Saying "by nature" will just confuse the reader. It's better not to go there and leave it simple as possible. And that is correct too because Islam in no way considers him the son of God and the article is about an Islamic topic and not only compared to christianity. 20:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Saying that he was not the son of God means exactly what is stated. I don't see confusion. However instead of going into "by nature" maybe we should just say that "he was not the son of God but human". That should get rid of confusion. 21:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I am afraid that all your edits today to 'criticism of islam' have been lost because it was restructured on the basis of the version just before your edits. I invite you to make your edits the current version. You might wish to include your responses to the criticism under the 'responses to criticism' section of the page, which is where people will naturally look for such responses, and which would benefit from some good contributions and edits. 129.12.200.48 14:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aminz, I know I need to work on the Criticism of Islam article, but I'm just swamped. The cartoon controversy has attracted many new editors to Wikipedia, many of whom are filling Islam-related articles with nonsense. Also, have to leave soon to do some volunteer work for my Zen group. Will work on article when I can. Zora 22:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I really don't know. You would be tremendously better off by asking either FayssalF or Wilis.azm. According to their babels, they are proficient in the language, where I just a know some of the basics. Pepsidrinka 01:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aminz, I will be busy for the next day or two, but when I finish up i will definitely look into for you. I could say stuff off the top of my head, but i prefer to give you some quotes from classical references.Wilis.azm 09:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The Khalifa criticism would be a good addition to the Rashad Khalifa article because it is his theory. --a.n.o.n.y.mt 23:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone left a test4 warning template on your page, I have no idea why, you clearly didn't deserve a test4. If you have any problems please let me know. Thanks! Tawker 08:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aminz, sometimes an article gathers a slew of editors, and you can't change a comma without criticism. Then some editors leave, other editors get busy elsewhere, and the interest dies. I have a feeling that this is particularly prevalent in the non-science articles, where there are relatively few editors compared to the number of articles.
I've had a cold and have been letting most things slide. I'll look at the article when I can. Zora 17:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you didn't get my response to your feedback request. I left a response on my talk page but I will add one here. The article is going well. Try to keep the article short, I remember that a lot of it was messy. And I agree with what Zora said. If Zora or I come back to the article and work on it you will get a slew of editors warring on it. But I have seen some of your edits to the article and they are good. I will give some better feedback later and maybe ask you to revert some ;). --a.n.o.n.y.mt 12:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you're not familiar with the WP:CV-policy. Pages that infringe upon copyright should always be blanked, and it should never be requested for them to be moved to another Wikimedia-project. Copyright violation is copyright, on Wikipedia..and elsewhere.SoothingR 08:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You appeared to be asking me about an edit you made on crit of Islam, but i am sorry, didnt quite understand. What did you mean? 129.12.200.49 21:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I have put in a proper reference for the question of torture of Kinana, so it should be left in. However, i have also mentioned in the next sentence that it is disputed. I do not think it is the same issue as Banu Quraiza. Incidentally, congratulations on the 'Muslim responses' section. I see it is much improved! 129.12.200.49 15:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have just noticed that you have discussed various edits of mine on the Crit of Islam talk page, including one which made your "blood boil". I am sorry to hear that you were so stressed. I assure you that all my edits are made in good faith, and i have no desire to be be unreasonable in my criticism, as you can see from my comment on your talk page in the above section entitled 'about your edits', in which i invite you to improve Muslim responses. Please remember that the whole page is clearly marked as disputed, so there is no need to get stressed. If you wish to disagree with things, you can always simply make an addition to the text disputing the particular fact. Unfortunately, I am always very busy, but I will try to look at your points on the talk page whenever i have time. 129.12.200.49 21:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
God willing i will post a response on the discussion page of the Rashad Khalifa article ASAP. i was just in the middle of something important when you asked the question. God thus sets a formidable and exacting test for me, all praise be to Him alone.
i need to finish something before i can draft a proper response, thank you for your patience, God loves the patient.
[4:25] ...To be patient is better for you...
[11:49] ...Therefore, be patient. The ultimate victory belongs to the righteous...
[40:77] You shall be patient, for GOD's promise is truth...
etc.
[39:17-18] ...Give good news to My servants. They are the ones who examine all words, then follow the best. These are the ones whom GOD has guided; these are the ones who possess intelligence.
and most importantly...
[17:36] You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.
interestingly, the Arabic word for patience occurs exactly 19 times in the Quran. may God bless and guide you in the meantime!
God has arranged everything for me perfectly. just the other day i was asked about the Alef-counts of the frequencies regarding the Quranic Initials. it seems that the data won't be included on Wiki anyways, since Zora seems to think it is an attempt at proselytizing. i can assure you, and anyone else interested, that it is not. i simply wish to report what was discovered. in fact i am always very careful to refer to the miracle as "claimed" or "proposed", althought i'm sure you can guess i believe in it beyond any doubts. God be glorified! :)
the entire basis for the mathematical miracle is the Quranic initials, in fact that is how Dr. Khalifa discovered the mathematical composition of the Quran. he started off as many others have: trying to figure out what the initials meant! approaching the end of 1973, he had final counts of the frequencies, but nothing on 19. the oldest existing publication of anything 19-related was in January 1974. 74 marks the emergence of the 19 pattern.
we must keep in mind that the intial counts only went on until around 1976. the technology used was primative, at best, and therefore recounts were conducted in 2002, using better, more sophisticated technology. everything was the same except the Alef-counts.
we must be consistent. whenever an initial set occurs in more than one sura, it *always* means that the GRAND TOTAL will be divisible by 19, unlike the flawed counts of the 1970s. HM occurs multiple times, ALM does, and ALR does. the HM counts are about interlocking suras, which makes the miracle very intricate.
H.M. (Ha Mim)
Seven suras are prefixed with the letters “H“ and “M;” Suras 40 through 46. The total occurrence of these two letters in the seven H.M.-initialed suras is 2147, or 19x113. The detailed data are shown in Table 3. Naturally, the alteration of a single letter “H” or “M” in any of the seven H.M.-initialed suras would have destroyed this intricate phenomenon.
Table 3: Occurence of the Letters "H" and "M" in the Seven H.M.-Initialed Suras
Sura Frequency of Occurence
No. "H" "M" "H+M"
40 64 380 444
41 48 276 324
42 53 300 353
43 44 324 368
44 16 150 166
45 31 200 231
46 36 225 261
292 1855 2147
(19x113)
444, 324, 353 and so on are NOT multiples of 19. *the grand total is.* the accumulative HMs, spanning each sura, produces a grand total frequency which is a multiple of 19.
therefore, everytime an initial set occurs accross multiple suras, the GRAND TOTAL is a multiple of 19. this was proven by the 2002 recounts. Dr. Khalifa's errors in counting in the 70s were corrected, and in the end it was found that ***anytime an initial set spans multiple suras, the grand total frequency is a multiple of 19***
let us compare the originals with the recounts:
ORIGINAL ALM: 19874 = 19 X 1046
2002 ALM: 19874 = 19 X 1046 (same)
ORIGINAL ALR: 9462 = 19 x 498
2002 ALR: 9481 = 19 X 499 (different, but still conforms)
ORIGINAL ALMR: 1482 = 19 X 78
2002 ALMR: 1482 = 19 X 78 (same)
ORIGINAL ALMS: 5320 = 19 x 280
2002 ALMS: 5301 = 19X 279 (different, but still conforms)
in short, and i hope i'm being clear and simple, the total frequencies are always (always!) multiples of 19. ALMR only occurs once, and thus the total for its sura (13) is a multiple of 19. ALMS only occurs once, and thus the total for its sura (7) is a multiple of 19. HM occur across numerous suras, and thus the total for all its suras (40-46) is a multiple of 19. ALM and ALR both occur spanning multiple suras, and the grand total frequencies are multiples of 19.
the miracle was not broken, not even in the least, by the recounts. it was affirmed and strengthened, since the method is now 100% consistent. the total occurences of every single Quranic initial, in ALL the suras where the initial appears, are multiples of 19.
therefore, with regards to your specific question, it is true that the count for ALM in sura 2 is 9901 (not a multiple of 19), but the total for every ALM for all 6 suras involved is 19874 (19 X 1046). this is because ALM spans numerous suras, and so all must be included for the total frequency count. compare the following 2 charts:
Sura 2: (A) 4504 (L) 3202 (M) 2195 = 9901 (not a 19-multiple)
total ALM in all suras = 19874 (19 X 1046)
Sura 40: (H) 64 (M) 380 = 444 (not a 19-multiple)
total HM in all suras = 2147 (19 X 113)
i hope i have answered your question, i wrote this in a hurry though. my email is [email protected] if you'd like to respond. i don't like corresponding via Wiki because i don't get a chance to be on Wiki often, but i have my gmail notified on constantly.
