User talk:RLoutfy

Reverting my edits on Apostasy in Islam

I have noticed your edits on apostasy in Islam. Your edits on wikipedia are welcome. However, many of what of the reverts you have done are flawed.

You removed my paragraph on which I mentioned the Edict of Toleration 1844, like it or not, this is referenced and will stay on the apostasy for Islam page. It is a highly significant watershed moment, that the caliph of Islam, the leader of the Muslim world issues this edict. It is referenced, and removing it in the manner you did is a severely reprimandable act. And if you do so again, I will ask for you to be disciplined by administrators. Removing referenced material is a violation of wikipedia rules. Do not do it.

2. The map: change is also flawed. You are mixing the pew research centre reference. The centre talks both about Blasphemy and apostasy. Which are two seperate things. Some countries, such as Egypt do not have the death penalty. They have some penalty, but not death, your map here is inaccurate. Ditto for Morocco, which is a liberal Muslim country, full of Western tourists, doesn't go around executing apostates. Pakistan, has death for Blasphemy but not for apostasy. The article is about apostasy, not blasphemy ergo, this map [[

is inaccurate. You have referenced the library of congress, but it's actually the pew research centre. [1] Do not deliberately misreference material. The picture is inaccurate, it conflates two different things, it will not be used on the apostasy in Islam article.

3. The picture, does not provide evidence that apostasy is prosecuted under Blasphemy laws. As I have said, apostasy is not Blasphemy. This again is an inconsistency.

4. The picture you restored, does not provide a picture of Muslim-majority countries in the Sahel, Western Africa, Central Asia, Turkey, Tunisia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Albania and Kosovo. All which are as Muslim, as much as Saudi Arabia or Iran. The picture doesn't not provide an accurate image of their laws.

5. Your picture defeats your own Pew research centre source, which says that Indonesia does not have laws for apostasy. Your map says it does. Read Pancasila, Indonesia does not prosecute for apostasy, Indonesian Muslims don't believe that apostasy warrants any punishment. Again the map conflates apostasy with blasphemy.

All of these elements makes your map inaccurate, which is why it has been replace. Your map incorrectly references the library of congress. The LoC makes it clear that Iran's law is unclear. You claim that Iran uses the death penalty. So the references are misused.

Therefore, the image cannot be used. Do not revert the edit again, it is an inaccurate image and doing so will result in my reporting you to administrators for excessive reverts and removing properly referenced material. Do not remove the work on Edict of Toleration 1844. You seem new. So I will go easy on you. You are always welcome to edit on wikipedia, I hope you continue to do so. But please learn from these mistakes.

Happy editing, (Wiki id2 (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

@Wiki id2: The 1844 Edict of Toleration has been in the main article, here. I never removed it. For this and other issues, discuss it on the article's talk page. I will respond there, not here.

Stop these accusations and threats - you are violating WP:TPNO. RLoutfy (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edict of toleration removal might not have been you. I will withdraw that point. But the others still stand. They are not accusations. The map is using a misreference of pew research centre. By conflating two things. I made it clear in the edit section, and you still proceded to revert the picture edit. I'm not violating any rules. You can respond here, your talk page is here to discuss your activities. (Wiki id2 (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Surah. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Zakat may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

zakat, in the case of land crops, fruits and minerals.<ref>Yusuf al-Qaradawi (1999), Monzer Kahf (transl., Fiqh az-Zakat, Dar al Taqwa, London, [http://monzer.kahf.com/books/english/fiqhalzakah_
Yusuf al-Qaradawi (1999), Monzer Kahf (transl.) King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia, [[http://monzer.kahf.com/books/english/fiqhalzakah_vol1.pdf Fiqh az-Zakat, Volume 1], Dar al Taqwa,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

can you move the picture

can you move the picture of Salman Rushdie a little lower in the blasphemy article? for atm it sits almost inside the "christian" punishment section. I have no idea how to move it a "little" without actually moving it into another section — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeatlastChitchat (talk • contribs) 05:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maliki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia accusation

An editor has accused you of being Islamophobic on the edit summaries of the madhab pages. If you feel like the charge that you're an Islamophobe is unfair, you may be interested in responding to this accusation through replying on the talk page of the relevant madhab page, or by replying on the user's talk page. Thanks. Depressed my entire life (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have left an edit summary inviting discussion on relevant talk pages. RLoutfy (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that most of your edit are purely Islamophobic. --CounterTime (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CounterTime: I have left a message for you on relevant talk pages. You must not use blogs or very old disputed sources. Do not make personal attacks. RLoutfy (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 8 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Islamic criminal jurisprudence page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in Case of Rape and Zina

you stated

1. "The hadiths declare rape of a free Muslim woman as zina" , so i want to ask, do you know the definition of "hadith" ? could you provide hadith based on this definition? fyi the Al-Muwatta in this case was not a hadith but a Fiqh by Malik, and where in this Fiqh it make a differentiation between a slave and a free muslim woman? please don't put your own opinion on this.

