User talk:RiskAficionado/Archive 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello

Reference: Your message

I thank you for your message and convey my Ramadan greetings to you. As regards AE, I am also highly concerned and worried. He used to be very active. I do not understand any reasonm for such a long absence. May God keep him well! I am not sure of the notice, let us wait for few more weeks. I will try to sent wiki-mails to him. More people should mail him. Regards. --Bhadani 02:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Raids by Muslims

what about the saying of Prophet Muhammad for Abu Basir who started looting Caravans, he said: "Woe to his mother! What excellent war kindler he would be, should he only have supporters".Sahih al-Bukhari, 3:50:891 I think this saying shows that he was against any militant activity. TruthSpreader^Talk 02:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

How so? If you care to respond put it on my talkpage. Arrow740 03:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad as a diplomat

I'll try to help as much as I can. Cheers and thanks again for such a good article. --Aminz 07:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad's letter to Mukaukis

David Samuel Margoliouth in page 415 (p.365 of the book) of the his book has the image of the discovered letter of Muhammad to Mukaukis (believed by several scholars to be the actual document). David Samuel Margoliouth was a famous orientalist but wrote his book in 1905. I don't know if the pic is copyrighted. --Aminz 01:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I hope its copyright is released. The pic is taken from "the Cairene journal Hilal (editor: Mr. G. Zaidan)" Samuel says. Al-Hilal was "the most prominent Arabic literary-scientific journal well into the mid-twentieth century" --Aminz 01:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Jurji Zaydan died in 1914. God bless him. Can we use his works since he is died? --Aminz 01:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Al-Hilal was a journal itself :( --Aminz 01:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Nectar

of course, It appears that "sealed Nectar" should be considered a notable source documenting the Salafi point of view. Nobody ever said that notable sources must be neutral. If they are not neutral, however, they must be identified for what they are when they are cited. dab (ᛏ) 12:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Review updated

Thanks for pointing me that Sealed Nectar is secondary source. I've updated my review. — Indon (reply) — 16:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:

I know Itaqallah. I, myself, was confused why the original sources were writing it in that way. I had the very same observation. I justified it for myself that the academics either reject existence of all the letters or accept their existence. But you are right. It is better to move the sentences around. Cheers, --Aminz 08:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll quote it for you soon. Also, the major work on the article was done by you. Yeah! The current status of the article is not comparable with its previous status. Thank you very much. :) --Aminz 01:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Contributions required

Can you please help in improving article on The Quran and science? They will soon delete it if not extended and improved. Thank you. --- ابراهيم 01:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser request

You recently compiled and listed a case at request for checkuser. For an outcome to be achieved, we require you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the request for checkuser page. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. Daniel.Bryant 03:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC), checkuser clerk.

Please insert the code letter as soon as possible. Daniel.Bryant 05:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad as Diplomat RFC

Thanks for the kind words in response to my first RFC on my talk page. Sorry to see that there's such a frustrating situation over there, but sometimes these sorts of things can actually be just the catalyst for creating a really great article. I'll put the page on my (rather long) list of things to do, so maybe some day a few months from now, I'll hop in and help bring it from "Almost Good" to FAC, assuming you guys haven't done it first. --Alecmconroy 16:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Itmaam-i-hujjat

Salaam, Can you please have a look at this article and see if this can be improved as it has been nomineed for deletion. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 06:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The Quote

Hi Itaqallah,

I'll provide the quote soon. I know it doesn't take much time, but sorry for being late. --Aminz 20:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Good Job on the talk page of "Muhammad the diplomat" article. --Aminz 20:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Exact Quotes: Irfan Shahid's review of the article published in the Cambridge history of Arabic Literature:

"His presentation, however, could have been more effective: (1) the preelslamic material should have been clearly separated from the Islamic and this should have been reflected visually in the divisions of the chapter; (2) even the Islamic portion should have been divided in the interests of clarity into Muhammadan, Orthodox or Patriarchal, and Umayyad; (3) pree Islamic prose might have received more attention from Serjeant in view of his conclusions on literate pre-Islamic Arabia and since it is usually treated unceremoniously partly because of the ghosts of authenticity; (4) the discussion does not make a sharp distinction, as it should, between artistic and none artistic prose; (5) many of the documents are examined from the viewpoint of their contents rather than their form and literary qualities; (6) the position of Mubammad in the development of Arabic prose should have been more clearly and decisively treated; (7) the rejection of the authenticity of Mubammad’s letters to the rulers and monarchs is unjustified. Recent research has established the authenticity of the Letter to Heraclius, although Heraclius himself may never have received it and the embroideries surrounding the letter have, of course, to be rejected."

