User talk:Malik Al Assad

Welcome!

Hello, Malik Al Assad, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Merry Headcheese!-hexa Chord ² 01:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Shi'a Islam appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Do not push fringe polemic theories on Wikipedia, Wikipedia is for serious academics, knowledge, and scholarship, it is not for derogatory myths. Enzuru 04:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Shi'a Islam. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You must use secular English sources on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not allow religious primary or polemic sources, whether Sunni or Shi'a. Enzuru 04:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

If you want, we can discuss what sourced changes you want to make to those pages. Under Abdullah Ibn Saba, we have all the viewpoints represented (but not sourced well), is there an issue with it? --Enzuru 05:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me back, and welcome to Wikipedia! On Wikipedia, we do not allow WP:original research, which means you cannot use primary sources, you need to use secondary sources. You can only use secular English source, no religious sources, no Sunni or Shi'a sources, no hadith, only secular English sources. I combined both our versions into one so that way all the Sunni information is under Sunni view, and all the Shi'a information is under Shi'a view. But so far, the entire article is bad, we are citing religious sources which is incorrect. --Enzuru 05:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood, I put the blockquotes back in! That was a very good addition, thanks for that. As for the Shi'a origin, while the professor is secular, JewishEncyclopedia.com isn't a reliable secular source for Islamic history. Like, we wouldn't quote a Jewish encyclopedia for information on Muhammad's life, we'd go to sources like Bernard Lewis and Hossein Nasr who are secular historians on Islam. --Enzuru 05:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, he as a person is secular which I understood, but he's not a valid source on Islamic history, and the origin of his writing (Jewish Encyclopedia) is in fact from an unreliable encyclopedia for Islamic history. --Enzuru 05:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can read about Heinrich Graetz right here, as you can see, he wrote about history from a Jewish perspective. --Enzuru 05:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a controversial edit on Wikipedia, one reverts to the consensus version (the version that existed before the controversial edit) and then discuss the controversial edit on the talk page. I've reverted to the consensus version, and you can make a topic on the talk page detailing why you think this section should be included. You can try getting people to use these sources, but just like we probably wouldn't use this source for information on the Prophet Muhammad's (AS) life, we won't use it for information in Shi'a Islam. We need big names in Islamic scholarship, like Bernard Lewis], or Hossein Nasr, someone who is a well-respected voice in the West on Islamic history and theology. --Enzuru 09:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting involved in Wikipedia

This is separate from our discussion on the origin of Shi'a Islam. I noticed you're new to Wikipedia, and I noticed you're interested in topics on Islam, in that case, you can join Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam. There are various task forces within WikiProject Islam, like the Mosque task force, the Sunni Islam task force, the Shi'a Islam task force, the Salaf task force, etc. You don't need to join any of them, or you can join multiple of them, it's your choice! Also, if you're interested in topics on Afghanistan and Pashtuns, I am currently looking to recruit people for Wikipedia:WikiProject Afghanistan and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pashtun (I'm currently the only person active in these projects). Also, there is a list (somewhere, geez, I don't know anymore) where we have a list of specialties, so if you have questions or need to team up with someone (or want to list your own specialty so others can ask your help), you can refer to the list. I can find the list if you like but some major people are User:Itaqallah who specializes in Sunni Islam, User:Sa.vakilian who specializes in mainstream Shi'a Islam, and myself who specializes in minority Shi'a Islam, in particular Ismailism and Alevism.

Also have fun with your userpage, you can design your page and get userboxes to tell stuff about yourself, like my page or User:Ogress's page, who is another very active WikiProject Islam member. --Enzuru 09:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Ibn Saba

I think the article is becoming too large with primary sources. Wikipedia is not supposed to use primary sources as per WP:original research, yet we're using primary sources for the Sunni and Shi'a views, and are not using reliable secular sources. I have requested the page be locked for two weeks so you, I, and possibly others can rewrite the article using reliable secular sources on the topic. --♥pashtun ismailiyya<an> 07:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Muir