I think you should agree that Jesus was accused for blasphamy and was killed. Why does it surprise you?
I think that I have plenty of reasons not to agree, and it surprises me because even if we are to assume that the New Testament's account is true (I don't), the fact is that even in those accounts Jesus is killed by the Romans for political sedition. You might find it interesting that there are only four accepted forms of capital punishment (each for a different type of offense) in Jewish law and that crucifixion, a Roman method, is not one of them - neither the New Testament nor the Quran claim that Jesus was stoned. It is that simple fact that makes it obvious to me that Jesus was not killed by Jews for blasphemy. Yes, in the Gospels we have the Sanhedrin "handing over" Jesus to the Romans, but when one reads the relevant evidence provided in external sources as to how this body was run and how it worked, and when I furthermore read the New Testament and see how the Sanhedrin in the New Testament violated all these fundamental rules, it leads to me one of the following conclusions: (a) the Sanhedrin of the New Testament violated all its rules of operation and unjustly condemned an innocent man to death, or (b) this discrepancy tells me simply that the New Testament is an inaccurate and biased account written by people who were trying to make things sound a certain way. As I don't even know that Jesus existed or that the New Testament or Quranic stories have a bit of truth in them, I maintain that I should not "agree that Jesus was accused for blasphamy and was killed." I understand that you come from your perspective and I come from mine. The result then is that since neither of us know that ours is true, neither of us should expect the other to agree with certain points that are based on already believing in certain parts of that perspective.
Regarding the issue of hand, ignoring the cases of James and Jesus brought up, you were right that my addition should state that Jews now never execute people for blasphemy or idolatry. Of course the reason why is that once that Sanhedrin was dissolved, there was never a body with the legal power to make proscribe such punishments. So I have added that text to the article and I hope it is satisfactory. Your edit summary was not offensive, and I think that what I was really "surprised" by was that instead of just adding to the article the reservation that Jews don't execute people for blasphemy or aspostacy now, the whole thing was reverted and references to James and Jesus were provided as an explanation. Thanks very much though for your concern, and take care. Yid613 23:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of the Wikipedia community who has contributed to articles related to Islam, I thought you might be interested in a project I am trying to get going: OpenIslampedia. Please visit the site for more information.
While it is permissible to re-use content from Wikipedia (as long as it is cited appropriately and released under their GNU Free Documentation License), it is my hope that we will be able to develop new content for OpenIslampedia, more in accordance to the needs and desires of our community and audience.
Interested? Please consider joining us! As you probably know from working in Wikipedia, every contribution counts, no matter how small.
Ulises Ali Mejias
UlisesAli 16:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aminz, I didn't make up that law -- I forget who did. It was on the Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.sf.fandom, which is nicknamed RASEFF by science fiction and fantasy fans (also known as fen, a funky plural used to show off). So credit it to RASEFF. Zora 07:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wait, I could ask there -- do you want me to ask? The person might have left the group, but he or she might still be there. Zora 07:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yid613, I think Nashooz is not mere disobedience. The act should be at least unrighteous. If not, no need to discuss it. Please change the article directly and I'll look it up later --Aminz 07:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I articulated the point clearly enough on the talk page. I have no idea whether nashooz refers to wife disobedience or not. My bringing it up on the talk page was not meant assert that it does refer to disobedience. It was meant to imply that since there are both Muslims who believe that it does refer to disobedience (as I proved with the link to the website) and others (like you) who believe it doesn't (or as you have clarified above, that it doens't necessarily). Therefore, if I edited the article to state that these two interpretations exist within the Muslim community, changing the current version, which says definitively (and rather POV) that it doesn't necessarily refer to disobedience, would you be ok with that? Personally I can't think of any reason why one would object. Since I have proved with the link and your comments that both views exist, I think the article should make it clear that both views exist. That's all. Thanks. Yid613 07:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please rename the title of the file :"IslamicDivorce.jpg" to "IslamicStonning.jpg". I don't know who to do it. Thanks--Aminz 01:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea how to do it myself. I guess you can always save it locally on your machine, and upload with new filename.--LordRahl 19:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I will respond to your statement regarding abrogation and latest edits concerning the reciprocity, as well as any responses your have written by then, tomorrow. My midterm was pretty good, thank you for asking. And believe it or not I have also been interested in learning about the musical instruments of other Semitic cultures (such as that of the Arabs) as well. Goodnight and talk to you tomorrow. Yid613 10:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded (1) to the section on the reversion of Ashmoo's edits (2) your bringing up of Qur'an 9:3-6 regarding in indirect relation to abrogation (I think this is the longest reponse yet). I still have to (3) respond to whether or not the quotes you provided prove that the Golden Rule exists in Islam, which I will do tomorrow. Thanks, and don't stress out responding immediately. It's not like we have a deadline or anything. Hehe. Yid613 10:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your detailed responses as well. Just to let you know, I've seen what you have so far but to avoid confusing myself will wait until you're done before responding myself, as you have done before. I am also still working on the Golden Rule hadiths, and just a reminder, we still need to work out the edits originally changed by Ashmoo that we later discussed. As someone who is in college as well, I do understand being busy, and so don't be pressured to rush and stress yourself out over this. I appreciate the discussions. Thanks, and have a good weekend. Yid613 05:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what I should do. Re: I don’t want to answer your sentences one by one since I am afraid that my language becomes offensive. All I can say, I have my opinion, you have yours. I am not interested in continuing our discussion. Have nice times Does this apply to that paragraph, to the issue about Surah 9, or to the whole section? I don't want to be disrespectful, but if you on the other hand still want me to reply I want to know. Yid613 08:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I hope you are having a good week. Luckily for me, my school uses the quarter system and so I have finals coming up. Anyway, I will give the responses by the end of the week, as well as the responses to the section about Ali Sina/Golden Rule and anything else I have left to do. I will also honor your request to try to bring the discussion to an eventual close through the "agree to disagree", though this will obviously work better for some issues than other ones. While I agree that both you and I should try our best to avoid offending each other by direspecting the person, you need not worry about "offending" me with your ideas. For ideas can be rationally scrutinized and analyzed, and at the end of the day bad ideas can be dismissed without an effect on the respect that the person deserves. This is how I will respond to what you said, and in fact I truly thank you for doing this throughout our conversations; you have consistently responded to my ideas and not to me. I am especially grateful since every other Muslim I have talked whether on the internet or in person regarding Islam could not manage to do that. And another thing, I know this may appear to be rude since it is none of my business, but when surfing I observed that you asked ZoraWill I be doomed to hell if I don't believe in Hinduism?. Although I am not Hindu, I know that the answer is no, and will go far enough to say that Islam and traditional Christianity are the only "major" religions who have such a concept (going to hell for not believing). Why, some religions don't even have a hell. :) Talk to you in a few days. Yid613 03:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to apologize for. It's all fine. I don't know what "becoming secure of the wrath of God", but as you said you will explain that. In response to your statement that your assumption that other religions send nonbelievers to hell is because of being a Muslim, I would say that you are right. But since I believe that actions are of ultimate importance, if you think that unbelievers will go to hell but yet treat them with respect and dignity, it does not matter what you believe. Lastly, I see that you divided the section of the talk page into three. I thank for you for doing this, because it allows me to organize how I am going to pace my responses. Hence I have just completed the first section, the next I will do tomorrow afternoon or night, and etc. Thanks and take care. Yid613 08:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I am sorry that I have been absent the past couple days. Just to make it clear, I haven't ditched the discussion but rather have my hands full. If it's ok with you, I'll wait in finishing my responsing in Talk:Criticism of Islam until this weekend(1) because of all the stuff I have to turn in and study for the end of the quarter, and (2) I wanted to do some more research on the context of Surah 9 before answering back. Again, I appreciate both the discussion and your patience. When I get back, if you still think that help is needed with Dhimmi, I will be glad to work on that as well. Of course, before doing so I will read everything in the mediation page regarding it. Thanks and take care. Yid613 06:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 26% for major edits and 0% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 0 minor edits in the article namespace.)