I'll provide the other quote for you soon. --Aminz 08:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I've missed the other paper by Nadia. TruthSpreader might have it. I can also download it tomorrow. Bye for now --Aminz 08:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think on that passage, Ifrin is trying to suggest the better presentation of what is written in the cambridge history of arabic literature. I don't think he is commenting on the content, but rather on the form. But I can send you the file. Cheers, --Aminz 00:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sent. --Aminz 00:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've responded to your email. I need to run now. Cheers, --Aminz 01:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

unintentional deletion

Wessam Reda 20:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry Itaqallah, somebody took off my talk and yours and when I replaced again, I didn't have your comments to add. Please feel free to add the finge minority part if you wish. Thanks for guiding me my dear friend.

Wessam Reda 20:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Dear friend Itaqallah, somebody is erasing my talk. It seems he doesn't like fringe minority talk like you ;o) Please help me find out what is happening to my talk everytime, I'm a new comer, and please accept a new friend for this prestigious page.

Wessam Reda 20:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The person's name is FaissalIF!!

Wessam Reda 20:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have posted this passage to FayssalIF, for your info

Dear editor, the article I'm writing sounds like a brainstorming fashion, but this is how I choose to write about Islam. It's my style of writing. Yet, if you read it carefully, you'll see that I'm giving solid definitions for "Hijab", "Four wives Marriage", "Islam by the sword", "English version of Quran", "Somking in Ramadan" and others. Please let me keep those definitions in Islam page, in a diplomatic way of writing.

Your criticism of me

• Many of the links you had were to my own talk page as an anon or to other people's talk pages. You're saying that I can't have debates with people on user talk pages?

• Otherwise I have to admit that parts of three of the quotes you linked to were out of place, and I'll keep from addressing things not regarding the article in question in the future.

• In general I think that criticism of the approach of editors to an article or to the entire article as a whole is appropriate on talk pages. My comment regarding Dawah was expressing my honest opinion about the article, and it is clear from the talkpage that I was far from alone. Maybe you should try to see it from another perspective.

• I only claimed to be "something of an expert" on theology after being brusquely told that I wasn't one.

• If someone else uses a talkpage inappropriately and I respond to what that person said, you should start your criticism with the person who started the debate. You have least one admin to take to task. Arrow740 03:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Islam

Hi Itaqallah,

I think there is currently a problem with the website. I can not get access to the articles. I think they are uploading Encyclopedia of Qur'an as well. If so, that would be great. --Aminz 12:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Barelwi

Please avoid a revert war Barelwi page.

Siddiqui 21:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for these wonderful edit at The Quran and Islam page . God bless you. Please keep doing some work and I will try to join when I have some time. --- ابراهيم 21:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Help in al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock

I am editing the Articles of both al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock. And the non muslims there keep reverting claiming that the Dome is not a mosuqe but rather a shrine or a temple. See discussions of each article please to have more idea on what has been going on. Thank you. Almaqdisi 11:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you

[1] --BostonMA ^talk 16:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Article

Salaam, What do you think of the article, which I sent you. You reckon, it is worth putting on wikipedia??? TruthSpreader^Talk 15:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Moore article

Where can I find it? Was it published in the Journal of the Islamic Medical Association, or the Journal of the Islamic Medical Association of North America (or both)? Please answer on my talk page. Arrow740 07:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Mubahala

Salam

I want to write something about this issue in Ali article. Please show me some sites which represent Sunni viewpoint.At first I wrote what I want in Eid al-Mubahila, then I want to copy some part of it in Ali. So please check it. God bless you.--Sa.vakilian 15:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Contact

Alikum Al-Salam, I wonder If there is anyway i can contact you on private? Thank you ColdFire 17:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you get my e-mail yet brother? ColdFire 03:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you --ColdFire 03:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for abiding to the rules of wikipedia. Though you do not enforce them when it comes to fellow Muslims you are the only one who doesn't break them in your own edits. I don't really understand why you're doing all this though. Arrow740 07:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You are Right

