Proabivouac (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 438: | Line 438: | ||
Ask yourself: if half the readers walk away from this article believing that Muhammad was the prophet of God, and half walk away believing him to have been an imposter, would you feel the need to correct this second group? Neutrality means allowing people to arrive at their own conclusions, without being confronted with a long list of generic testimonials. These add nothing factual to the article, and are only topical because Muir's allegation broached the subject. Even so, I'm not clear from your quotes that any of them were saying Muhammad was ''invariably'' sincere, only that he wasn't an outright fraud. It is often taken to be a sign of insecurity to feel the need to rebut what is never said.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 20:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
Ask yourself: if half the readers walk away from this article believing that Muhammad was the prophet of God, and half walk away believing him to have been an imposter, would you feel the need to correct this second group? Neutrality means allowing people to arrive at their own conclusions, without being confronted with a long list of generic testimonials. These add nothing factual to the article, and are only topical because Muir's allegation broached the subject. Even so, I'm not clear from your quotes that any of them were saying Muhammad was ''invariably'' sincere, only that he wasn't an outright fraud. It is often taken to be a sign of insecurity to feel the need to rebut what is never said.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 20:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
He was so narcissistic that he was able to convince himself what was he was saying was true. [[User:Arrow740|Arrow740]] 20:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:58, 8 January 2007
Archives
Encyclopedia of Islam vs. Paul Johnson
Hi Aminz. The Encyclopedia of Islam is certainly a reputable, authoritative source. Paul Johnson may be presenting an accurate or inaccurate view. Perhapas he should not be considered a reputable or authoritative source. However, the fact is that he is considered reputable and an authority in some circles. Although it is tempting to try to determine which source is in fact "right", my understanding of WP:NPOV policy is that in cases such as this, the article should report both conflicting views, and attribute them to their respective authors. I would be happy to make that case on the talk page if you like. However I wished to inform you of my opinion before I took any action. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 03:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- you are welcome. Paul Johnson may have his own POV, and may not be an accurate source, but he has academic credentials and a wide readership. We can discuss it some more, but not tonight (US time) as I am signing off soon. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 04:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- You make it very difficult to AGF when all I see from you is POV pushing and wikilawyering. But I try. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, and yes, Johnson is a notable historian. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- This won't be your first attempt to remove material that does not correspond to your POV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Apes
"Certain Jews were transformed into "apes" because they broke Sabbath."
You can't be serious. Do you really believe that?Proabivouac 07:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
There are some types of stories which I've heard a lot but I don't know if my Sunni brothers share or not. The theme is that one's "other-worldly" eye was opened and he saw Muslims doing pilgrimage as monkeys, apes, ... It might have come from the Qur'ans description of those who eat what belongs to orphans actually eat fire. Anyways, I was just explaining that the Qur'an says. Some Jews in the past who were persistently sinning and breaking Sabbath were transformed into apes probably spiritually. My mother used to tell me that if you tell lie, in the resurrection day, you'll be resurrected with a big tongue on which all people will step on. --Aminz 07:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Spiritually turning into an ape. Gotta watch out for that. Arrow740 07:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- lol!--Aminz 07:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, it is pretty funny. Arrow740 12:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Checkuser
Looks like our numbers are growing [1]. Arrow740 12:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- yes, the number of socks from users such as User:RunedChozo and User:DAde are indeed growing. Aminz, that IP is one of the socks of DAde who uses them to get around bans. perhaps you could bring that up at your RFCU if you want as it seems he is starting to exhaust the community's patience. ITAQALLAH 13:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Just asking
Salaam! I was just passing by your talk page. What do you think of the comments about pre-Badr events! You told me that you had problems with that! Can I know any logical fallacy in that? TruthSpreaderTalk 14:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- And thanks for retrieving the quote on Muhammad article. Cheers! TruthSpreaderTalk 15:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thats fine! I am glad that you are still surviving Wikipedia's rough and cruel environment. I myself is running short of time in completion of a document. I think we better leave this for while, until you'll be free to pursue, as others have very little information about the content. Cheers! TruthSpreaderTalk 04:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well! Tafsir literature, to the best of my knowledge, refer this whole chapter of Qur'an to the event of Badr. The most of important verse is the next one:
- 008.007 YUSUFALI: Behold! Allah promised you one of the two (enemy) parties, that it should be yours: Ye wished that the one unarmed should be yours, but Allah willed to justify the Truth according to His words and to cut off the roots of the Unbelievers;-
- Well! Tafsir literature, to the best of my knowledge, refer this whole chapter of Qur'an to the event of Badr. The most of important verse is the next one:
