User talk:Uxorus

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

A barnstar for you!

		The Civility Barnstar
		Hello, Uxorus! I am the editor who reverted your original edits and left a pointer to the honorifics policy. I just wanted to say that I really appreciate that you took the time to read the policy and then came back to discuss it constructively on the talk page. Thanks and welcome, and I hope you have a long and happy editing career here! PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk pages

The purpose of Talk pages that accompany Wikipedia articles, policy pages, and guideline pages is to discuss the editing of the given page. If you find yourself wanting to make comments that do not address the editing of the page, but merely want to respond to one of the posters on some other matter (as you have been doing on the discussion of including an honorific or salutation when a certain religious figure is invoked, then the best place to make that comment would be on the user's Talk page... as I am doing now, on your Talk page.

As for your attempts to limit who discusses a matter with you in a public discussion, that's not really a power you have as a Wikipedia editor. The only place on Wikipedia where you, individually, can ban a user from posting is on your own User Talk page (i.e., this page.)

Thank you for seeking to improve Wikipedia. I hope that you find the energy to add missing information to this volunteer-driven knowledge project! --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Nat Gertler! I find you really humble and understanding. I was aware that wiki is not a platform for expressing my personal emotions. But some activities on that talk page made me felt like offended. Anyway, I did't knew that. Thanks! I'll try to follow that from now on Uxorus (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Like every other experienced Wikipedia editor, I was an inexperienced Wikipedia editor once upon a time... and like 99+% of such editors, I made some mistakes along the way. Wikipedia is an environment with a large amount of policies, guidelines, common practices, and traditions, and I think you'll find most of us understanding about someone who doesn't yet know or understand it all, particularly if you pay attention when any missteps are addressed... which you seem to be doing here, so good for you! --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thnanks! I hope experience is not all about edit counts! :v Uxorus (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes I know that for sure! Otherwise I was thinking of being banned from Wikipedia! Uxorus (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Durud

Hi Uxorus, I am still curious why you feel that durud is obligatory and not simply admirable. I have already mentioned The Study Quran does not use it and learn-islam.org class-9-durood does not mention an obligation. Why do you believe it is obligatory? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The book that you have mentioned is a translation of the Quran. Quran is the kalam of Allah. In Quran, Allah has adderssed Prophet Muhammad (SM) as Rasūl, Muddassir, Muzzammil and many more. Allah has directly mentioned him (O the messenger of Allah....). It is obligatory upon us, the ummah, to send salutation on his mention. I could have said more properly if I had access to that book. I had replied to your that question already. And you'll find the answer of your second question within the source you've shared. Uxorus (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Uxorus. It does not follow from the first four sentences of your reply that It is obligatory upon us, the ummah, to send salutation on his mention. The answer within the source I have shared is that it is admirable not obligatory. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is not just admirable but obligatory. So don't consider durud just as an honorific.

Having read the consequence of not saying durud after Prophet Muhammad (SM) from the hadith that I referred before and the explanation part of the source you shared, do you still think it is 'just simply admirable' and not obligatory?

It means it is not obligatory upon Allah to send durud upon Muhammad (SM) (Nauthubillah), for Allah is beyond any obligation. Everyone is obliged to Him and His commands. It is obligatory for us, the ummah of Prophet Muhammad (SM). Uxorus (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I hope you have read this part from the source carefully: Note In this Hadith, it appears that Jibraeel (alaihi as-salam) gave expression to three curses, upon which Rasulullah ﷺ said Aameen every time. In al-Durr al-Mansoor it is reported that Jibraeel (alaihi as-salam) advised Rasulullah ﷺ to say Aameen. Being an angel of such high mark, Jibraeel ‘s giving these curses is sure to be accepted. May Allah (Subhanahu wa Taala) in His infinite mercy grant us His help and save us from these three dangers. Uxorus (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand it is not obligatory upon Allah to send durud upon Muhammad. I can see that durud is recommended but, in all your replies, I just cannot see anything that points to it being obligatory.JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

If you understand that, then why you are expecting duruds to be mentioned after the name of prophet Muhammad (SM) in the Quran?

It is an online source with few words. It is surely not easy to cover everything in this short online courses like this one. In explanation of the hadith that I've mentioned before, in Fazayele Amal (page 25), it is said "the person is cursed who does not say durud after the mention of the name of Prophet Muhammad (SM). According to many Ulamas, it is 'obligatory' (wajib) to say durud right after the mention of Prophet Muhammad (SM). More punishments have been mentioned for those who do not say durud after the name of Prophet Muhammad (SM). In many hadiths they have been considered as wretched and miser. They have been addressed as oppressor, aberrant, even as condemnable to hell and INFIDEL. It is mentioned that he will be deprived of the sight of Prophet Muhammad (SM) 's face/appearance. In spite of getting immense beneficence from Prophet Muhammad (SM), who does not say durud upon him in return, it is natural for him to be compatible of any kind of punishment."

Isalm is not about collecting or publishing information, it is an entire life.

 Uxorus (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about collecting and/or publishing information. If durud is an obligation, I would like to include that fact in Wikipedia-but I need a WP:Reliable Source. However, if durud were an obligation, I would expect the Muslim authors of the Study Quran to follow the convention in their explanatory notes but they do not. I am asking you to throw light on this problem in my understanding. JorgeLaArdilla (talk)

Wikipedia is not life, right?