Salam

Yes you are right I did not actually take the pic "kaaba1.jpg' and "kaaba2.jpg", but rather scanned them from a book. I guess I made a mistake attributing them to me. I must correct this mistake. How can I do that?--Thameen 20:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Response

Why would I do you a favor when you reverted my additions without any proof that I was lying about where I got the information? Yes I have the books. In fact I have many others as well, and will have still more in a little bit. "it is equally as worse" you said. I thought english was your first language? You have gotten dumber the longer this has gone on, probably because you would have to be kind of dumb to believe that the embryological passages in the Quran are divinely inspired. I'm laughing as I'm writing this. I'll further respond on the talk page. Arrow740 18:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What's AI? If you want to take action against me for saying you've gotten dumber, then go for it. I was referring to your grammar by the way. I don't think English is your first language, as you claim. Arrow740 20:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

But maybe not since your removing the pictures as VANDALISM? Your edit summary pretend to be only one thing but then look! Funny how its always happening with you.Opiner 20:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You are taking so strict a line on my editions to the Quran and science that it is becoming vandalism. Keep in mind that action can be taken against an offending user. Arrow740 20:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing the Moore sentence was vandalism. He was indicating that there are other interpretations to that verse, that is highly topical. For the other stuff, Needham is referring to the wider Islamic contribution to embryology. It is debatable whether or not it should be included in "the relation of Islam to science." If you insists on removing it from here I'll put it in Islamic science. Arrow740 20:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And once and for all, "equally as worse" is not correct. It should be "equally as bad." Arrow740 20:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ask a native speaker of english about "equally as worse." You say the Moore quote is redundant but it is not, and since it is directly from the article, we will include it. Arrow740 20:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please email me at rajchola@gmail.com explaining how Jesus can be both in heaven and hell. Also how man can be made from nothing and from dirt (and clay). Arrow740 21:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Bucaille

"it seems that these are not merely Bucaille's own interpretations as he himself claims to have met with specialist linguists and qur'anic exegetes, Muslim and non-Muslim, before ever considering writing on the topic."

Please back this up with citations. If you can't I will take note of your lying for the RfD you have threatened me with and delete all references to Bucaille. Arrow740 22:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Not one name? This book is written by a man with no quranic, astronomy, or physics qualifications, he doesn't cite a single Quranic expert, and his book is not published by an academic publisher. It's out. Arrow740 23:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"It is important not to personalize comments that are directed at content and actions, but it is equally important not to interpret such comments as personal attacks." Arrow740 02:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What you did to the Ibn Qayyim quote is vandalism, in my mind. You changed it, I said it was vandalism, then you correctly identified its original meaning. So you must have understood the sentence. To alter it to the point where it expressed something which was - though more palatable to you - false, is vandalism. Arrow740 02:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that it was a good faith effort on your part. You indicated that you understood the sentence, so to change its meaning to fit your agenda (without having the source at hand) cannot be explained away. Also I am disturbed that you would re-insert a quote that you took issue with and I removed (the second Needham quote), without any explanation or note. Why would you do that other than to have a straw man to attack? Arrow740 06:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

However if things are not as they appear to be, I apologize. Arrow740 07:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The puppet

Yes I guess he was. Greenhornet wasn't a sock of any of the other people contributing though. Arrow740 23:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Article

I found an excellent article for Qur'an and science, [2]. The text can be seen here:[3]. TruthSpreader^Talk 14:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Question

Salaam, I actually tried to ask question from Sunnipath.com couple of times but they haven't been offering their service for question-answer. Secondly, I was just reading exegesis of Al-Fatiha by Ghamidi,[4] and I found interesting thing that ‘سَبْعًا مِنْ الْمَثَانِي’ is not "seven oft-repeating verses" rather "seven of those composed of pairs" in verse ^{[Quran 15:87]} (We have bestowed upon you seven of those composed of pairs i.e. the great Qur’an), which I think every Arabic literate person can appreciate this translation. I think this might be the basic verse on which Islahi found seven groups in Quran and Surahs in pairs. This fact is also alluded in Ahadith which calls Al-Fatiha as it epitomizes the whole Qur'an. John Esposito thinks that with this organization, the entire Qur'an emerges as a well-connected and systematic book. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 06:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The question related to second coming of Jesus (as) has already been answered by Gibril Haddad at:[5]. He wrote, The reasoning that `Isa, upon him peace, did not know that Christians would commit polytheism after him is unrelated to his descent from heaven at the end of times. According to Qur'an, this event is from day of judgement, hence Mr. Haddad is making a huge assumption that when prophet Jesus (as) will come back, he will still not see polytheism of his followers. TruthSpreader^Talk 05:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias

Hey Itaqallah, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 04:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

Hey Itaqallah, happy Eid Mubarak! I know you're one of Moslem scholars in WP, who has been tirelessly defending Islam-related articles for their truly neutral ones. Taqabalallahu minna wa minkum taqabal yaa kariim. Oh, and the picture is our traditional rice, called ketupat, usually served during Eid ul-Fitr. — Indon (reply) — 16:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

EID Mubarak

Salam Alikom and EID MUBARAK to you and all Muslims around the globe. may God bless you all for your time and effort.--Remo Gkardi 16:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Eid Mobarak!! --Aminz 03:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak!! --TruthSpreader^Talk 08:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak, all the best -- Samir धर्म 05:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Your RfC was improperly formatted. I have fixed it. Please review the policy, particularly point 4. Thank you. IronDuke 01:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Your summary is clearly not neutral, violating both the spirit and the letter of the policy. If you wish to continue poisoning the well, I won't stand in your way. Having done so, I hope you'll understand that an RfC is worthless under the circumstances. IronDuke 02:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Itaqallah, can you please write the RfC request as: "The dispute is over X. User Itaqallah think Y,Z, T, etc User IronDuke thinks M,N,P,..." --Aminz 02:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. It was only Aminz. Having said that, if you see that it is not the appropriate place to debate, why do you push POV in your summary of the dispute? Don't you see how that simply hurts your own point of view, as well as violating policy? IronDuke 03:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

New articles on Ka'aba

I have found some new articles on Ka'aba (from encyclopedia of religion). I would be happy to send those articles for you as well if you would like (BTW, did you recieve my previous emails? ) Cheers, --Aminz 06:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Whenever you are free, it is not important. hey, I would like to thank you because through the process of looking for these articles I found impressive sources in our library. I realized that it is much easier to go to library and edit wikipedia rather than doing so at home. Thanks. --Aminz 06:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Award

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Barnstar awarded to Itaqallah by TruthSpreader for his tireless work on Muhammad as a diplomat and Islam and slavery.

--TruthSpreader^Talk 09:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The link on the Persecution of ex-muslims

Itaqallah You took out the link on the Persecution page to wikiIslam again saying its "not a reliable nor even notable source. It is not usable as a citation here. please keep your advertising campaign off the wiki".

I'm interested in knowing why you think its not reliable or notable.

thanks,--JohnsAr 18:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• not reliable: "wiki"s are generally not legitimate sources for one to use as citation due to its very nature. even self-citing on wikipedia is generally not looked upon favorably. any kind of citing of other wikis easily fails WP:V. take a look also at WP:RS for what we generally consider citable material.

• not notable: the website is pretty much unknown, and there is no academic expertise behind the material. that it is almost unknown to the vast majority of the internet community (bar the FFI users who assumedly established it) and miserably fails WP:GOOGLE (the number of unique results should be typically well into the thousands- hundreds of thousands when it comes to a widely discussed topic like Islam) tells us that it is currently not considered even remotely significant, as a website nor as a resource for information.

for these reasons, as well as the fact that there seem to have been several new users advocating advertising this website, i do believe it is entirely justified to label propogation of the particular website in this manner as an "advertising campaign". seemingly, several other editors concur. ITAQALLAH 19:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking this up with Wikipedia. They say wikis are not reliable sources of information. Is wikipedia not a Wiki itself?. Wikipedia says there are exceptions to the rules of not including wikis as sources. Explain why wikiislam is not an exception to the rule for "Self-published sources". --JohnsAr 20:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

read the section, you may well find out. it totally fails WP:V and WP:RS, wiki or non-wiki. that it is a wiki makes it all the more ridiculous. ITAQALLAH 20:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiIslam is an exception to the rule because it is not a self-published source. The policy writes:

"For exceptions, see the section on self-published sources." And then it says:

"A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication."