- This verse says that some wanted to attack the caravan (the unarmed one), but the last part of the verse says very clearly that God instead chose a target that would cut off the roots of the Unbelievers, and that essentially was the Meccan army. Hence, according to this understanding, the Meccan army was already mobilized to destroy Muslims. TruthSpreaderTalk 04:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Done! In "The sealed Nectar", the initial raids were more of securing a piece of land than looting caravans. It is the final raid of 300 people that is being disputed. Now, Muslims have accepted these traditions and this is why they justify these allegations. But as a Muslim, I simply can't accept looting a defenceless caravan, as it is not only against morality but also Qur'an should allude to such an event. And how easy for Muslims to say that Muslims attacked the defenceless caravan and Abu Sufyan rescued his caravan. I think if the caravan was attacked, it wouldn't go unharmed and secondly, the looting of caravans would become part of the religion which actually never has become. TruthSpreaderTalk 04:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- This verse says that some wanted to attack the caravan (the unarmed one), but the last part of the verse says very clearly that God instead chose a target that would cut off the roots of the Unbelievers, and that essentially was the Meccan army. Hence, according to this understanding, the Meccan army was already mobilized to destroy Muslims. TruthSpreaderTalk 04:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think, World will never run short of idiots. I am leaving for tea. Cheers! :) TruthSpreaderTalk 05:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Opiner/Mediation
Well I note that Opiner hasn't actually been on Wikipedia for the last four days. Perhaps now when he sees that other users who agree with him such as User:Arrow740 have signed up he'll be willing to participate.
My understanding of mediation is that for it to go ahead, all parties need to agree upon it. This is unfortunate, but hopefully Opiner will come round.
As for the article more generally... I understand there is this dispute over the source and there appear to be two versions of the page that had been reverted between but could you just give me a brief summary of the conflict as a whole? What (if anything) do you think should be done to the article to remove the non-netural tag? Alternatively, what do you feel others are misunderstanding in order for them to have put the tag there? Cheers --Robdurbar 19:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see why a reform need necessairily be poistive. The article should state:
- What Muhammad and His followers saw as wrong with the previous social systems (an expanded version would say why things were wrong, and why Muhammad was in a position to change them)
- What He and His followers proposed to do about the system (an expanded version would compare this witht the position of their contemporaries)
- What actually happned: how many of the planned reforms went through (all of them, some, none?)
- Their effects both positive and negative.
- As for the semantics of that quote - it is fair to point out that the article contains more quotes and more attributed statements than most other aritcles on Wikipedia. I would leave it as 'Muhammad preached against what he saw as the social evils of his day', followed by a reference. --Robdurbar 12:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Moved from WP:ANI
I have been involved in the antisemitism article for awhile and have tried my best not to engage in any revert war (i have repented from that :)) but at the same time I can not really continue working on that anymore because of persistent violations of wiki policies.
1. Violations of WP:RS and WP:NPOV
These users consider Paul Johnson (journalist), a conservative journalist who has only a lower-second class degree in Jesuit method (which is not even Islamic studies or Jewish studies), to be more reliable than Bernard Lewis & Claude Cahen for the following reasons:
- Johnson's publications are have likely outsold those of Lewis by a wide margin
- Encyclopedia of Islam, Brill academic publisher, the source in which Claude Cahen has published his article is a POV teritary source.
In fact, the quotes from the quotes from Claude Cahen are removed and quotes from Johnson are replaced.
Here are the diffs: Please see [2] and [3]
And this is one of the edits in dispute [4].
In fact, the book written by Johnson, the conservative journalist, is not peer reviewed either. It is published by "New York: HarperCollins Publishers", not a univ press or other ones which particularly publish scholarly books. I have introduced many sources to them including Bernard Lewis, Claude Cahen, Norman Stillman, etc etc but they insist in using the conservative journalist. I had explained all these before the above diffs were made.
2. Violations of WP:Assume Good Faith and WP:Civility
It is a violation of WP:Assume good faith to persistently and flatly accuse others of misrepresentation of sources when they haven't even read them. They need to first make sure that they have not misunderstood the case before making any accusations. Here I am going to mention the sentences I've written together with the sources and their accusations:
Here is user: Jayjg's accusation: [5] and here is User: Beit Or's accusation: [6]. Accusations of user:Humus_spiens could be frequently found in different talk pages.
The sentence in dispute is:
"There was not such a thing that would be called Antisemitism in Muslim lands before the establishment of the state of Israel (However S. D. Goitein argues that anti-semitism was not entirely absent as it is assumed and aims to prove its existences through Geniza letters. [1]) However many scholars believe that antisemtism arosed in Muslim lands after establishment of the state of Israel though this is disputed. (see new antisemitism). "
User:Jayjg didn't notice that many sources was given for the sentence and simply because one particular source didn't say what was written addressed such an accusation towards me. I provide two quotations from Lewis and Stillman, word by word, which show will refute all these accusations:
Bernard Lewis says: "Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism...".