This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 04:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid i will be contributing very little over the next three months, (stupidly busy) but i am sure you will continue to improve articles! And i will contribute when i have a moment free. N-edits 02:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aminz, it is not for WP to debate whether or not Muhammad is a prophet. Christian-Muslim debates are particularly beside the point because not all editors and readers are Christian or Muslim. I'm a Buddhist -- arguments from the Bible leave me completely unimpressed. As they would also fail to impress atheists, agnostics, Sikhs, Hindus, Confucianists, etc. Zora 07:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that there is a place for Christian-Muslim debates. Do we need one? I suppose you could start an article on Christian-Muslim dialogue if you're determined. The problem is that there are so MANY different kinds of Christians and Muslims that you're talking about thousands of possible interactions.
I have a book that's a dialogue between my old Zen teacher and a Jesuit priest. They both do Zen meditation and they're comfortable with each other. It's an interesting conversation, but it is not at all the same thing as a conversation between, say, a Jehovah's Witness and a Jodo Shinshu devotee.
Perhaps you could just list books and websites. Maybe that would be of interest to people, and not constitute original research. Zora 08:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very bad idea for an article, in my opinion. It sounds as if you want to use the article to convince people that Muhammad is a prophet -- which is totally contrary to the WP ideal of NPOV, neutral point of view. You couldn't even get a good "History of ideas about Muhammad's prophethood: out of it, since so far as I know, no Muslims have ever opposed the notion, and no Christians have ever accepted it. Zora 08:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have the Criticism of Islam article because various editors kept trying to insert aggressively anti-Muslim opinions and criticism into the Islam article, and accused the regular editors of prejudice when we kept removing it. So we gave them their own article to play with ... though they seem to have lost interest, leaving you to turn it into a defense of Islam. At least that's my cursory impression of it now. A defense of Islam article would be completely superfluous. Zora 09:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want your own article, then put something up on your own website. If you want to be able to work on an article without having to argue every sentence, then I'd suggest picking some obscure topic that no one has researched and writing an article about that. People are keen to argue about Islam, but less keen to argue about Abu-Lu'lu'ah. But the latter article is a stub and could use some work -- especially to give the Shi'a side of the story. I'm sure there must be one. Zora 09:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aminz, no one "deserves" an article. This is a group project.
If you want to discuss with non-Muslims, you might feel happier doing it in person. A Unitarian church or a Quaker meeting house would be full of nice people who would be happy to do Christian-Muslim dialogue. A Quaker meeting house might actually feel comfortable to you -- there's little overt Christian religiosity, and they spend most of their time in quiet contemplation, waiting for the Holy Spirit to speak through them. Most of the time he/she/it doesn't. So it's more like Zen meditation or dhikr (the quiet kind). Zora 10:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We can always have a separate article for this , with tonns of data . F.a.y.تبادله خيال/c 13:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"rv. Pecher, please be NPOV" Please don't use the edit summaries to dialogue with the other editors. It's best to just briefly describe your edit. Everyone wants NPOV, we just don't always agree on what that is. Dhimmi has been somewhat contentious, so I'm glad to see you editing there. Maybe with more editors concensus will be less difficult to achieve. Tom HarrisonTalk 02:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply;
I'm limiting my work on this article to monitoring process; I'm trying to avoid discussing content. Taking your points in order:
1) I think we can all agree that "Lewis says X" will have more support than "X is so;"
2) "I am well aware..." It has to be supported by verifiable citation; We can't substitute personnal knowledge. "...some shia scholars have pointed that out;" That's exactly what we need. An easier way to get a balanced article is to not remove information, but to add more information;
3) If it's irrelevant but otherwise harmless, I suggest leaving it alone.
Finally, "I thought my edits were fair and was surprised when they got reverted wholesale." Well, yes. I expect everyone feels that way. We all mean well, we just disagree. Best wishes, Tom HarrisonTalk 14:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's getting into a lot of detail for an article that's already too long. Do you think that you could spin that off into a subsidiary article? That would be an interesting article. Read Momen Moojan's book on Shi'a Islam, Introduction to Shi'ism. Investigation into Barelvi beliefs would also be interesting -- they're nominally Sunni, but the beliefs re the eternal omnipresence of Muhammad are certainly reminiscent of the Shi'a. Bektashi beliefs too -- they're supposed to be a Sunni/Shi'a hybrid sect. Zora 11:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, just START the article, and other people can fill it in. I'll wait a few days, and if you don't do it, I'll make a start. Zora 09:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Title. That is a hard one. This is an aspect of kalam, theology, I'd suppose, so you could call it Muslim theology of prophethood. Or Nubuwwa and kalam, but then no-one would understand it. There's more to it than just sinlessness -- there's also pre-existence (as in the Shi'a doctrine of the 14 Pure Souls who were the medium by which the universe was brought into existence), infallibility, and omnipresence, which I understand is the Barelvi doctrine. If I were writing a magazine article, I'd call it "Muhammad -- human messenger or more than human?" Muslim beliefs as to the nature of Muhammad? Maybe that will do for now. Titles can always be changed. Once they're linked everywhere it's a lot of work to change the references, but when you're just starting an article, it's OK to have a less than perfect title and change it when you get more input. Zora 09:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Momen only devotes a few sentence to the Doctrine of the Fourteen Pure Souls, so I may have misunderstood it. Why don't you start with an article on that, and then move on to the sinlessness article? Zora 10:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, when you say "he", you are talking about me. The article clearly attributes quotes to specific historians; there is no need to attrbiute each and every sentence in the article, especially because the everything written there is referenced. However, if you have some specific, rather than general, suggestions on this matter, we can discuss them. Please stop removing the image of Maimonides from the article: he is one of the most famous dhimmis in history and the article discusses his experiences, so whichever way you look the image is relevant to the article. PecherTalk 21:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, may I ask you to be more specific; otherwise, it's rather difficult to talk. PecherTalk 22:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you have well-sourced and authoritative opinions on the Shi'a issue, feel free to add them. PecherTalk 22:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you and Pecher can work together to stabilize the article. I've left a note on Talk:Dhimmi.
There is no need to attribute everything in the article to a particular scholar, unless there is a conflict of opinions on a certain matter. I do not see any disagreement on the Shi'a issues so far. PecherTalk 16:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I and Pecher have also had discussions regarding the dhimmi article. He reverted my edits for several times without even discussing them. His logic is that “I am twisting the sourced material”. I think Pecher's edits have 3 problems (though some of his edits are good):
1. He is assuming that whatever some particular scholars has said is a fact. Instead of writing them as the opinion of some scholar he writes them as a fact. "Lewis says X" will have more support than "X is so;” Especially the Humiliation of dhimmis part. [1] or 'Shi'a peculiarities' part [2]
2. Some of his quotes are clearly wrong to my mind. particularly the 'Shi'a peculiarities' part.
e.g. " Shi'a jurists deem non-Muslims to be ritually impure — najis" is quoted from somewhere and is incorrect. The fact is that shia believes that only polytheist are najis. Their belief is based on the quranic verse 9:28. "O ye who believe! Truly the Mushriks are unclean". Even if we assume that it refers to ritual impurity, the verse is only in the context of polytheists and not dhimmis. Anyway, there is a story behind this verse and how it was used to justify the ritual impurity of polytheist. As a shia, I am well aware of the ritually impure things.
Pecher send the website of Ali al-Sistani for me, saying that Kafirs are unclean. But the Kafirs are not Non-Muslims?!!! Some shia scholars consider Zoroastrians to be ritually unclean but nobody considers Jews or Christians to be ritually unclean. When Quran talks about the Kafirs, it is talking about Meccan Kafirs who were worshiping idols and NOT the Jews of Medina. People of the book are NOT kafirs.