So as you can see WikiIslam qualifies as a resource. If you dont agree, I will take it to the Talk pages and have a discussion where you and others like you can try to prove why WikiIslam is not a reliable source. --JohnsAr 20:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

it is rather audacious of you to suggest that it is upon anyone other than you and "others like you" who must do the "proving". the burden is upon the claimant, a source by default starts as unreliable and is then proven to be reliable. as for your cherry picking of policy/guideline pages, you clearly missed the contextual elements:

"Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment."

... "Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own name or known pen-name and not anonymously."

there are many such excerpts from both WP:V and WP:RS proving that wikis are not citable. in fact, wikis are especially unreliable. self-published sources are those which have undergone no scholarly peer-review, and is not authorised by an independant press. this is inclusive to material placed on websites such as wikis. if "wikiislam" is not a self-published resource (which is a false notion, posting it up for viewing is the act of "self-publishing") that makes its status even worse: it is then simply unauthorised (i.e. unintended for public viewing) material slothed onto a medium by a few internet phantoms. read the pages in their correct spirit instead of attempting to construct straw men, and please do not waste other editors' time. thank you. ITAQALLAH 20:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If wikis are unreliable, is Wikipedia unreliable as well?

All of your above also disqualifies many OTHER sources linked on articles on Islam. They're written by anonymous authors or pen names (e.g. Ali Sina who even has an article on Wikipedia, much to your distaste). None of the articles linked on his website or many other anti-Islamic sites are "peer reviewed" and niether do pro-Islamic links suceed in qualifying all for all these requirements. But they're still on Wikipedia. See? Its going to be hard for you to defend this. Contents of even real websites can change any time, depending on the website administrator, therefore, this is not a vald rule as well for excluding wikis as credible sources. I will sometime take up this discussion with other people on the Wiki. Lets see how many links on Wikipedia prove to be "peer reviewed" and written by "real people". --JohnsAr 21:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

it is not my concern if you fail to comprehend WP:V. wiki does not cite itself or unreliable sources, it collects information from established, noteworthy and reliable sources. wiki cannot cite itself as its content will always change. if wiki produces a sourced assertion, you cite the source and not wiki. again, the points you bring up are all moot per your neglecting of reading through the policy pages thoroughly before replying. the very least requirement is that a website is notable, and i have already demonstrated why yours is not. Ali Sina is a notable critic, his website receives a large number of unique referrals, he is a notable personality despite being anonymous, that is why he has his own article. he is rarely cited on WP however, because far more scholarly sources exist out there. per posts like this (was that done by you or Matt?), i am confident that wikiislam will become nothing more than a propoganda outlet for FFI. ITAQALLAH 21:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

<reset indent>"Lets see how many links on Wikipedia prove to be "peer reviewed" and written by "real people"." - citing in an article and external linking are two different things entirely. notability is the criterion for linking, which wikiislam does not pass. the standards as required by WP:V for citations and assertions within articles is not something wikiislam meets either, and frankly is not likely to meet (ever). ITAQALLAH 21:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for resetting the indent. I'm not discussing this matter with you further here as its fruitless. As I said, I'll take this up sometime with people who have authority on Wikipedia. Their decision will hold. As for "notability", every website is new for that matter at some point. As for WP:V and what not, like I said other articles also dont qualify for all those requirements. Freedom of expression always wins in the end, no matter how hard you try, so good luck. --JohnsAr 21:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