Norman Stillman says:
- Increased European commercial, missionary and imperialist activities within the Muslim world during the 19th and 20th centuries introduced anti-Semitic ideas and literature into the region. At first these prejudices only found a reception among Arabic-speaking Christian protégés of the Europeans in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt and were too new and too palpably foreign for any widespread acceptance among Muslims. However, with the ever-increasing conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine during the period of the British Mandate, the language and imagery of European anti-Semitism began to appear in political polemics both in the nationalist press and in books (Stillman, New attitudes toward the Jew in the Arab world, in Jewish Social Studies, xxxvii [1975], 197-204; idem, Antisemitism in the contemporary Arab world, in Antisemitism in the contemporary world, ed. M. Curtis, Boulder and London 1986, 70-85). For more than two decades following 1948, this trend increased greatly, but peaked by the 1970s, and declined somewhat as the slow process of rapprochement between the Arab world and the state of Israel evolved in the 1980s and 1990s; it remains to be seen how the tensions arising in 2000 will affect the trend.
3. Double Standards
User:Humus spiens, used the scholar S. D. Goitein (a famous scholar of Jewish studies) when it was quoted by the journalist but removed it when I added it. In fact, even the journalist refers to Goitein as a "great scholar". I was expecting and requested User:Humus spiens to add back the scholarly quotes but instead he added another quote from the journalist.
--
I didn't want to bring this issue here but have found it vert hard, if not impossible, to work on this article, to see these and at the same time not to edit-war; to see editors go around and accuse me of misrepresenting sources while they haven't even read the sources. When I have already asked Humus spiens to let this dispute be resolved in the talk page rather than ANI but he told me that I am threatening him. All I am asking is the un-peer-reviewed sources written by journalists be replaced with Lewis, Cahen, Goitein, et al and that the unestablished accusations be stoped especially noting that some of these editors are admins.
Thanks --Aminz 20:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- From the top of the page: This is not the Wikipedia complaints department. If you came here to complain about the actions of a user or administrator, or if your problem is a content issue and does not need the attention of people with administrator access, then please follow the steps in dispute resolution. These include: mediation, requests for comment, and as a last resort requests for arbitration. What admin action are you requesting here? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- ecThis doesn't appear to be an administrator issue. You're looking for an article Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Jkelly 20:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It is the violations of WP:Assume good faith, obvious WP:NPOV and WP:RS; not a content dispute. --Aminz 20:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if it's WP:AGF, then you're complaining about the actions of a user or adminstrator (see above); if it's WP:NPOV or WP:RS, it's a content dispute; you are, after all, disagreeing about the contents of an article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Aminz, I'm sorry but WP:ANI isn't the place for this... but WP:RFC is. I believe you have valid points but they won't be addressed on ANI. (→Netscott) 21:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes but article RfCs are somewhat more informal. Have a look at the RfC instructions. (→Netscott) 22:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- How about taking the case to WP:MEDCAB? TruthSpreaderTalk 03:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am just worried that the majority of the community may not have seen what absurdities could be published in un-peer-reviewed books published by un-academic presses. Not all of them might have compared a real academic work by a fake one. --Aminz 04:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I was wikifying this article, but you may know more about this (Persian? Iranian?) artist than I do. If you had a minute to look at it you would be able to see if I have made any gross errors due to my unfamiliarity with the relevant part of the world. I will sort out the links to the art galleries when I have a moment. He sounds like a very interesting artist anyway. Itsmejudith 23:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Request for Mediation
Ive been gone. Now Im back and Ill join but Im pretty busy so cant always respond to things right away.Opiner 21:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Aminz. Doesn't matter. Just one of a million and a half articles. I am going to stop caring so much about each and every article in this encyclopedia. Hope you're well. Itsmejudith 13:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding editing Semitism and Zionism topics
Hello Aminz, you might have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and see if anything there applies to the difficulties you've been experiencing. Hope that helps. (→Netscott) 22:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
What's up