I have already given you the references of Fazayele Amal. And that's the best reference you'll get on durud's being an obligation. If you still don't believe me, and accusing that I've invented that durud is obligation, please go to any mufti/ khatib/ imam and ask them whether it is obligatory or not. Uxorus (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

As for the book, I would rather like to restrain from making any comments about the authors as I am not familiar with them. I am just letting you know that we follow writings/lectures/deeds/advices of Islamic scholars only after being 'confirmed' that he is unquestionably a scholar. That means the Ulamas unquestionably admit him as a scholar. All I would like to say is, it is just impossible for me to believe that a muslim whom Allah has given the courage and wisdom of translating the Quran will not be adding Durud after the name of Prophet Muhammad (SM). Uxorus (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Obligatory Times To Send durud (Salawat)

Hi Uxorus. In your opening comment at WP:MOS(Islam-related articles) you stated we have a religious obligation of saying durud after the name of Prophet Muhammad (SM).

Following your advice please go to any mufti, I have chosen Mufti Abu Layth. In this video, he does indeed send salawat but only once, in his second and third mention of the Prophet, he does not. This may not be the Deobandi way but is in accordance with this ref:

"Scholars deduce that:

(1) Sending durud upon the Prophet ﷺ at least once in person’s lifetime is obligatory (fard).

(2) It is mandatory (wajib) to send durud upon the Prophet ﷺ whenever a person hears his blessed name.

(3) If the Prophet’s name ﷺ is mentioned repeatedly in a sitting or gathering, then sending salawat only once will discharge a person’s obligation, but it remains recommended to say it each time the Prophet’s name ﷺ is mentioned."

I have now satisfied myself what is required of Muslims, and adding ﷺ to every mention of Muhammad in print is not an obligation. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 07:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The second point of your reference justifies that I have not invented durud as an obligation.

I still can't follow him without knowing , as the link you provided says about him “who makes use of social media to challenge traditional views of Islam. In doing so he has received much criticism from traditional Islamic scholars.” It is not only the Deobandies who say durud each time after uttering the name of Prophet Muhammad (SM). For example you can check this vedio of Mufti Ismail Menk:

in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TxUlYnzs7w

And by obligatory, of course I meant wajib. Google translator shows that. The second reference you gave is correct. I would like to discuss the matter with a scholar to know in more detail.

I appreciate your perseverance for knowing the truth. Thank you for that. Uxorus (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The origin of the practice of sending blessing on the Messenger (salallahu alayhi wasallam) JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Brother, I have already told you that I can't rely on him and also the reason why. Don't send me all these. I've told you that I'll know the truth from a scholar and will let you know. If I am wrong, I will set it right Insha-Allah. No embarrassment in that. Uxorus (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I will not send anymore. But remember your own words: We are Strictly Prohibited to Invent Something from Ourselves in Islam. Why would you then not the accept the word of an Islamic jurist qualified to issue fatwa on a point of sharia? Hopefully you now understand why Wikipedia can't rely on your preferred scholar, himself subject to Fazail-e-Amaal#Criticism. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The link says Ahl al-Hadith don't rely on this book. And I can't rely on Ahl al-Hadith. It would be easier for me to explain you if you were a muslim. Anyway, I don't think that this page is a right place to discuss all these.

And be sure that I rely on Fazayele Amal only after I have been confirmed from scholars. Uxorus (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

And by 'letting you know the truth' I meant whether durud is not obligatory in prints. Uxorus (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I hope you've read the second point of the reference you gave: "It is mandatory (wajib) to send durud upon the Prophet ﷺ whenever a person hears his blessed name." Uxorus (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I noted that it did not apply to Wikipedia, a textual as opposed to aural medium. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

You realized your reference as wrong, and you're still sending me new links to prove yourself right! Uxorus (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Though it is correct. Uxorus (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Q33:56: O believers! Invoke Allah’s blessings upon him, and salute him with worthy greetings of peace. You need to read Surah 63. Hypocrisy is the practice of engaging in behavior for which one criticizes another or claims to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

That's why 'it is just impossible for me to believe that a muslim whom Allah has given the courage and wisdom of translating the Quran will not be adding Durud after the name of Prophet Muhammad (SM).'

Look, brother, I have answers to your every word. But I'm not willing to do so. If my words have hurt you then I'm taking it back. I do apologise as I shold have understood your sensetives. Uxorus (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I have a question. Whatever discission comes from the scholar, will wikipedia not be calling it invalid for it's not being on online? Uxorus (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Another question, is it possible that a matter is true only when spoken and false when written? Uxorus (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

While we prefer material that is online -- if there's two equally-valid sources for a fact, pick the one that's online (and if there are two equal ones on line, pick the one that is free to read) -- we do not require that it be online. There are plenty of references on Wikipedia from books that are not available digitally. What we do require is that it be a reliable source and that it be verifiable -- something that one could look up. So if Jennifer Specialscholar says something in a book from a reliable publisher, yes, that can be cited, because anyone can (with some effort) get their hands on a copy of that book and verify it's what she said. But if she said the same thing in a speech that was not recorded in some form, no, you can't site that, because no one can reasonably verify that's what was said. Few of us have time machines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Then how can I make you believe what the scholar will say? As he is not an online person.. Uxorus (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

You will note at Fazail-e-Amaal#External links that Wikipedia provides Faza'il-e-A'maal in English; Faza'il-e-A'maal in French; and Faza'il-e-A'maal in Arabic. Unfortunately I see a need to remove the French translation. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Brother, if you're really interested in adding that durud is an obligation then why you're after a French translation instead of an English one? I've observed you have a good proficiency in English. Uxorus (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)