree with them? Do you see potential weaknesses? If so feel free to speak out. I welcome your feedback. You can e-mail me if you feel its better we communicate off wiki (Special:Emailuser/Bless_sins). You may also want to activate your own e-mail.Bless sins 00:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You also don't need to refer to me as "good sir". Respect is always an important virtue, but we can treat each other as friends :-).Bless sins 00:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok then. Sorry I'm reluctant to get into any more disputes than I've already started or have gotten into, what with college and stuff being my big concern these days. However, I don't see anything inherently wrong with them, especially not what's so POV about them. What is Str saying is wrong with them?

And if you wish, I can be more informal, no problem. I think its just a habit of online board talk I refer to people as such sometimes with such formality :-). Jedi Master MIK 18:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Qurayza

I saw this edit of yours:[8]

I thought it might be a reasonable compromise. Please don't take offense, as I didn't intend any. I apologize for making that revert.Bless sins 01:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...No you didn't offend me, I'm sorry that I gave an air of irritation, and I appreciate the effort and thought you gave to trying to make a compromise. However, check the section on the talk page that was specifically arguing this point and you'll know more about the debate. I'm not arguing the grammar or anything, more so the best choice of words for translation.

BTW, the only thing I'm finding of offense right now is Str's continued blowing off of what I'm trying to tell him over and over along with his comments that change the subject to attacking the grammar of edits when he himself is no English teacher by the looks of his posts. Jedi Master MIK 01:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banu Nadir

You should not repost the same text that has already been edited. It is quite inappropriate to do so without discussion.

Moreover, your unconfirmed source alleging a Jewish invitation, contradicts the earlier story that "two men were killed during skirmish in which the Muslims were involved. As a result Muhammad went to the Nadir, asking them to make a contribution towards the blood money of two men killed."

The story on the requested contribution has wide acceptance rather than the unfounded Jewish invitation to discuss religion.

Similarly, Usayr had no sword since thirty members of the unarmed Jewish delegation invited by Muhammad were killed on their way to the meeting and only one of them escaped. The result of the "heated scuffle" would undoubtedly be quite different if they were armed.

User: Authoritative —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.216.237.34 (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its your job to start discussion for removing sourced material.

And if you actually bothered to read the paragraphs clearly, they were giving 2 separate interpretations of why Muhammad had the Banu Nadir exiled; they're not saying both were necessarily the case.

And aside from the fact that virtually no one went anywhere w/o their sword back then, peaceful delegations or not, Ibn Iahaq cites they did have the means to fight and did start the fuss. Its only Stillman who claimed that they were unarmed and cites Ibn Ishaq for proof when Ibn Ishaq clear stated no such thing.

BTW, there is nothing impossible about the results of that fight if the Banu Nadir were armed, greater casualties have happened w/ even greater odds put against the Muslims than a small equal fighting force. Furthermore, the Muslims were in charge of the small convoy so that would also give them an upper hand . Jedi Master MIK 15:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you may wish to see Usayr ibn Zarim. some historians seem to discuss Usayr's change of heart in attempting to snatch Unays's sword. ITAQALLAH 16:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that page already; in fact I've edited their in the past and IIRC was the person who introduced the detailed account from Ibn Ishaq; mind you I left it generalized on purpose so that it could be tweaked and NPOV'd by others. And the page only confirms what I've said so far, that only Stillman has suggested they were unarmed and attacked w/o reason b/c I have yet to see any other source state as such. Jedi Master MIK 00:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the story on the requested contribution is well placed. It is the unconfirmed story of a Jewish invitation to a debate which is questionable. Similarly, it is apparent that the thirty-member Jewish delegation invited by Muhammad were unarmed. Did Ibn Ishaq claim that they were armed? User: Authoritative —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.216.237.34 (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From your edits you originally were asserting that this interpretation was contradictory to another interpretation and I explained thats what different interpretations will sometimes do, they're 2 different possibilities. Now your asserting that its a weak story. However, you can't just say that b/c thats original research which wikipedia doesn't allow. If you want to assert that, you have to find a reputable historian and/or theologian who supports that and cite him.

And again there is nothing apparent to give indication they were unarmed. AFAIK it is only one author (Stillman) who asserts they were unarmed and he cites Ibn Ishaq but Ibn Ishaq gives no such indication that the Jews were unarmed. The rest of what I said is above. And again you can't post original research as part of the article.

If you see the page on Usayr, you'll see Stillman is cited but it is not made definitive that his interpretation is right b/c other sources do not agree with it. Therefore I suggest it best to leave this article as it is b/c it isn't about Usayr or the 30 men specifically and if you want to delve into details such as the possibility that they were unarmed, the specific page on Usayr already does that. Jedi Master MIK 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the two stories are really contradictory why not say so? Why not state which account is the widely accepted and more feasible?

Similarly, You did not answer my question. Did Ibn Ishaq claim that the thirty-member Jewish delegation invited by Muhammad was armed?