Just checking in to see how you're doing. Wikipedia is an interesting place... people come and go from articles, there's a mostly new crop of people working on Criticism of Islam/etc. I see lots of good changes and some bad. I think the key to keeping one's sanity on this website is not to get too heavily invested in one area or article. Myself, I think I'll be more active than I've been last few months, but never on the level I was in the summer. - Merzbow 09:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm doing fine, mostly involved with other hobbies now, but perhaps I'll give a few hours a week to Wikipedia. The whole H.E. thing was a tough ordeal for everyone involved. I got too involved with specific articles and too concerned with specific people for my own good. This hobby is definitely more fun if taken slowly. It's good you and Itsmejudith are still editing.- Merzbow 04:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Aminz, I'm inclined to agree with Moshe on the tag. Please try to just use a standard tag. Thanks. (→Netscott) 06:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Aminz, please stop constantly reverting on this article. It sucks to see you get blocked and unfortunately I fear that you are currently heading down the path towards another one. (→Netscott) 07:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- 3RR is not an entitlement Aminz. If you keep reverting chronically against consensus you'll likely be blocked regardless of whether or not you've made four reverts in 24 hours time. (→Netscott) 07:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Good luck with that. I doubt very much that Jayjg agrees with your edits. (→Netscott) 07:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- 3RR is not an entitlement Aminz. If you keep reverting chronically against consensus you'll likely be blocked regardless of whether or not you've made four reverts in 24 hours time. (→Netscott) 07:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
User notice: temporary 3RR block
Regarding reversions[7] made on December 2 2006 to New antisemitism
- Sorry. I didn't notice I've passed 3rr. --Aminz 20:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Ideogram 04:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- The Arbcom voting page is not a place for posting irrelevant comments. --Aminz 04:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Ibn Warraq
What do you think about him. I actually read two reviews on his book, @article{berg1999iwe, title={Ibn Warraq (ed.): The origins of the Koran: classic essays on Islam's holy book}, author={Berg, H.}, journal={BULLETIN-SCHOOL OF ORIENTAL AND AFRICAN STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF LONDON}, volume={62}, pages={557--558}, year={1999}, publisher={OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS} } and @article{lawson2002iwe, title={IBN WARRAQ, ed.: The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book}, author={Lawson, T.}, journal={JOURNAL-AMERICAN ORIENTAL SOCIETY}, volume={122}, number={3}, pages={658--658}, year={2002}, publisher={UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN} }
One says that his writings are polemic and inconsistent. Other says at the end that "it is hard to recommend his writings but maybe useful for someone who wants to read for antiquity". I would like to have your opinion. TruthSpreaderTalk 08:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Your RFM
I have volunteered to mediate your case. I am not a member of the Mediation Committee, but have some experience conducting mediations. I'll only do so, of course, if all the parties consent. Please indicate on the mediation page whether you agree or not. Cheers, JCO312 00:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Your RfC
Aminz, you should know that I am currently away from my home traveling. As a result I'll not be on the Wiki for the next month or two as much as I usually am. I'll try to see how I can be of assistance but just know what my situation is currently. See you. (→Netscott) 19:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You took out the following without any comment. Please explain why you took it out:
- To prove its divine origin, Qur'anic verses like
challenge the reader to produce a surah like one in the Qur'an. Some critics of Islam have claimed to have met the challenge by producing surahs of their own. [2]Quran thanks. --Matt57 22:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't remember that. It must have been unintentional. The diff please. --Aminz 22:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Here it is, the last group of text. I dont see you were reverting something. It seemed to be an actual edit.--Matt57 23:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- In any case I put it back now. I was surprised actually that no one talked about the Surah like it challenge in the Qur'an or Criticism of the Qur'an page.--Matt57 23:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
==Template:Islam==
Due to a recent AfD, one of the links in the template is now a redlink. Please don't revert turning a redlink into a normal word. --Firien § 11:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding your edit, it was nice to see you. TruthSpreaderTalk 17:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- yup. TruthSpreaderreply 11:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
comments
Thank you for the comments. Would you like to have a look at:[8][9]. And tell me what do you think? Cheers! TruthSpreaderreply 16:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for comments! This discussion might be useful from historical point of view, but Quranic verses [Quran 37:99] are very clear in their meaning, unless it is believed that Qur'an has changed or Qur'an has serious grammatical problems. TruthSpreaderreply 12:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
RfC
I restored a copy for you at User:Aminz/rfc. Tom Harrison Talk 00:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
MCaaHNY
Dear Aminz, thanks for your kind words on my talk page. I am wishing you a Merry Christmas as well. I am sorry that we have to disagree so much on so many issues, but I hope you will believe my honest good faith and my not being islamophobic. I do wholeheartedly forgive you your offences, as my Lord taught me, and hope you will also forgive mine. And a happy new (AD/CE) year. Str1977 (smile back) 17:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. As well, Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 05:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: A nice article