I don't ask him to remove his edits in this place or other places. Just say "According to X, ...." I will come then and provide evidences against them.
3. He is adding irrelevant material to the article (e.g. The picture of Maimonides in the Dhimmi article.)
What has made me unpleasant is that he was reverting my edits wholesale without providing good reasons and was insisting that instead of writing "According to X,.." one should write "X is so".
Could you please consider this as well in the "Ongoing mediation".
Hi Aminz. The general view held by scholars is that both the Testaments have been corrupted and that the Qur'an is the divine scripture. Therefore the Qur'an simply asks to choose the right one, or the light; the correct scripture. The books are held as divine but corrupted. And the only problem that I would have with you edit is saying stand fast to their own scriptures because that is not entirely true. --a.n.o.n.y.mt 16:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aminz. Saying that you personally don't believe it does not make it so that most Muslims don't either. So we can't make any exception for one belief or if some find the sentence offensive because wikipedia has to give the fact even if it is offensive. And also there are many verses which would state that it is wrong to believe in the crucifixion, and likewise say that the other books have major changes and not just small changes. What is the addition do you want to make? --a.n.o.n.y.mt 23:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example of something considered sin. "They do blaspheme who say: “Allah is Christ the "son of Mary". But said Christ: Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. ...” (5:72)" Blasphemy itself is a sin. But even aside from examples I think that writing down the passage that you want to add is a good idea. --a.n.o.n.y.mt 23:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aminz, restore the content to the articles right now! You may be blocked by an admin for vandalism. I deleted content as a newbie -- in that case, content I had created myself, and then decided was stupid -- and got scolded severely.
All you can do is put a disputed template on the articles and then go through the complicated steps necessary to put the article up for deletion. Is that necessary? I haven't had a chance to look. Good luck. Zora 09:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aminz, I went to look at the articles. If they were nothing but obscenities, you could ask an administrator for a speedy delete. But in this case, it is material that is offensive only to Shi'a, and an administrator would insist that the regular deletion procedure be followed.
Furthermore, even though the material seems to be Sunni forgery, there WERE early Shi'a who believed that parts of the Qur'an had been suppressed, parts that definitely established the imamate of Ali. According to Momen, this was the view of Shi'a up to the time of the Shi'a scholar Ibn Babuya (died 991 CE) who argued that what was missing was the commentary of Ali, and not part of the Qur'an proper. This view eventually prevailed.
I dunno how old this forged material is -- it's possible that it's notable just because it's an OLD forgery. However, it's lacking proper references. It would be a complete PAIN to track down the sources given. You might be able to do it through the Berkeley library.
The whole Qur'an controversy is material that should go in a history of Shi'a Islam, and I have been putting off doing that. What academics say about the history is so far from what the Shi'a believe about their history that I just don't have the energy to deal with the anger I anticipate. Your anger at these forgeries is an example of what would happen, I'm afraid. Zora 10:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aminz, it's unfortunate that you are offended by these articles, but I urge you to remain calm. I know nothing about the topic, but would just point out that Wikipedia includes articles on known forgeries. If you have any info detailing its status as a forgery feel free to add it to the article. For reference, see Protocols of the Elders of Zion which is a long article on a known forgery, and includes the reasons it is beleived to be a forgery, the effect it had, people who still don't think it is forgery, etc. Peace, Ashmoo 01:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aminz, I am an ignoramus about these issues related to Tahrif, but an archive should not be changed as this archive is supposed to be just a matter of record of what appeared on DYK on that day. If the DYK fact is wrong, so be it - it only goes to show that Wikipedia is also human and makes mistakes. Do keep an eye on the suggestions section in Template talk:Did you know for such mistakes and POV as these are the ones that would make it to DYK. Thanks for your interest and commitment, but I would be reverting your edit as an archive is not supposed to change. I hope you understand. --Gurubrahma 10:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you could have a crack at cleaning up this page: Grand Ayatollah Fazel Lankarani? To a non-Arabic-speaker such as myself it really doesn't make any sense. Thanks! --Cyde Weys 03:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can address his argument if you want, but don't let him bother you. User:fixislam is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Tom HarrisonTalk 03:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Fazel.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Fazel.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
I know they are forgeries, and the article needs to make that clear. Those two forgeries need a article. Maybe they should be merged?--Striver 02:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bro, nobody is trying to say Shi'a do belive in them, they wrote it that way because they did'nt know better. Take it easy, im Shi'a also. There are places where people have hiden agendas, this is not one of them. Just take it easy, work with them and help them find sources that explain why no Shi'a belives in them. Ma salam--Striver 13:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I swear I am so sick and disgusted with these anti-Shia editors constantly chipping away at every Shia article they can find, that I've decided to quit it all.
Like Abdulmuttalib said, the Kaaba has its protector. Eventually, these frauds will be exposed. Ive taken part in many battles on WP against the Shia haters. But the best Shia is one who is successful and accomplished in life. And that is my current challenge. I have to finish this PhD degree if I am to really be useful as a Shia.
The only reason I'm occasionally staying around on the Iranian pages on WP is that the bastards are out on a vicious campaign to Balkanize Iran, and that pisses me off big time.--Zereshk 07:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify the reason for the "totally disputed" tag? The articles don't claim that Shi'a actually believe in them, only that some people accuse them of that, and the articles indicate that the suras are forgeries. I don't think you dispute that? I think the problem with the articles is that they could use more context, though I think the link I provided follows their history pretty well or at any rate it seems pretty credible. Esquizombi 09:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the title "Critism of Islam" is not a very good title, because "Islam" or "Christianity" does not equal the texts of the various holy manuscripts.
For example, there are a lot of traditions in the Roman Catholic Church with the veneration and intercession of saints, but Jesus/Moses/Isaiah says: "the Lord your God is one and is a jealous God, only serve Him and do not bow to idols or do not honour them" (paraphrase)
In Islamic tradition there a stories about Enoch and Ishmael/Isaac, but it is not mentioned in Qur'an (for example: which son was almost sacrified; in Islamic tradition it is Ishmael, but the Qur'an does not state this).
There is a lot to say about all this, including that the texts of the biblical books were already translated (in Greek) around 300BC and we are able to compare these texts with for example the Vulgate (in Latin) around 400AD and the Hebrew Bible of the 12th century and the texts which we have know. Furthermore, since 1948 we are able to compare writings found in Qumran caves(with for example the book Isaiah dated 300BC, but they have found fragments of almost all biblical books) with the translations which we have now).
One cannot look into the Qur'an and considering the person of Mohammed. For example, there is a split between the Meccan surahs and Medinan surahs, it is for example made known explicitly by the Qur'an of 1924 in Egypt, on which most translations are based. Other scientist have a similar breakdown in these 2 surahs, including further subdivisions, but clear is that there is a distinction between what he wrote or his disciples wrote in the early days in Mecca and what he wrote later.
For example, especially the first lines in surah 23 describe what a muslum (or mu'umi) is: basically one doing good deeds. But later on, in the Medina when he was more political he is more violent and that is reflected in the Qur'an and also the various Hadieth (Bukhari).
There is a reason behind why Jesus and especially the crucifixion is a hot issue. The Gospel message (which had been given to Jesus according to the Qur'an) basically summarized is (by Paul) is:
My friends, I want you to remember the message that I preached and that you believed and trusted. 2 You will be saved by this message, if you hold firmly to it. But if you don't, your faith was all for nothing.
3 I told you the most important part of the message exactly as it was told to me. That part is:
Christ died for our sins,
as the Scriptures say.
4 He was buried,
and three days later
he was raised to life,
as the Scriptures say.
5 Christ appeared to Peter,
then to the twelve
6 After this, he appeared
to more than five hundred
other followers.
Most of them are still alive,
but some have died.
7 He also appeared to James,
and then to all
of the apostles.