AS I explained in my edit, he is an orientalist from around a century ago. The reason we do not accept orientalists from this time period is detailed in Edward Said's Orientalism, as must read for any person writing on topics of Islam. Additionally, Muir accepts many apocryphal ideas such as the Satanic Verses, would you say he's reliable? He's not very reliable from any standpoint. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mind explaining exactly why Orientalism is not avlid for Islamic Scholarship ? secondly, Muir is considered probably the most valid source on Islamic Scholarship by non Muslim wikipedians. There are so many Islam related article which still use him as a valid source. thirdly, you detailed Muir's belief, which is ad hominem (logical fallacy). If we take Muir's belief's as a variable to determine whether he should be cited as reliable, then we might as well reject non Muslim scholars because they never had formal Islamic education under certified scholars. I do not disagree with you that he is unreliable, but so is non Muslim scholars who never had formal Islamic education, therefore, by your logic we should only use source's which have an Islamic degree in Islamic history and an ijazat for his authority on relating it.

Orientalism itself is not an issue, however orientalism from the period Muir is from is rather troublesome (once again, if you are going to further your writing in Islam, read Orientalism (book) by Edward Said). And simply because many Islam-related articles use him as a source does not make it right, in fact, on Wikipedia you cannot say that simply since somewhere else is using him we should be able to use him here. I can show many places on Wikipedia where totally incorrect sources are being used, it's irrelevant. And I am not speaking about his beliefs per se (obviously a non-Muslim scholar doesn't believe in Islam), I am saying that he (like many orientalists from this era) accepts many sources that are not necessarily accepted by the mainstream secular scholarship establishment, making his belief in the Satanic Verses as a factual historical even all the more an issue. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 10:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to frustrate you about this (I can imagine that I am!) it's just we need to be really particular about the sources. I have no issue whatsoever with including it if we can find a reliable, secular, and contemporary source. It really shouldn't be that hard to find. Also, since insha'Allah we'll be rewriting Ibn Saba's article anyway, we'll be able to find plenty. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 10:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have a question about Shi'ite beliefs actually. Do you take the words of your earlier scholars higher than later scholars, or vice versa or does it not matter ? Because in Sunni Islam, we take the words of the Classical Scholars higher than later scholars, which is why we would use source's as early as possible in a discussion/debate/argument. This is important because apparently you think that Shia scholars believe that ibn Saba didn't exist when your earlier scholars know full well of his existence.

I am an Ismaili Shi'a Muslim, we do not have a system of scholars since we have a living Imam, the Aga Khan IV. However, to answer your question, in Twelver Shi'a Islam there are three schools (much like the four schools of law in Sunni Islam). They are called the Akhbari, Usuli, and Shaykhi. After the Occultation of Muhammad al-Mahdi, Akhbarism was dominant, and strictly adhered to books of hadith, in their literalism they mirror the Hanbali madhab. However, later on the Usuli school of thought rose, and stated that many of the current narrations should be checked for accuracy, and that Shi'a scholars should use methods in order to discover which narrations were correct (like Bukhari and Muslim did somewhat), and which weren't. Now, this may seem like Sunni Islam, but the Usulis went a step further and instituted taqleed of a living Grand Ayatollah rather than a madhab like in Sunni Islam, the Grand Ayatollah is an individual who spends his or her life studying fiqh in order to deduce what the Prophet (AS) actually taught. Hence, the older scholars you see accepting the existence of Ibn Saba were the same ones who accepted hadith uncritically without examining their chains of narrators, unlike what is done in Sunni Islam and Usuli Twelver Shi'a Islam. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 08:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got the general idea. So which one do you follow ? It seems you follow the Usuli ? Therefore may I deduce the understanding that IYO the Usuli aka later scholars is a better sourceMalik Al Assad (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I even quoted them in the Shia section. In the future article, I do not want to see something like "Shia scholars deny his existence" without a full discussion about whether that is true or not. If you do take the later scholars opinion higher than earlier scholar then I rest my case, but I would still demand a part which states the earlier Shia scholars accept his existence. You also mentioned that ibn Saba is a propaganda machine by Sunni's against Shi'ism. This is not only untrue, but I would not like to see it on the future article. I would not like to offend you, but you seem to have limited knowledge on Islamic History. The existence of ibn Saba was unquestioned in Islam early day's, no one even argued against his existence because it was widely accepted AFAIK.