Thanks for that, I'll check it out when I have the time. :-) Cheers, Khoikhoi 05:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Very interesting! But after watching heaps of televangelist programs, I felt myself that Gospel is normally taught without considering its context. Thanks for the article. TruthSpreaderreply 05:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Caesar Farah believes that prophet was still following the Medina pact, as Jews had to be dealt with their laws. But if something Jews haven't practiced, doesn't make that command redundant. Rather, if they would get another chance, only God knows that they might use it again. Cheers! TruthSpreaderreply 10:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would say the same thing that if prophet Muhammad would conquer the lands, this would be much peaceful and much better than people who conquered after Sahaba. And as Israelites always had a prophet to guide them, hence their struggle should be peaceful, otherwise I'd be surprised. But in any case, there are incidences when there is no option left but to use force and sometimes when enemies of God challenge God himself infront of His messenger, those are badly punished. I believe that these all incidences actually point to this very fact, e.g. killing of worshippers of Golden calf etc. TruthSpreaderreply 10:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- lolz. Interesting! TruthSpreaderreply 11:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Feminist exegesis is interesting concept. But I think I differ on this thing altogether. These scriptures are word of God. We should try to know what God wants to convey rather than putting our own words in the mouth of the scriptures. TruthSpreaderreply 00:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- If I will come to know that Huris are angles, I might mend my lifestyle drastically! Huris are definitely humans, as Qur'an explains their features well, unlike angles which are made from light (Noor) or energy. TruthSpreaderreply 01:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- The hard proof is Qur'an itself. Angels are made from light, Jinns are made from fire, and human is created from mud (or matter). Former one's can take other forms because they can interact with our psychology, but they don't become humans. For example, when two angles came to Abraham in human form and Abraham (as) gave them food, they didn't eat it and Abraham knew that these two men are not humans. So they can look like humans, but their desires and needs are still like angles. But Qur'an tells us about Huris that they will look like humans and also feel like humans. If I can remember properly, in Surah Rahman, skin of huris will be like membrane of an egg. And we will only be enjoying their company if they act like humans, what is the purpose of having sexual companionship when the other doesn't feel like humans as angles don't even have sexes, at least according to what I know! TruthSpreaderreply 02:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- I do believe that bible has translated hence, there can be small mistakes in it, but the text you sent me says: "as the angels of God in heaven". Hence, they will be like angels not angels themselves i.e. they will not do sin just like Qur'an says that every one will say "peace" to each other in paradise. Cheers! TruthSpreaderreply 03:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- [10]. TruthSpreaderreply 13:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- no worries! But I was just thinking that this can also be reported from hadith literature, which is pretty large, and not necessarily, Ibn Ishaq. TruthSpreaderreply 13:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Tag abuse
The article was extensively re-written, the tags are for current issues, and the reasons for adding them must be both credible and listed specifically on the Talk: page. You had not added any new comments in days, certainly not since the extensive re-write, and for weeks now you have been disruptively tagging articles which are factually correct and NPOV, but whose contents you simply dislike. You didn't even give a reason in the edit summary. I don't know what the content of that article is, nor do I need to; I can tell a pattern of tag abuse when I see it. My actions were administrative, not editorial. Jayjg (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
As I said before, there is much discussion on the talk page (e.g. [11]). Do you expect an edit warring for the tag to remain? For the editors involved the disputes are clear. The Proabivouac's removal of the tag was nothing more than his support of the current version of the article. --Aminz 00:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Religion reforms
Muhammad banning non monotheism like Mecca religion are you saying thats not true? Qur'an says monotheism followers have to pay tribute and be subdued isnt Qur'an from the time of Muhammad? Or maybe Qur'an is from Umar?
Lets ask another way are you saying non monotheism ISNT banned by Islam? Then why theyre destroying all the beautiful Mecca god statues in the Kaaba? Qur'an makes a much bigger deal about polytheism than about any of the other things youre talking about. People still debating many of these things but NO ONE debating polythesism is banned completely. Since Arabia is mostly polytheism at that time this is the biggest reform.Opiner 08:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I dont know if taxation under early Islam was much less than that under Byzantium and Persian Empire its not sounding right. Why attack people to make them pay less when usually just say were charging less? but its not the tribute to the Muslims just the tax. How much tax you pay now? OK divide that by two and pay it as the tribute owed by the Muslim to the Jews. What are you getting more upset about?