(1 Corinthians 15,1-7)
I am less in the mood for critizing Islam or Muhammed, since I read yesterday a book by Rick Joyner called "The final quest" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0883684780/ref=sib_rdr_ex/103-2409622-8538236?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00G&j=0#reader-page). What he enountered in one of his visions is that the history books of the earth does not necessarilly the truth or the motives of a person and that the biographies of men will vanish, but the history of men written down in Heaven is for eternal. And second what I learned is that the source of everything lays more in seeking Jesus and loving Him. The book is really thrilling, because is his a vivid picture of the battle and gives you a good insight in the character of God, it is really powerful stuff. Blubberbrein2 18:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I loved your reply. It is easy to be trapped in 2 big delusions, namely promoting truth without love and promoting truth without acting yourself according to your proclaimed truth. Both two things are very dangerous, and I noticed a very lack in LOVE and that I don't act according to my faith. :-(
I namely believe that persons are not the enemy but the powers behind it, the principalities, i.e. demons and the like. God loves all people and want them all in union with Him. What I know is that the spirit behind the Qur'an cannot be the spirit of God, but when you don't commmunicate truth with love, you are seeing people negatively (opposite of God's way) and are accusing them of all kinds of things (that is why sometimes satan is called the Accuser).
So I really have to ask God for more love, especially for Muslims and to forgive me and change me because I can't do it myself.
On the other hand, when the message is pure, that does not mean that everybody will be happy and in peace. Jesus is crucified for what he said and the first apostles are also martyred. But then it is different and it is honor to suffer like that.
Okay if all the editors can agree to it although these type of articles are usually tagged. --a.n.o.n.y.mt 21:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You ruined my edits - please see Islam. My version is accurate. RedCrescent 04:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For example, what do you mean by "last message of Quran"? Quran is the last revelation! RedCrescent 04:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree then why did you change what I wrote?! Look at what you did please. RedCrescent 04:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I wrote: "is believed by Muslims to be Islam's final prophet, sent to guide all of mankind with the message of the Qur'an, the last revelation of God." That is more accurate. RedCrescent 04:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quran is the message of God and the last revelation! Islam is the religion from time of Adam and even before (this is what Muslims believe). RedCrescent 04:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because I think it is more accurate. Think of it like this when explaining to non-Muslim: Toraht is first revelation, Injeel is second revelation, Quran is final revelation. You see? RedCrescent 05:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please look at what I added to Zakir Naik - someone keeps changing it. I think my edits there are okay. But this figures ideas is not accepted by Quran or observant Muslims. RedCrescent 05:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I understand what you are saying better. Please see my new edits. I also changed Zakir Naik. I hope the other person doesn't change it back. RedCrescent 05:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The person changed it again, saying that we cannot issue fatwas?! That is very strange! Nothing in Quran or hadith supports the idea that people become pigs if they eat pork or people become violent if they eat meat. What that has to do with fatwas? It is a basic fact. RedCrescent 05:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the medicine issue - basically I am writing that Quran and hadith do not agree with Zakir that eating meat will make you violent or eating pork will turn you into a pig. Quran says that eating pork is haraam and pig is not clean, that's it. Quran doesn't even say that if you eat pork you will die. So I am only saying a basic fact. It is strange and funny that "Zora" will say that there must be a fatwa to write this! RedCrescent 05:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is very rude of them to talk about me like that on the talk when I even gave definitions from encyclopedias and dictionaries. It is not right to say that all non-Muslims say that he was "founder" when others also say that he was an Arab prophet and religious figure. RedCrescent 07:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. About honey, I found this link [4]. But I think this is reading too much into what Quran says. I do not think Quran can be used to promote medical theory or even nutritional concept, aside from saying what is halaal and what is haraam. Even hadith I don't think offer much - for example I read one well known hadith once that says that Prophet (PBUH - I hope saying this on talk here is ok!) never complained when food, even if not very good quality, was given him and he would be thankful still. But there is no hadith to say that if you eat meat you will become violent or if you eat pork you will become like swine. We can present our own modern idea about why eating pork is wrong (like worms and parasite) and can think to ourselves that this is why Quran says pork is haraam - Jewish rabbis came up with same kind of theory. But then that is our own idea, not the idea in Quran. RedCrescent 08:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aminz,
Thank you for your gracious apology, which I accept.
Re bigots, check out the takfiri onslaught. There's what the world needs, more takfir.
Sorry. Perhaps I should've given a more detailed explanation on the talk page.
When I read that sentence, something seemed awkward to me. Because, in Islam, it is not conventional use to say that "God (Allah) may repent the sinners" (atleast not that I had heard of.). So, I went to dictionary.com, and searched for a full definition of the word 'repent' and all the different forms that it could be used. Here is what I found:
v. re·pent·ed, re·pent·ing, re·pents
v. intr.
To feel remorse, contrition, or self-reproach for what one has done or failed to do; be contrite.
To feel such regret for past conduct as to change one's mind regarding it: repented of intemperate behavior.
To make a change for the better as a result of remorse or contrition for one's sins.
v. tr.
To feel regret or self-reproach for: repent one's sins.
To cause to feel remorse or regret.
So, in my opinion, to say that 'God may repent the sinner' would have a different meaning and also be structurally\grammatically awkward. To me, (if I was to use the definition listed above), it would sound like God would feel regret or remorse, or to use it in the whole context of the sentence, it would sound like God would feel regret\remorse towards the sinner. That just sounded weird to me :P
But I could be mistaken on this, and my reasoning is also largely based on the fact that I have never heard of that use of dialogue, from Islamic sources.
Btw, I tried searching for "repent the sinner" (the exact search string, with quotes) on google, and I couldn't find a single instance of that being used, without a comma or period after the word repent.
Also, I believe "Oft-repenting" would be an incorrect attribute to God. Because, oft-repenting would mean that you repent frequently. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) stated that all humans are prone to mistakes and sins, but that “the best of them are the oft-repenting.”
Holla at me if there was something I wasnt clear enough about :P. Peace. --Jibran1 07:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found the link for you. [5] (Go down to # 80. At-Tawwaab):
At-Tawwaab
The Acceptor of Repentance, The Relenting, The One who grants repentance to whoever He willed among His creatures and accepts his repentance.
It says 'The Acceptor of Repentance'. not 'The Repenter'; quite different actually. If you claim that there is another definition of 'repent' which applies when used in the context of God as you describe, then it should be mentioned in a dictionary.
Tc bro --Jibran1 07:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this is correct in this context. In the case of Jews, they do worship one God though I heard from a jew that this commandment is important in the sense of not worshipping several gods but not atheism.
What? Maybe I misunderstand you here, but...if a Jew is atheist it's despite, not because of, scripture. The main difference between Judaism and Islam *in theory* is that Judaism is a covenant between God and the Jews, not between God and all mankind. Though Judaism also recognizes the existence of the latter, for example in God's covenant with Noah.
They do agree that obedience of God is extremely important (e.g. in the second to last verse in the book of Ecclesiastes: "The end of the matter, all having been heard: fear God, and keep His commandments; for this is the whole man [i.e. the whole purpose of man].") In the case of Christians, as far as I understand the issue is related to Trinity AND the Qur'an claims that salvation is achieved through believing in God and being obedient to him rather than being forgiven through Christ’s blood.
Christian doctrine varies a great deal both between and within sects. Not all Christian churches as Trinitarian. Further, many that are so, one wouldn't know it from their sermons. The holy ghost (*not* Mary as per Muhammad's/Qur'an's misunderstanding!) comes up quite rarely compared to the father and the son. Meanwhile, if one just says "God", this is typically taken to mean the father, not the trinity, and certainly not Jesus alone.
There is nothing about the Lord's Prayer, for example, which Jesus taught, which should strike either Jews or Muslims as remotely heretical. I'll agree that there is a good deal of mysticism in Christian theological doctrine, and I suspect a very large number of Christians would agree with me. However, I think you greatly overstate - as do Muslims generally - the degree to which Christianity departs from monotheistic principles. Trinitarianism is arguably a befuddling complication of the unity/uniqueness of God, but not by any means a denial; eveb less so the general debate as to whether God can be said to have a son.
As for Christ's blood, this can be taken a number of different ways. Muhammad, too, is said to have said that if God were to treat us as we strictly deserved, there would be no one left (paraphrased) - this is not too different from the idea that we are all sinners in need of forgiveness. While it may be said that Christ's blood plays a role in all this, I doubt many Christians would state that God's will is being overruled here. The idea being that God loves humanity and wishes to forgive us despite our sins, Jesus' blood here being the means to this end.