As an Ismaili Shi'a Muslim, hence I am neutral to the issue of Ibn Saba. Whether he existed or not is of no concern to me, and if he did exist, it is obvious to any student of history that he did not found Shi'a Islam, but I am not here to push my view I just want us to use non-polemic non-religious reliable sources. But just to give you a little background, during Ibn Saba's lifetime, assuming he existed, he lived during the time of non-Imami Shi'a Islam. Early on in Shi'a Islam, the Prophet (AS) and Imams (AS) only taught the teaching of Imamate from the Qur'an to a few companions such as Salman al-Farsi, and it was not till I believe Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (AS), that the belief was well understood. For example, look at the earliest branch of Shi'a Islam, the Zaidi, who are non-Imami and formed around the time of Ibn Saba. They are almost exactly like Sunni Muslims except with minor differences of fiqh and aqeedah (meaning, Ibn Saba even in the most radical theories, could have only caused these minor differences). It wasn't till well after Ibn Saba's lifetime that the Qur'anic teaching of Imamate took its form in Imami Shi'a Islam, which refers to the Ismaili and Twelver branches of Shi'a Islam. Imami Shi'a Islam is distinguished from the early uneducated form of Shi'a Islam because it details the Qur'anic teachings of Imamate and ismah, as well as the nature of the Prophets (AS) and Imams (AS). --♥pashtun ismailiyya 08:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what your trying to say. But is it not wrong for you to say that the earlier/other schools are wrong ? This seems to be your general viewpoint because you stress that Shia scholars deny his existence when from my understanding your earlier scholars (different schools in my understanding) verify it. In Sunni Islam, we do not accuse scholars of other schools of deviancy/falsehood/apostasy based on which school they adhere to. All four schools are correct. None are wrong. Would you mind if we discuss this on the future ibn Saba discussion page ? Of course, it would largely be you lecturing me on Shia beliefs/jurispundence, but I do not mind. By the war, I noticed you put alaihi salam after the Prophets (SAW) and your Imams name. Why do you not use SAW instead ? and why do you put it in your Imams name ?

Also, I apologize for abusing you back then. It was not my knowledge that you are a sister. Again, I apologize. Btw, you are from the Ahl al-Bait ? From who ?

We can continue this on that page if you'd like, or if you want to just discuss Shi'a Islam with me in general shoot me an e-mail by going to my user page and clicking "E-mail this user" on the right in "toolbox". As far as Twelver Shi'a Islam, after the rise of the Usuli school, the Akhbari school lost almost all popularity, and only survives among a few today. The Shaykhi school (a school that stressed Sufi-like mysticism), also is extremely small, and it is for this reason why sometimes Twelver Shi'a Muslims call themselves adherents to the Jafari madhab of Islam, because Twelver Shi'a Islam generally only refers to the Usuli school, ie, Twelver Shi'a who do taqleed under a Grand Ayatollah. I think a good analogy would be this; Ahmad ibn Hanbal once said that he would never trust a narration by Abu Huraira, but yet much of Sunni hadith today is derived from Abu Huraira. While Sunni Muslims respect Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Sunnis disagree greatly with his viewpoint on Abu Huraira as a bad narrator. As far as honorifics, you can see the page on Islamic honorifics. See, most Shi'a Muslims hold the Imams in a very high place, which is what mainly distinguishes Shi'a Islam from Sunni Islam. If it was not for this belief in Imamate, there would not be much of a split today (there would simply be Muslims stating that this or that person should have been caliph, and 1400 years later those arguments would have mattered very little, especially after Ataturk's dissolution of the caliphate).