Sabians also monotheism? I think. Zoroastrian monotheist as much as Christians. Muhammad didnt know Hindus and this is about the Muhamma reforms not what someones doing later thats another reform BUT judging from Mecca polytheists hes not going to smash all their beautiful statue take their temple for Islam and make them convert? What are you thinking ,maybe Muhammad is okay with most polytheism except the Meccans for some reason?Opiner 08:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Edit warring
I blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring. --CSTAR 15:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).AAA765 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The diffs please. All I was adding was 2 times of adding a POV tag to an article for reason stated here [14]. I think it is the right of editors to add POV tags to the articles when at least several sections on the talk page are dedicated to a dispute & and article/user conduct RfC has been filed. I was not edit warring because the time distance between even those tag additions is large. I think one should clearly distinguish between sincere efforts to improve wikipedia than pushing an opinion. Removing diputed tag is pushing an opinion given clear signs of dispute... The basis for this block seems to come from here [15]. I have explained my edits to the Antisemitism article. Please also see the reference to previous discussion in the link. It was not a 3RR and I think it is clear that I was trying to improve the article. I was adding content each time and rewroting the section (to an article which was just created). Maybe the most seemingly revert was removal of the POV tag but that was not a revert. It was a progressive development of a just-created article; the tag was removed because a consensus was achieved. But later new arguments for having tag was proposed and I didn't remove the tag. This at very least proves that I was not edit warring.
Decline reason:
You've been blocked multiple times for 3RR, and by gaming the 3RR system while continuing to edit war, I'm not removing your block. I suggest that you use the block as an opportunity to cool down, and review your editing behaivour. -- Martinp23 00:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- The activity on the page in question, suggests edit warring, against what appears to be consensus involving long time WP contributors. However, I have not weighed the merits of this particular dispute here. Indeed, if you believe in the merit of your case, then propose an RfC.
- I warned you before on edit warring and I didn't block you then based on a technicality. However, the point of the 3RR rule is to discourage edit warring on some principled basis, and I certainly take a dim view of repeated brinksmanship or 3RR gaming.
- Note this doesn't mean the article will forever stay in its current state. Rather than engage in editing, spend your time making a case for your position.
- However, I see no reason to lift this block. --CSTAR 23:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
CSTAR, for God's sake, I did file an RfC but the dispute was not resolved. My problem is that the editors on the other side deny existence of any dispute and removed the POV tag. I was putting on the disputed tag in most of the edits which appear edit-warring.please see [12]. Even then I wasn't persistently there (please have a look at the times of my edits) Also, regarding the previous case, the first edit was not a revert. I swear it was not. It was an edit based on agreement. And what I did in general is a typical behavior of many respected editors on controversial articles. --Aminz 23:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
CSTAR, honestly, I have never seen any editor working on controversial articles who hasn't ever *reverted* for one, two or three times in a day. The controversial articles are more prone to disagreements and that's not because the editors are bad. If one follows all my edits, he/she can see that I always use reliable sources and source whatever I add but even then yes, disagreements happen. --Aminz 23:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Israel
I agree with this. Formation of Israel is definitely not against Qur'anic injunctions. As I agree with Ibn Hisham and Ghamidi (as per [Quran 17:60]) that Isra and Mi'raj was a dream, hence the holiness of Jerusalem is only because of Hebrew prophets and there is no more reason to it. I think the rest is because of political reasons and ignorance. But in contrary to what Prof. Muhammad wrote, I think Qur'an is silent that whom should rule Jerusalem after Sahaba (Qur'an only says that Jerusalem will be handed over to Muslims as it was given to Israelites in history, as per contextual interpretation of verse [Quran 17:1], which eventually happened in the era of Umar (ra)) All references in Qur'an regarding Jews and promissed land are for particular period of time, hence I look this matter from completely secular point of view. TruthSpreaderreply 03:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is a very common mistake. The whole verse should be understood in the context. Out of the context, every verse has unlimited meanings. The context tells us that Moses told Israelites that they should strive (essentially militarily), and God has destined for this this land. Mentioning of "written" should be considered in this context that God ensured them victory but still they didn't proceed. IMHO, the context of the verse shows the promise to only the direct addressees of Moses, and not for all generations of Jews. I wouldn't make a final statement as this only my opinion. I learned to reason this way after reading some portion of Tadabbur-i-Qur'an, but my reasoning and even reasoning of Islahi are definitely not infallible. TruthSpreaderreply 03:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Islam
What was the deal with removing my reversion? All the information in the Criticisms of the criticisms of Islam is exactly how those two paragraphs appeared as they originally did. Please see the discussion page if you are still confused with what I mean. Thanks --Canadia 05:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have seen the talk page and made a comment there. Article is on criticism of Islam, that means that the article is centered on that, not that responses or something else couldn't be inserted. --Aminz 05:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- So by creating a link/page that expresses the criticisms of the methodologies that critisize Islam that is, by the way, still attached to the page, how does that expurgate the responses to those who critisize Islam? --Canadia 05:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- First off, the proposition that the critics of Islam are not reliable sources is just risible. Even if you referred to the "Criticisms of Islam" page as being unreliable, I still would not be able to believe that argument as the page itself (without the Criticisms of the criticisms of Islam section) has over 75 citations. Secondly, if you meant by creating a section where critics respond to the methodologies espoused by those who critisize Islam, I have done exactly just that by creating a page called Criticisms of the criticisms of Islam. --Canadia 05:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding our little "argument", best wishes matey. --Canadia 05:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Antisemitism