2. Please Quote here where in Kecia Ali and in Asghar Ali Engineer books which stated "the victim of the rape must bring 4 eyewitnesses?".

3. I already observed both book, and there was no such thing as "the victim of the rape must bring 4 eyewitnesses", so please don't put your opinion on this. --Markanegara (talk | contribs), 10 June 2015‎

@Markanegara: No, no. Al-Muwatta is considered a hadith and also a sharia source in the Maliki school. It was mentioned in the article. I will check the article's edit history and revise where appropriate. For these issues, discuss it on the article's talk page. I will respond there, not here. RLoutfy (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RLoutfy: wrong, Al-Muwatta is both hadith book and a fiqh book, and what you quoted was a fiqh not hadith, please learn definition of hadith first

Reverting my edits on Apostasy in Islam

Hi. Why did you delete a lot of the content I mentioned, most notably the verses 10:99 and 18:29

Say, "The truth is from your Lord": Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it): for the wrong-doers We have prepared a Fire whose (smoke and flames), like the walls and roof of a tent, will hem them in: if they implore relief they will be granted water like melted brass, that will scald their faces, how dreadful the drink! How uncomfortable a couch to recline on!
— Quran 18:29

And if your Lord had pleased, surely all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them; will you then force men till they become believers?
— Quran 10:99

which no pre-modern scholar even claimed that they were abrogated. Why did you ignore a lot of my points and made extremely many misquotes, e.g. [2], [3] and [4]? Why did you delete my labelling of the "Other views on punishment" as unconsistent without giving any justification? Looking forward to your answers. Thanks in advance. --HakimPhilo (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HakimPhilo - Let us discuss your WP:OR on the article's talk pages. I have posted my reply there. RLoutfy (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Al-Baqara 256, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ibn al-Jawzi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Al-Baqara 256, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ibn al-Jawzi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edits?

Hello. Why did you revert my edits which included tons of references both primary and secondary for no reason? I'm waiting for explanations, either way, if you fail to provide one I'll contact a mod. You're clearly displaying biased behavior. --CounterTime (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this isn't your first case of unexplained reverts. --CounterTime (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained the revert on the article's talk page here on October 30. RLoutfy (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't. You simply ignored all of my points. --CounterTime (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lets discuss it on the article's talk page, because other wiki editors can then participate. That is where I will respond. RLoutfy (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And please stop edit warring. --CounterTime (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you know what edit warring is, but you yourself are ignoring WP:BRD and WP:EDITWAR. RLoutfy (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ignore them, you're the first one to have started this edit war instead of collaborating in the talk page, by removing all the improvements I've made; Next time I'll contact a mod. --CounterTime (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misquotes, distortions, ...etc

Dear @Rloutfy. You were caught doing misquotes, distortions of sources, and similar things on many articles, and particularly Q.2:256, I invite you to explain your acts here and here. Thanks. --CounterTime (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CounterTime, Your allegations are false. I want to focus on various issues with your edits in sequence, since you have been very disruptive. Let us work on Apostasy in Islam and Jizya first. We can visit the Al-Baqara 256 in due course. RLoutfy (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RLoutfy Can you please show how my supposedly allegations (when in fact I link to your edits and to previews of the meant sources) here and here are wrong? --CounterTime (talk) 09:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RLoutfy Actually those claims are relevant to both articles, since they affect your reliability. Please respond to them, here and here. Thanks. --CounterTime (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CounterTime, If it is, go ahead link them into the Apostasy in Islam talk page, so other editors, if any interested, can participate and comment as well. RLoutfy (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RLoutfy: Alright, but you still didn't address the claims there (i.e. here and here). --CounterTime (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: No edit wars

Please read and respect WP:BRD and do not WP:EDITWAR. I welcome you to the article's talk page, so we can collaborate constructively. --CounterTime (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CounterTime: The WP:BRD applies to you too. Since that Jizya section is in dispute, I invite you to revert it back to the stable version before either you or I edited that section, and let it remain unchanged till we reach a consensus on the article's talk page.

@Lerdthenerd: please see CounterTime's edit warring in Jizya today. I would appreciate your guidance on WP:BRD. RLoutfy (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RLoutfy: Which version are you talking about? Can you please provide a link to it? Thanks in advance. --CounterTime (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

are his reverts enough to take to 3rr? If not I don't want another angry mob.--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 20:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CounterTime: Here is the link to the stable version before your or my bold edit. I have reverted it to pre-your and pre-mine, November 17 stable version. Once we have a consensus per WP:BRD, we can revise it. RLoutfy (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RLoutfy: Okay, great, thanks for cooperating. Now all you have to do is to explain and answer all the issues underlined in the talk page. --CounterTime (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to address objections.