Also, it's fine, you can speak to me anyway you'd like, whether I'm a male or a female. And I'm not from the Ahl al-Bayt, may Allah put his bounties upon them endlessly. Quite a few of my friends are, however. What gave you that impression? --♥pashtun ismailiyya 09:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In your userpage, in the userbox, it says "This user is a Shi'a of the glorious Ahl al-Bayt أهل البيت.". Also, I apologize if I irk you with many questions, but from my understanding, Shias hold Uthman (radhi Allah Anh) in a very negative manner, but how about his descendants ? >_> <_<

Also, I noticed you asked if I was Usuli. I may have not been clear, those three groups I mentioned are schools of Twelver Shi'a Islam. I am however an adherent to Nizari Ismaili Shi'a Islam, meaning I follow the Aga Khan IV as the Imam of the Age, while the Twelver Shi'a Muslims follow the Twelfth Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi as the Imam of the Age, who they believe is presently in the Occultation. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 09:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That userbox means I am a follower of the Ahl al-Bayt, not that I'm from them! >_< Oops, I hope people don't get confused! And also, it is generally the Twelver who have issues with the Sahaba, and while Ismaili may not have agreed with what they've done, we believe that is in the past, similiar to Sunni Muslims. As far as their descendants, many of the great Shi'a in history were ironically descendants of Abu Bakr and Umar. For example, one of Abu Bakr's sons (I forget his name) was a great companion of Imam Ali (AS). --♥pashtun ismailiyya 10:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, lol ! Sorry. In Arabic, when someone says I am of such and such it means they are from his house, which mostly indicates that s/he is a descendant of the leader of the house (the man usually). Also, I think you are referring to Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr (ra).

Salam. Malik Al Assad (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

Wonderful to see you back! I was wondering where you went. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 04:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have the four Rashidun on my watchlist silly, so I simply refresh that while I'm studying and so forth to see if any malicious edits are being done. Never heard of Cramster, eh? Allahu alim, getting through university without the Internet would be madness. Wikipedia is like any other Internet craze for me, Myspace or Facebook. It's actually much better, I don't even have those two open all the time like most university students. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 04:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to higher math, books don't go into depth to explain solutions to the questions they pose. So, I generally use Cramster to teach me questions I can't solve myself. I'm doing Physics at the moment, since my final is tomorrow. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 05:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to create a fancy page involves some knowledge of coding. But let's start with userboxes, anyone can get them. Start here and find ones you like. There are way too many that fit for me (some users have over a hundred on their page), so I usually try to select a few that are the most important to me. You'll find the userbox, and paste its code on your page. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 05:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man, you're a vegetarian's worst nightmare. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 05:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and btw lol, I made that Sunni Muslim template. :P enjoy --♥pashtun ismailiyya 05:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caliph Abu Bakr

hi, i just came across your recent edits to the article Abu Bakr. The info box seems to me rather lengthy and having some unnecessary headings like that of wives and children etc. Wives and children are already mentioned in under the heading Family and therefore its seems to me unnecessary to mention them in the info box, in info box they will rather confuse the reader, and are not looking cool as well. More over the The full name stuff should be placed in a new heading lineage under Early life heading.

will be waiting for your reply. Mohammad Adil (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes obviously if i wrote the article of Caliph Abu Bakr(R.a), i must be a Sunni.

Any ways, thanks for your response, so are you going to edit the info box it or shell i ?

Mohammad Adil (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article of Caliph Umar is currently incompetent, i am working on a new article about him with all details of the military expansion (my main subject) his political achievements and his government policies etc... it will inshallah have many maps of the conquest carried out during his reign. Including the map of is empire at its greatest extent.

Inshallah it will be pasted here with in a week. Mohammad Adil (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your efforts may you be rewarded. When will the new Umar page be ready? --Sampharo (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I would like to know your view on this [1] --Firstcome (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for editing involvement in article Aisha

Hi i am Omer, i request your kind self to help me out to make the article Aisha a organized and model article for viewers, there are some users who had challenged the references of this article, and based on my research knowledge, references and poor comand on english, i am not able to work out for those, therfore kindly help me to make the article Aisha organized.

Thanks and pls advice. --Omer123hussain123 (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2011 (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) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]