Aminz, when you solicit a large number of select editors to comment on a page, resulting in a flood of like-minded individuals supporting your proposal, it angers other editors, who feel the process is being unfairly manipulated, and poisons the transpiring discussion. It also tends to reflect poorly on its respondents, who begin to look like interchangable POV warriors rather than respectable editors, even when they are the latter.Proabivouac 07:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- The Request For Comment was on existence of a dispute. To me, every reasonable person should support it (that's what I personally think, no offense taken). I didn't ask people to say that I am right but only that there is a dispute. Personally, I find it unacceptable that the fact that there is some dispute angers some editors. I am sorry but there are many more serious things in this world one can be angered at. --Aminz 07:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I am not angered by the fact that there is a dispute, to which I will attest shortly, per Tom harrison. It is obvious to me that your material should be represented, and that your early version, leading the section as it did by stating that anti-Semitism did not exist, was tendentious, perhaps contributing to the response you received from its regular editors.Proabivouac 07:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion for the lead has changed over time as I have learned more about it. At the beginning I had only seen Cahen and Lewis who say explicitly and unambigiously that there was no antisemitism. So I said there is none. But then I found others saying there was a little bit. So, I added that as well. The last version which I prepared and was ruthlessly removed is this [13]. Please let me know why it is not proper for the lead. --Aminz 07:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I would agree that the existing version is unduly dismissive of this view; however it is absurd to open this section with the assertion that all that follows does not actually exist. That would be considered tententious even in articles such as Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster, where scholarly consensus is overwhelmingly that they do not exist, and in these cases existence isn't dependent on definition. Jews didn't - and still don't - have the same rights as Muslims, and this is enough to merit a discussion on anti-Semitism even where we are aware that the terminology might be debated. English does not have a well-established term which captures all the nuances of Islamic "anti-Semitism," but that something like this exists, today and in history, cannot seriously be questioned.Proabivouac 08:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The section actually starts with "while prejudice and sometimes hostility existed in the Islamic world". And of course the most authorative POV should go first. When Shelomo Dov Goitein wants to contradict Cahen, he writes: Antisemitism was not absent as it is assumed (+footnote). In the footnote, writes even by such an eminent authority as Cahen" (please see footnote 13 (and 2) here [14]). Phrases like "as it is assumed", "by such an eminent authority as Cahen" can justify that the lack of antisemitism is among the most authorative POVs (and probably the most authorative POV at the time Shelomo Dov Goitein wrote his book). --Aminz 08:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Proabivouac, the reason that we don't have the word is simply because there is none. Jews, when were ill-treated, were ill-treated because they were non-Muslims (not because they were Jews).--Aminz 08:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Being Jewish means, among other things, that they are not Muslims, while if they were Muslims, they wouldn't be Jews, would they? Use common sense.Proabivouac 11:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
If being Jewish means adhereing to Judaism, then being Jewish and Muslim are not reconcilable (because Jews reject Jesus). Being both (non-mainstream) Christian and Muslim is though possible. But I can not get its relevance here. There has been hardly any difference between Jews and Christians in terms of Dhimmi laws etc etc. When they were discriminated and persecuted, they were both discriminated and persecuted, and when they were relaxed, both were relaxed. --Aminz 11:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- One can be antisemitic and anti-Christian at the same time. Persecuting other groups, like Christians, does not absolve one from the charge of antisemitism. Beit Or 11:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Salam. I've worked on this article and I have some problem with Zora. She doesn't trust in my edits. She recognized the most reliable narration of Karabla which has written by AbiMekhnaf as Shi'a POV and when I told her OK look at Tabari and we can write whatever in both of these books she said I don't have that volume of Tabari. I remember she trust in you. Please look at this information "Kitab Maqtal al-Husayn by Abu Mikhnaf (died in 157 AH, 774 AD). He was the first historian to systematically collect the reports dealing with the events of the Karbala. His works was reliable among later historians -Shi'a and Sunni- like Tabari.[3]He has based his work on the eyewitness testimony of Dolham, Oqbeh, and Homayd bin Muslim." and the talk page of battle of Karbala and speak with her or tell me what should I do with her.--Sa.vakilian 18:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Your edits to Battle of Karbala
Aminz, I'm very distressed by your edits to the academic section. Your writing is not clear, your references are incomplete, and you're paraphrasing rather than quoting. Furthermore, you seem to be citing scholars who are talking about what the battle means to the Shi'a, rather than what actually happened. Hugh Kennedy is a military historian. He specializes in Islamic military history. He makes a clear distinction between an account of what happened at the battle (without speculating as to Husayn's intentions) and the effect on the Muslims of the time. Please, let's keep the outline of the what happened distinct from speculation as to intentions, significance, etc. Zora 11:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Halm's work
Wellhausen was giving his emotional reaction to the events -- that's not the same thing as a considered academic judgement on what happened. Furthermore, Wellhausen died in 1918! He's hardly representative of current scholarship.