I'm still waiting for your explanations in the Al-Baqarah 2:256 talk page, Jizya talk page, and Apostasy in Islam talk page; Please address the issues outlined there. --CounterTime (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pestering me with the same remarks and queries, that I have already answered on their respective talk pages. You are a few weeks old account in wikipedia, and must learn to respect the policies and guidelines adopted by wiki community to help people work collaboratively, not WP:HARASS. I am busy in real life, I volunteer my time to help improve wikipedia when I can, and I cannot work on three articles at the same time with your edit warring and what is coming across as your battleground approach. As I wrote here on November 15, let us work on Apostasy in Islam article first, followed by Jizya, before we return to resolve your inadvertent OR in A-B 2:256. We need to focus on one section at a time, with or without the DRN process, given you are not following wikipedia's WP:NOENG policies so far. RLoutfy (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RLoutfy: Stop making up lies and ignoring objections, You never answered the following: (these are in the 2 articles (jizya and apos.) we're not even talking about Q.2:256)

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jizya#RLoutfy.27s_POV_edits

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jizya#Unexplained_deletion_of_content

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jizya#Unexplained_deletion_of_a_tag

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jizya#Other_Unexplained_deletion_of_content

* Here you claimed that I made a wrong translation while ignoring the many requests I made to you so that you show why you think so. Two neutral editors have currently approved my translation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jizya#Edit_vandalism_per_RLoutfy.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jizya#Arnold_as_source

* Again here you claimed that I made wrong and flawed translations without showing why you think so, despite the numerous requests I made to you concerning that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apostasy_in_Islam#Original_research_by_CounterTime.2Falter-CounterTime

* You inserted here tags in the two sections where a dispute on the arabic source was, and you still ignore the requests to you so that you explain why you think my translation was flawed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apostasy_in_Islam#Tags_inserted_by_RLoutfy

* I'll reiterate another unanswered question:

You wrote (as you can verify here) the following:

ولا نجد هذا العدد الكيرمت الآيات السني نزلت في التاكيد على ضرورة المحافظة

على حريات الإنسان كلها إلا في القيم العليا كاكوحيد والتركية والعمران وما ارنيط بها

من مقاصد شرعنة كالعدل وامنة والمساواة ونحوها. ضد نزل القرآن العظيم بذلك

العدد الكيرمن الآيات ؛ ليؤكد على حرية الإنسان خاصة في اختيار ما يعتقده ، وعدم

جواز اكراهه على تني أني معتقد ، أو تنعرمغقد اعتقده ءالى سواه ، وعلى توكيد ألن

etc

This however contains many errors as anyone fluent in arabic can see, here's my correction:

ولا نجد هذا العدد الكبير من الآيات التي نزلت في التاكيد على ضرورة المحافظة

على حريات الإنسان كلها إلا في القيم العليا كالتوحيد و التزكية والعمران وما ارنيط بها

من مقاصد شرعية كالعدل و الحرية والمساواة ونحوها. فقد نزل القرآن العظيم بذلك

العدد الكبير من الآيات ; ليؤكد على حرية الإنسان خاصة في اختيار ما يعتقده ، وعدم

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .جواز اكراهه على تبني أي معتقد ، أو

If you can't even write arabic correctly then how can you claim to have actually read my arabic sources and how can you then state that my translations are POV? e.g. you stated: "in the case of "اشكالية الردة و المرتدين [...]" cite you added to this article, you are reading a non-English source and you allege above that it "links all of them to apostasy in Islam". I disagree with your interpretation of that non-English source," and also, "By citing it, you are once again doing your own flawed POV translation and interpretation. Failed verification means "it does not verify what you allege it does". Instead of your own flawed translation,"... - unsigned comment by CounterTime

CounterTime, I have answered all this already on the respective article's talk pages. For example, you allege "I can't write Arabic correctly", by which you probably mean type, but as I mentioned already I did not type the above, just copy-paste transferred from one file format into wiki talk page to provide fair use quote. The transfer process was not robust, but this is hardly the real issue if you want to participate in building wikipedia rather than personal attacks you started from the day you opened your wikipedia account. The real issue is your OR with non-English sources, your refusal to respect WP:NOENG policy, and you spending more time in unproductive accusations rather than complying with WP:NOENG and WP:PG. RLoutfy (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RLoutfy: I already answered that preposterous excuse "just copy-paste transferred from one file format into wiki talk page to provide fair use quote" by stating that your claim "doesn't stand as there is no ebook or digital version of the meant book, furthermore you had the entire time to correct it before posting it on the wiki page. So I'm waiting for explanations". This issue is relevant since if this charge is correct, then that would mean that you're deliberately making claims of false, POV, flawed translations without even having read my sources, which would mean that you're slowing down the process of ameliorating this encyclopedia by putting void charges, which is why I keep bringing up this issue. In any case you still didn't answer either that issue or the other ones that outlined above. Regards. --CounterTime (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apology request.

Hello. I hope you apologize for your attacks and accusations such as that I'm a sock-puppet account linked to Reeves.ca, and as investigations have showed we aren't in any way related. Thanks in advance. 16:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)[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) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, RLoutfy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]