None of this is usually taken to mean that Christians are exempt from believing in God and being obedient to him. Call it contradictory, okay, but it's not as far out there as many Muslims seem to assume. By and large, Christians worship God in the sense with which Muslims and Jews are familiar.
Finally, and you can think this relevant or not - I am a Christian who agrees with the Islamic conception of God, agree that this is orthodox Abrahamic monotheism, and that the Church erred greatly and obviously in diverging therefrom. I agree with Muslims that Jesus never claimed to be God, as the most straightforward reading of the Gospels will confirm.
However, I would not be called a Muslim, because I don’t accept the Qur’an as unadulterated - indeed, I think that any text which passed through human minds, and from human lips and hands is inevitably adulterated - and, without going into detail, I think Muhammad’s own life, at least a portion of it, a poor example for how we ought conduct ourselves.
It is no accident, I think, that Muslim critiques of Christianity center on points of doctrine, while Christian critiques of Islam focus on the biography and character of the prophet. These are what either side recognizes as the weak points, and in this I think them both correct.
"Please don't say that we are worshipping Satan. Please take the Jewish position: they accept God of Islam but not it's prophet."; It is fine with me if they say that your prophet was a liar but please don't say that he was possessed by Satan and that Satan revealed Qur'an to him. I'll get back to you soon. --Aminz 09:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Gosh, no, of course not. Allah = God. To say otherwise is just rank ignorance.
Well, first, I think Satan is us. If one defines it thus, I suppose there are some things in Qur’an - e.g. the allowance of highway robbery as long as the prophet got his 20% cut, the allowance for Muhammad to have more than four (as if four weren’t enough) wives (we could go on), we could go on - which are, to all but the most pious, obviously not God talking but Muhammad himself.
Similarly, do we really believe that God commanded the Jews to do such awful things to the Canaanites?
But, I don’t assume that the whole thing is made up either.
The authority of God is a very tempting thing. I see Muhammad as a man who received God’s wisdom and favor, then abused it to some degree, and mixed it with his own errors just as had been done with other Abrahamic scriptures. Not as angel, not as devil, but, like David, as human being grappling with the huge responsibility of prophethood, and sometimes failing.
In sum, I accept the *legitimacy* of Muhammad and the Qur’an, but not sufficiency, finality, or perfection.
You might be interested in the topic Persian Jews and some of the claims made in the history sections in regards to the status of Jews in Islam and medieval Persia. --ManiF 06:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop reverting. I will not rejoice at seeing you blocked. PecherTalk 09:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evading blocks is a violation of Wikipadia policies. Blocks are usually extended if blocked editors try to evade them. PecherTalk 09:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your edits - Self revert now, and I shall back you up. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am frustrated. Pecher does not accept my arguments though I think they are logical. He even does not argue against them. He just does not accept. I am willing to get blocked at the expense of having my edits on for awhile. If Pecher reverts my edit, he will be also blocked. --Aminz 10:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you are frustrated, but you will be able to do nothing if you are blocked - Self revert and you will not be blocked. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24 hours at most. Just Self-Revert and it won't have to happen. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have also logically argued(in mediation page) that there is no reason that Pecher's edit should be on. I have an NPOV logical support for my action while Pecher does not have any. If an administrator wants to be fair, he/she should not block me. --Aminz 10:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block[7] is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question[8] - [9] - [10]. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason that mediation has been unsuccessful is because of Pecher on one hand, and Cyde on the other hand. I will question the competence of Cyde as a Mediator. --Aminz 17:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12 March 2006: Good start: Asking all editors to join the mediation. Posting notices on the talk pages. It deserves appreciation.
12 March 2006: Asking Aminz to use a good language in the sense of avoiding particular words in the discussion which Aminz accepted. Confirming Pecher’s request of Aminz to provide reliable sources for his claim. Mentioning the danger of copyright violation. Using a kind language.
14 March 2006: Discussing the Pecher’s request of “reliability of IslamOnline”. Kind language.
14 March 2006: Confirming Pecher’s request of Aminz as to if his link is reliable or not. No response after clarification which could be interpreted as acceptance of the reliability of the source.
16 March 2006: Asking people to come back to discussion. Encouraging people to solve their problem through discussion. Kind language. Good and knowledgeable responses. Suggesting the general format of “source A say so” and “source B says so”.
20 March 2006: Stating that it is not allowed to use only one source (an argument against Farhansher’s edit). No answer to Aminz comment that this idea should be applied to both parties (Assuming no-answer means acceptance, this is a sign of progress)
20 March 2006: Asking Farhansher to provide reasons for his changes. When reminded by Aminz that this should be asked by both parties, he accepted it. Good attitude.
25, 27 March 2006: Accepting and supporting the idea of workshop.
Alleged negative considerations:
Alleged implicit defense of Pecher:
Evidences:
Summary of Aminz’s POV : “Whenever Pecher provided a valid request (like claim of unvalidness of the link provided by Aminz), he re-state and confirmed his request which was good. However only in one edit (16 March), he seems to tend to confirm the Aminz request of quoting from sources. Aminz posed arguments for Pecher, but in those cases, neither a confirmation nor a rejection of his arguments was posted by Cyde. While pecher didn’t answer to Aminz arguments for more than a week, he was silent. When Aminz requested for two times more that his arguments needs to be answered by Pecher, he neither interfered into the discussion nor asked Pecher to answer Aminz arguments. It should be noted that it seems to Aminz that Cyde has at least one confirmation for almost all of Pecher’s arguments. Also no response to Aminz edits 19:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC). All in all, based on the above evidences, Aminz would likes to thank Cyde for his helpful comments but thinks that another administrator should join us as a co-mediator. As pecher asked Cyde to join us on the mediation, Aminz or Farhansher should suggest another administrator to join them here. The competence of Cyde as someone who can convince and reconcile Aminz with Pecher is questioned by Aminz since he feels that his arguments will not be supported by Cyde as that of Pecher’s are. It should be noted that Aminz just wants to questions the matter but not to make a final judgment.”
I got an implicit feedback from Cyde. My interpretation of the feedback was the following argument: If person A questions competence of person B in a particular case; it is logical for others to question the competence of person A himself. Since person A has initiated the matter, it makes sense that his case should be processed first. Since my request was for a new administrator chosen by me and Farhansher to join us, the similar fair request for you guys to can be disjoin the mediation. Did I get your argument right Cyde? I thought a lot about it till I was able to interpret it. Anyways, I have prepared a similar form as above for myself which you can fill.
User Aminz:
negative considerations:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Let me also specify my exact agenda here:
I will be mainly focused on criticizing Pecher’s edit as it was the reason that I joined this discussion.
I am not familiar with IslamOnline and am not competence to judge about it.
It is not on my current agenda to defend the Farhansher’s version. I have not even read the Farhansher’s version once; however I will be willing to help people considering that version in an NPOV manner (i.e. no reason for Pecher’s version to be posted when we are still discussing its authenticity.) My reversion of Pecher’s edit was to show that that having his version posted is not justified especially when he was not answering my arguments; I don’t claim that my arguments are correct but at least expect them to be answered since I consider my time valuable.
This will be posted on the mediation page as soon as I get unblocked. Of course, I appreciate other's feedbacks. --Aminz 10:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the exact citation of Fazel Lankarani saying that the concept of "ritual purity in Islam" doesn't apply to Jews and Christians? I need it for talk:Persian Jews. --ManiF 15:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking about your suggetion . About the crtisicm article , it was written by the founders of an Islampohobic site . They quoted this material on their site & their followers kept on adding it here . Their aim was to link their site from Islam article to increase their hitrate. I dont think Rules of war is a copyvio . 90% of the material that comes from the site is Quran , hadeeth or history , all of them arnt copyrighted . tc , salam . F.a.y.تبادله خيال/c 19:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is 90% quotes from hadith and Qur'an, then their argument is not valid. We can always quote from their site then. Regarding criticism of Islam article, it may be true but the article is good to be there for one reason: *) We know people often hear these criticisms. Some of them maybe quite illogical to my mind, but we can not stop it. What some people may not hear is the Muslim responses to these criticisms. I think it is good to have the criticisms there but try to work on Muslim answers. This was my job for a long time :). Copyright issue is of course something different. Salam --Aminz 19:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, see all kinds of problems with the original articles. However, I am deeply disturbed by the approach that some have taken, writing their own highly POV replacements and then defending them through edit wars. Irishpunktom is the perfect exemplar of this problem - indeed, it's nearly to the point than any rv he makes, I am tempted to rv back on that ground alone. He doesn't even bother to enggage in discussion, and the record shows that whatever barely-literate utterances he's managed are far outnumbered by his page vandalism. Similarly, RedCrescent. It's no longer about improving wikipedia, but using it as a forum for intellectual jihad. There is this general idea that anything which might reflect badly upon Islam, as religion or as historical institution, must be censored, regardless of accuracy. Not improved to NPOV, but simply suppressed.
