User talk:GitaSamRoel

GitaSamRoel, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi GitaSamRoel! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GoingBatty (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

May 2022[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Kafir, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. GenoV84 (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read the source (ref n3, Cyril Glasse)? The translation given by the source is infidel. Nowhere does it says that kafir is translated as non muslim. The source even says that people of the book are not kafirun. My edits are justified. GitaSamRoel (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sourced content along with the cited sources qualifies as disruptive editing. Please read the WP policies WP:RS and WP:NOTCENSORED for further informations. GenoV84 (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source given provides contradictionary statements. On one hand, it states "according to Islamic law; the people of the book are not kafirun.", on the other hand, a kafir is considered someone who "rejects the evidence of Divine Revelation through the mission of the prophet Muhammad". For most Christians (and Jews) Muhammad is not a prophet. Maybe we should consider an alternative source regarding this matter?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VenusFeuerFalle: Thank you for the clarification about this matter. If that's the case, it would be better to find and cite one or more different references that support this assertion without further ambiguity. Give me some time and I'll do it myself. GenoV84 (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]