User: Authoritative —Preceding comment was added at 17:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 things wrong with what you said in the first sentence, both of which I've addressed several in either an edit summary or previous posts. One, the article already makes clear that the 2 accounts are 2 distinct interpretations which inferring by the definition of different may or may not contradict. Two, you can't just state one interpretation is more widely accepted b/c you think so, you need to source that opinion to a reputable source.

And you did not get what I said b/c I have answered it, he says nothing about them being unarmed. He does say however they incited the fight and so while you might think it doesn't make sense for 30 armed people against another 30 armed men group to all be killed, it makes even less sense to say an unarmed group of people would start of fight. Also in that time it is known by any and every account no one went anywhere w/o being armed, especially the war chief of a tribe whom it was that was part of the 30 man delegation. Jedi Master MIK 21:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are dealing with facts rather than interpretations.

I call on you to substantiate or retract your allegations.

Where did Ibn Ishaq say that Usayr drew a sword against Abdullah?

User: Authoritative —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.216.237.34 (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you 're not reading very carefully b/c the sentence states clearly "According to other sources" implying that theres other ideas by other sources giving possibilities to why BN was exiled. And again before you repeat your other argument, once more, you have to have a source that corroborates what you say about one possibility not being widely accepted. Your just writing it is not going to make it true and I suggest you trust me on this b/c I've had a little of the same experience.

Speaking of allegations, I'm not adding original research or not bothering to read what the source actually says. I double checked today what Ibn Ishaq says and he does say that Usayr was carrying a sword and was about to pull it out on Abdullah. BTW, the source is already cited in the article to look up. Jedi Master MIK 03:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate my call that you substantiate or retract your allegations. You may provide a link or quote exact words.

User: Authoritative —Preceding comment was added at 19:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I haven't alleged anything and I'm certainly not retracting anything about your edits. In fact I should ask the same of you; I call upon you to substantiate or retract your own statements you assert as talking about fact. What Muslim theologian(s) or historian(s) states that one account is not as well accepted? What accounts say that Usayr and his fellows were unarmed? Yes I will also take a link or exact wording, citation is mandatory though. BTW, I've given you the citation to where it is said, I told you its in the article but if you want the whole account from the book, here it is:

"Now al-Yusayr was in Khaybar collecting Ghatafan to attack the apostle. The latter sent Abdullah bin Rawaha with a number of his companions, among whom were Abdullah bin Unays, an ally of Banu Salima. When they came to him they spoke to him and treated him saying that if he would come to the apostle he would give him an appointment and honour him. They kept on at him until he went with them with a number of Jews. Abdullah bin Unays mounted him on his beast until when he was in al-Qarqara, about six miles from Khaybar, al-Yusayr changed his mind about going to the apostle. Abdullah perceived his intention as he was preparing to draw his sword so he rushed at him and struck him with his sword cutting off his leg. Al-Yusayr hit him with a stick of shauhat wood which he had in his hand and wounded his head. All the apostle's companions fell upon the Jewish companions and killed them except one man who escaped on his feet." (The Life of Muhammad - I. Ishaq, A. Guillaume, pg. 665-666)

Jedi Master MIK 17:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about your sources on the alleged Banu Nadir invitation to discuss religion before the invasion of their Medina mansions? User: Authoritative —Preceding comment was added at 17:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about them? They're sourced, whats a problem you have I haven't already answered? Jedi Master MIK 01:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may provide a link or quote exact words. User: Authoritative —Preceding comment was added at 18:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate my call that you quote your source or retract your unfounded story on the exile of Banu Nadir. User: Authoritative —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.216.237.34 (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I reiterate my call that you quote a source that says the story is unfounded or retract your allegation, otherwise please stop spamming my talk page. I'm not trying to be against you but you need a source for any type of allegation; if you don't know the law, it says innocent until proven guilty. The person who cited this story gives a source and so far it shows nothing of being faulty. The only way to show its unfounded is if YOU provide a source to support that; original research just saying its faulty won't cut it. Jedi Master MIK 23:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BQ/AL

I replied to your last post like this: No, the invisible function does not make it anything except making it invisible. I added it this way because I was tired of trying to work out compromise wordings that go ignored by Bless Sins. My impression is that in such cases he simply took for granted what I gave and moved on without acknowledging it, still pushing for more. It was an attempt to make him accept it before I entered it into the article. Unfortunately, he ignored that too. My point is, if you can accept the wording that was invisible as a proper summary, I would not object including this. 19:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

But it doesn't do anything, from the looks of it things are just as they would be w/o the invisible text. Therefore leave it out if it doesn't add anything to the article. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mik, you misunderstand me.

I am not commenting on your removing it. In fact, I had almost forgotten about it, as it was no item of contention between me and BS.

My question is: would you accept this as statisfying your intentions? If yes, good. If not, not bad either. I am not bent on including this, as you know. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Banu Qurayza, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Daniel 00:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as you added yourself to the list of involved parties, you should probably indicate your agreement by signing in this section. ITAQALLAH 19:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Banu Qurayza.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 02:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Ahmadi

Hi,

please express your opinion and its reason regarding this matter on the discussion page: One VS Two Ahmadiyya groups/Communities

Thank you

Sirius86 (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]