At the same time, I agree it is the motive of some simply to make Islam look bad. There must be some middle ground which does not entail fact-suppression or page vandalism. In these cases (correct me If I'm wrong), the Islamist POVers took sourced articles they didn't like and replaced them with suitably-pious alternates, in at least one case directly cribbed from an Islamist site (and thus also a copuright violation).
Anyhow, I'm here and open to discuss, so if you think I am missing something here, I'm all ears.
Truthfully, I hadn't meant to defend Pecher, only to rebuke what I've discussed. I can see why it comes across that way, but hey, how do you feel to be teamed with Irishpunktom?
I'll tell you what - I will go through this article and the history more thoroughly, and try to address ritual purity and whatever else you want me to look at. I think I've earned enough cred with the other side to have the changes be seriously considered. Also feel free to alert me to particulars whcih might otherwise escape me.
Hi Aminz; I accept that you are working in good faith, doing what you think is right. I appreciate your civility. I think the 3RR violation was unfortunate. I don't have high hopes for a successful outcome, but mediation should continue as long as anyone(well, any two) wants to take part. That said, an article RfC should not, in principle, be a bad thing. At its best it might draw in other editors who have not followed the article. Anyway, I'm going to be busy for the next couple of days. Whatever people choose in the mean time, I'll try to work with it. Tom HarrisonTalk 03:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your idea about a committee is interesting. At a glance, it seems to be kind of contrary to the nature of a wiki, but I think it merits discussion. I'll have to think more about it. Tom HarrisonTalk 03:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can get some idea of the issues by searching for “Khalid” on the Shia view of the Sahaba page. The Shia view Abu Bakr (and Umar and Uthman) as a usurper and a dictator, and ibn al-Walid as his brutal enforcer. He is even blamed for killing Fatima. Timothy Usher 01:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think RFC is not a good idea since we are not sure if both articles are free from any problems. I have a suggestion: All editors involved in this mediation nominate a few editors(not among themselves). They are better to be administrator or at least experienced editors(e.g. Zora ) and concede their editing right to their nominated editors. These people will form the editor committee. All the editors have to promise not to edit the articles directly anymore, but just try to convince the editor committee if they want to make any change to the article(The articles can be blocked from editing). The final decisions are however made by the editor committee(maybe voting). I hope that concensus could be achieved easier there. How is my idea? --Aminz 03:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Aminz. However, I have to say that I agree with the points made by Pecher and Tom Harrison on this particular proposal. Palmiro | Talk 12:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't assume that we know the issues as well as you do.
You have made up your mind. I did not. I want all POV to apear in the article. Including yours, including Pecher's. Zeq 15:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed your comments on Talk:Persian Jews, and your comments on Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini would be appreciated as well. Aucaman, Pecher, and another editor are making wrong assertions and claims about the concept of najis. And they are using Bernard Lewis as their source! If you have time, please review the discussion and and help to clarify this issue as these individuals do not have any solid grounding in these matters. Thank you. SouthernComfort 04:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least not in the pure sense of monotheism. Rather, a criticism of Muhammad, so of "Muhammadanism".
I know I still need to respond to your worthy criticisms of Christianity...not that I presume to defend it all.Timothy Usher 04:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for letting me know about the article. I haven't come across it before and I'm not sure if I'm experienced enough on the subject to make changes to the article, but I'll try my best as time permits. --Jibran1 07:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Instead of just reverting, we should really discuss the issue on the Talk page, come to a consensus, and only then make changes we agree on. Several of your changes were nice, BTW. In that light, I haven't made any changes to the article (that I think you'd disagree with) but I've added to the Talk. As a general rule, it is better to have no information on the article than disputed info, so best to leave stuff out until consensus. --JBJ 06:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
God indeed is Omnipotent, All-Powerful, Almighty, All-Knowing, yet he did not erase us from the globe when our ancestors, Adam and Eve, put the whole human race in the death zone. Even the most best person you know it not good enough for God, even mother Teresa or any other person. Every person deserves to die. That's why Jesus was sent to save us. The Father said: listen to him and Jesus says 'I came to the earth to save you'(see [12])
Hi Aminz, I listened to most of his presentation. Very interesting and nice to watch. The questions he was asked could have been better ones. --a.n.o.n.y.mt 19:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am touched beyond measure. You didn't have to do that as you know, and I've been so lax in responding to your points of theology and egregious Catholic (hence Christian, historically speaking) misinterpretation (briefly my belief as you know is that God gave us all one religion and that we are all screwing it up in one way or another)
...I still need to say something on the mediation page for Dhimmi/Jizya, though I will note that you and Pecher seem to be hammering it out. Anyway, as it's 2:30 in our time zone, and I'm exhausted, I just wanted to say thanks again before I collapse.
"Spirit, find your way, in seeking lowness like a stream."
I love this line, and this poem.
Not sure if this is coincidence or synchronicity, but you know one of my closest friends (a wikipedia editor under a different name), with whom I've also talked much religion, is also named Lameen, you probably know this is just a Maghrebian contraction of Al Amin. Maybe this is a really good sign. Thanks again.Timothy Usher 09:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; [Namely], of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. Deutronomy (13:6-10)
another impoortant thing to see is the word used for apostate, its kofer meaning denier, same as arabic kafir . F.a.y.تبادله خيال/c 10:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi; Thanks for expanding on that. The template I used is rather rough, and maybe isn't ready for use. I'm working on another one at Template:Quran-usc. Tom HarrisonTalk 03:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the face of it, the writer here is using the pretext of monotheistic religion to justify the suppression of dissent and the sacking of nearby villages. I'll look a little more into it to see if we can determine the specific context. And I'd suggest the same type of skepticism must be applied to Muhammad and the Qur'an. It's more difficult though, as there is only one author and the whole thing is considered to turn on his character, whereas with the Tanakh we know there were many different authors who, while discussing things within a historical continuum of Abrahamic religion and Jewish culture, often disagree, and there are a few places where they outright contradict one another (e.g. who told David to take the census, God or Satan?). Most Jews realize that to see it as a coherent and consistent whole is a futile endeavor.