you may wish to consider raising the subject of usability wrt "wikiFFI" on the appropriate pages such as Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. also, do check through the archives for the general consensus on not citing other wikis, and on wiki not citing itself.. ITAQALLAH 21:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This user has asked you "If wikis are unreliable, is Wikipedia unreliable as well?" The answer is, yes, Wikipedia is unreliable. That is why WP:RS states we cannot use Wikipedia as a source in any article. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab! by that manner, all links on Wikipedia that refer to a Wiki website should be taken out. Right? This is not the case as you can see. Is anyone else on Wikipedia protesting about links to a wiki site? NO. Only you guys are, because its a site critical of Islam. You guys have always battled links to anti-Islamic articles and even anti-Islamic content on WikiPedia from the beginning but you couldnt even stop a creation of an article on Ali Sina so there - you cannot silence freedom of expression, no matter what you do, remember that. Due to lack of time (and for your pleasure), I will not pursue links to WikiIslam anymore here. Hopefully other people will step in. --JohnsAr 00:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I see now. People say wikis are not a good reference however I disagree. Any website can be changed for that matter at any time - its not just wikis. There are other ways a website can be introduced on Wikipedia. A page can be made on WikiIslam, e.g. like this one here. You guys are welcome to help out on the construction, whenever people start making that page. --JohnsAr 00:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab, the notability will come with time. The site is new. Watch out for a page on "Wikis on Islam" and good luck on the "deconstruction" of that page because a page Christian wikis already exists. --JohnsAr 00:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"People say wikis are not a good reference however I disagree" - in fact, it is Wikipedia policy states that resources akin to wikis are not good references, and generally not even citable in the slightest. attempting to circumvent wiki policy/guidelines when it is crystal clear in this regard would be a bad idea. generalizing the opposition isn't a good idea either: a variety of editors have opposed to the inclusion of wikiFFI. ITAQALLAH 06:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I already said that wikipedia policy states itself that there are EXCEPTIONS to the rule of including Wiki's as references. Only Muslim editors have opposed including of WikiIslam. Thats self-explanatory because they've always oppossed anything thats against Islam.--JohnsAr 11:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

please refrain from personal attacks, you have been warned regarding this before. last time i checked, Zora and Patstuart were not muslim. yes, there are exceptions, though you clearly haven't read the policy on what exactly those exceptions are. wikiislam is not one of them, and is never likely to be, as much as you would hope. that is something you will have to accept. ITAQALLAH 17:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not attacked you personally, stop making false accusations. Oh WI will be back for sure, at some time - you can count on that. Like BhaiSaab, you have no idea why WI is not an exception to the rule. I'll be making my case though in the mean time, so good luck in the defense though I hope I dont run into you again. If I do, make sure your arguments are strong. --JohnsAr 17:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

do spare me the rhetoric... entertaining though it is. yes, you currently have no justification for using a wiki as a citation. Wikipedia is extremely clear on this point, and WP:V/WP:RS in particular totally devasate any aspiration of yours for using wikipedia as your personal soapbox. strangely, it seems you have trouble reading those parts of the policy which clearly dismiss usage of wikis and the like. you wished for your wikiFFI to be the unique exception: sorry. there is nothing about it deserving exception, and is at the laughable end of the notability spectrum. if anyone needs "good luck", it will be you with your attempt to circumvent wikipedia policy to cater for your blatant wiki advertising. so: "good luck". ITAQALLAH 18:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The Sealed Nonsense

"...except the general act of linking to the website to prejudice editorial opinion..."

Why would a link to the text be "prejudicial?" Seeing something for oneself is the very opposite of prejudice. It is my hypothesis that this source can only survive as an unreviewed footnote; one look at the text and it will be rejected by all fair-minded editors. Therefore, I've decided to link to it so that editors can review the tormented nonsense that you and a handful of others are adding to Wikipedia. That you object to the link says it all; were it anything other than fundamentalist rubbish, you'd link to it yourself.Proabivouac 07:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This book has no credentials at all beyond various Islamic institutions patting one another on the back. Instead of "MWL" let's spell it out: Muslim World League. Salafis love this book, no question about it, but it has no scholarly or academic standing whatsoever.Proabivouac 08:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It is an Islamic university. What discoveries, what important papers, have proceeded from this font of specifically Islamic knowledge? If I am correct, the answer is none whatsoever; it is not reputable at all. Among Saudis themselves, what is the more reputable degree, Islamic U, or a good English or American school?Proabivouac 08:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"The main objectives of the university are, as mentioned on their website:

• To convey the eternal message of Islam to the entire world by means of dawah, call to Islam. We aim to do this through University education and post-graduate studies.

• Inculcating and fostering the community upon practicing the teachings of Islam and worshiping the only true God, Allah alone, with utmost sincerity and devotion."

It's not looking good...Proabivouac 08:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

the discussion is getting rather long. please restrict it to your talk page to maintain continuity. ITAQALLAH 08:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Deviance - Ibtida'

As-salam alaikum Itaqillah

I have seen the changes you introduced about Islam. I have to say that your position is deviant and your line is far from the diminant Sunni way. There are explicit tendency to prefer one view and you violate the Wikipedia neutrality. You are a deletionist and missguided fellow muslim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iminig (talk • contribs)

wa 'alaikum as-salaam. thank you? ITAQALLAH 16:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)