Since the underlying question is, I believe, the thematically similar injunctions in the Qur'an and Hadith - indeed this is more extreme than anything in the Qur'an - my general impression is that Muhammad, was chosen by God to preach and restore some version of the correct religion, and did so for a time, but later started mixing it with his own anger and justification of his own misdeeds. It is in this regard a great tragedy that the chronological order of the Qur'an was not preserved. I don't mean to offend you, and hope that I haven't.Timothy Usher 05:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you added a "totally disputed" tag to this article. When you can, could you explain your rationale on the talk page, so we can work toward improvement? Thanks...KHM03(talk) 10:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. RexNL 09:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aminz, I hate to be on the wrong side of your edits, given all the encouragement you've shown me, but Pecher (my talk page) has a point. You may very well have a legitimate claim, it'd hardly be the first time, but arbitrarily taking the battle to other pages isn't the way. I'll take a look at what the original dispute was and see if there's something useful I can contribute. Feel free to drop me a line. I've also joined Talk:Apostasy in Islam if you'd like to engage there.Timothy Usher 10:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I think the tag should be added to the article if any of the parties dispute it." That's not a proposition I can agree with in general. In this particular case, I'm undecided. How about taking it to the mediation page and seeing what people think? I'm just checking in briefly, so I may not reply further until tomorrow. Tom HarrisonTalk 23:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone ever comment on adding the OR tag? Is that something you're still interested in persuing? Sorry for not getting back to you more promptly. Tom HarrisonTalk 01:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your involvement on Islamism. What this article was lacking was reasonable Muslim editors who joined the collaborative process in the normal way. You're there, for one, and Irishpunktom after his initial edits, did something productive which earned consensus. Pecher's contribution was also on point. It shows what can happen when we all work together in good faith and assuming the same.Timothy Usher 10:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I see you re-added categories to Muhammad... since there is a Category:Muhammad you should not add any categories to Muhammad that are parent categories of his category. Wikipedia:Categorization#Some_general_guidelines, that gives you good guidelines. Notice that the category does not give birth and death years. If an article is in Category:Muhammad and Category:Muslim then it is in category:Muslims twice since Muhammad is already in Muslims. Just like I removed Category:Muslims from Category:Muhammad because it was already in Category:Muslim generals. Sound good? grenグレン 10:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aminz, I'm really surprised you asked for this page to be locked. You often ask others to consider your feelings as a Muslim, and often quite rightly so, as with the appalling Muhammad images archive. Ask yourself, were you Ahbashi, how would you feel about this page? Would you feel it a fair and respectful depiction of your sect?Timothy Usher 01:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Aminz. Page can't be reverted while it's protected. --a.n.o.n.y.mt 19:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems too early right now to unlock and can't lock it again then. Sorry again. --a.n.o.n.y.mt 20:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes if everyone agrees. --a.n.o.n.y.mt 20:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"...whom they believed of having broken a treaty..." We don't really know if they believed it, do we?
I speak frankly here: they beheaded the men, took their property and their women. Could it be that the goal was to take their property and their women? Maybe we can't say entirely *for sure*, but, a priori, it's a reasonable assumption. I'd never write this into the article, of course. But I think it most unlikely that they actually believed this. Were they operating from a sense of righteousness, they would not have done what they did. Consider the up-to-four-wives thing, and the legalization of marriage-through-capture (who your right hand possesses): in what social context would this be sustainable? Recall also that 20% of booty goes to Muhammad, as per the revelations legalizing highway robbery. If he's getting a 20% commission on all takings, is it reasonable to suppose him a disinterested judge? I don't question that the Jews might have opposed him, but given how he treated them, can you really blame them?
And can you honestly believe the Banu Qurayza had any say at all in their fate? Remember, all of this is the victors' own story, and it still ain't pretty. That they themselves chose the arbitrer, I grant you, is Islamic tradition, but strains credulity. In your gut, I'm going to guess you sense something is not quite right with this story.
At best, we can say, "according to..."Timothy Usher 09:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aminz, I think your and JGB's edits to Muhammad deeply misguided from a WP standpoint. But, it's not personal, and there are no hard feelings. Sleep well. We'll chat soon, I'm sure.Timothy Usher 11:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One edit I often make is the change of "the Muslims" to "Muhammad and his followers" (though not where "Muslims" is appropriate, such as in the passage about converts in Mecca and the like). Consider your recent message: "It is your POV that Muslims were dishonest..." That's not my POV. "Muslims" would include you, after all, and every other Muslim on earth. But you weren’t there.
My POV here is much more specific: that Muhammad, or someone making excuses after the fact, was dishonest about the reasons for the Medina incidents. We may be talking about only one or two people here, neither of whom you or I know. It doesn’t reflect on us at all.
Further, I'm not asking that my guess-based POV be reflected in the article, as I wasn't there, and I don't know for sure either.Timothy Usher 23:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your comments on my page. As youknow I am very busy at the moment (I am doing exams, and also using free time to apply for jobs), so i haven't checked my page recently, but thankyou for writing the message! I hope I will have more free time in a month or two. You are right that I am of Christian background, although I am not certain what I believe today, I suppose that is why I am interested in religions. But I am sure God will have mercy on us all if we try to live our lives well. God bless.
N-edits 16:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The objection, as is clear on the talk page, is to the existence of the term itself. As they can't delete the article, they'd tried to make the article about the term itself; in short form, "Islamism is a term used by bigots to disciminate against Muslims." The rationale here was (and continues to be, as per User247's comments) that all Muslims are required by religion to be political Islamists, and if governments are secular, that's because they've turned away from Islam. That's a valid POV, which is prominently represented in the article. However, it's still not enough, because then the issue becomes, then why aren't we calling Islamism merely "Islam"? There's really no way to solve their problem within WP, as it reflects a real-world in which this distinction, rightly or wrongly, is made. So they are disrupting the article instead by inserting passages designed to confuse the reader.Timothy Usher 02:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice of you to give me a barnstar, and especially nice that you'd do so after I've given you such a hard time in so many articles! If you can get through the encounter with me with your faith deepened and strengthened, you're going to be a good Muslim! Zora 02:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aminz, it's possible to go through a period of doubt and come back to a religion with a much stronger, more adult faith. If you're searching for God/Allah and trying to be kind to others, I don't think you're going to hell. God is kinder than the humans who claim to speak for him/her/it.
You might want to read a Buddhist book that is not stridently religious: Everyday Zen, by Joko Beck. Zen might give you the perspective you need to define your own Islam, or your own Christianity. There are a number of people who are Christian and practice Zen. I know of one Sufi teacher who was interested in Zen: Lex Hixon. He donated money to build our zendo. You might want to check out his organization's website [14]. He's dead now, but his followers are carrying on. It's not my cup of tea, but it might be yours.
The religious thinker Simone Weil said, "Christ loves those who reject him for the sake of the truth, for he is the truth." I think that holds for any religion. Seeking is better than just doing what your parents told you to do, without question, without enthusiasm, without real belief. Instead of rejecting religion, you are taking the first step. Zora 07:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aminz, reading the Zen article might get you oriented a bit, but it isn't the same as doing Zen. "Painted cakes do not satisfy hunger." Sufis would say the same thing. As to whether it's all the same thing -- that's the Buddhist view, and some Sufis have come close to it. But telling you yes or no would be giving you a painted cake!
If I were you, I would be visiting various Muslim and Christian and Buddhist groups and just seeing if one felt like home. Try Sufis, Unitarians, Quakers, and Zen. If none of those feel right, expand. It is hard to be on a spiritual path with no guide. It helps to have someone to alternately support you and kick your butt, whatever is needed. But I should stop giving advice now. Blind leading the blind and all that. Zora 08:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did go to his site. Many interesting posters, lots of interesting stuff. However, I think there was a format issue with the speech. I'll try again from another platform.
As for other portions of the Islamism article, I really haven't a chance to go through it, because, as with Muhammad, people keep fighting over the introduction. Perhaps if you could do something with the other parts, it would focus people's attention away from terminology and towards the specifics.Timothy Usher 07:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"It is not hard to turn away from God. It is hard that God has turned away from us."
God has not turned away from us. He created us from love, and by his love we are still here, and will be here when this world is gone.Timothy Usher 08:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is admittedly subjective, and I may have said this before, but to me very personally, the essence of Christianity isn't doctrinal, but is summed up in the prodigal son. God loves you. It doesn't matter if you've accepted a false prophet, or not accepted a real one, or any other combination. He's saying to all of us, I love you, please come home. That's it.
Zora is right about God being kinder than his self-appointed spokesmen. These would strike one or another group from the very book of life, and today we see people doing their best to do just that, at least where this world is concerned. God doesn't do that, as you see. As it's written, the rain falls on the just and unjust alike. Our misconceptions are our problem, individually and collectively, not God's, and if we're far from God, or from truth, likewise. No need for punishment. For what? Can we hurt God?
But even if I'm wrong, and God is in fact consigning souls to the torment of an eternal fire, I very much doubt you'll be among these (and if you were, of course I'd protest this miscarriage of justice).Timothy Usher 12:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you that there might be more to the claim and the sentence might even be true, and if it is then by all means it should be included BUT with evidence of reference in Qur'an\Hadith, and proper citation for any person to whom this claim is attributed. I had noticed that statement left uncited for quite some time to the point that it was starting to affect with the neutrality of the section. Thanks. --Jibran1 14:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SoothingR 08:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