Halm is taking a very Shi'a POV -- as one might expect from someone who had spent many years studying the Shi'a. He titles his section "The Martyrdom of Husayn" -- which is hardly academic even-handedness. He seems to have taken the standard Shi'a account of events at face value, down to the pathetic stories about the desecration of Husayn's body. I'm not sure that he's that well-regarded in academia, as I haven't found him in any of the bibliographies of books that are "state of the art". Nor any of the graduate school bibliographies re Islam that I've copied off the net.
Esposito is also well-known for taking a sympathetic view of Islam. He's an essayist, primarily. I don't think he's known for work in primary sources.
Kennedy specializes in military history; he knows how the armies were organized and just what was at hand to throw against Husayn.
Now Kennedy also talks about the effect of the battle on Muslim opinion at the time. I can suggest a compromise, which is we have a section on "contemporary reactions to the battle", where we can quote Kennedy to the effect that "al-Husayn became the symbol for the sufferings of all the weak and defenceless". Other academics as well. I don't mind quoting academics when they're talking about what the battle meant at the time. I think the Shi'a interpretation of it, more than 1000 years later, is already well-covered. Zora 11:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- PS. Of course you can cite passages, whether you have the book or read it on Google. Fair use quotation is legal and OK on WP. Zora 11:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
E of Islam treatment of Hassan
Madelung thinks that Hasan was treated very badly by the EofI 2 and devotes a whole section of his book to refuting the article. I find his arguments persuasive. However, I don't think that Halm's acceptance of the EofI article makes him "unsympathetic" to the Shi'a. I think he's just following other people's narratives here, whether they're EoI or Shi'a. This period is not his specialty. I've been digging for info about him, and he seems to have focussed on the Ismailis and especially the Fatimids.
I've noticed this in other general histories of Islam. When authors are discussing the period that they have studied, in detail, from primary sources, they're very good, very sharp. For other periods, they're summarizing other people's work. Frex, the Hugh Kennedy book that I like re Umayyad and Abbasid military history is a general history of Islam up to the later Abbasids. The section on early Islam is not Hugh Kennedy's specialty, and he's not very illuminating there.
So I would assume that Halm's book on the Shi'a is going to be the most reliable when he's discussing the Fatimids. Zora 12:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Shi'a POV versus the academic POV
SV has added some material re Shi'a who want to remove some of the invented, dramatic trappings from the story of the battle. However, I see no reason to believe that their "stripped down" version is stripped down enough for academic consumption. The "modern" Shi'a POV still seems to start with the assumption that Husayn deserved the caliphate, that he was unjustly treated, that he was a perfect human being, that he knew he would die but accepted it as necessary for Islam, etc. Academics have to toss all that out. They should try to be completely neutral. Which is why Halm's use of the term "martyrdom" is disturbing. That's accepting the Shi'a interpretation of what happened.
So far, I haven't seen anything from the Shi'a POV re history that meets Western academic standards. The text that SV wants me to accept as authentic is just not up to snuff, in the form presented. This business about "reconstruction" is just too fuzzy. At least when Guillaume reconstructs Ibn Ishaq, he marks the passages from al-Tabari and Ibn Hisham so that you know exactly where he got each passage. It's possible to check his work. The Abi Mekhnaf is "reconstructed" but from what? by whom? The introduction makes a big deal about how Abi Mekhnaf is so early, so reliable -- but why would I trust that? Why would I believe that? It could be "reconstructed" from documents written 300 years later, in which case the reconstruction is highly suspect. Zora 12:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I did my best and find academic research about Abi Mekhnaf and the fact that Tabari has admitted it as reliable source but she doesn't want to accept. Now it's not important for me what she thinks. She insists on her position without any reference which supports her. What should we do now.
- It's funny that Shi'a accepts Abi Mekhnaf because Tabari narrates his report:"Abu Mikhnaf was the earliest historian who took testimonies from eye witnesses and compiled his maqtal. There is in existence today an book in Arabic called Maqtal Abi Mikhnaf. It is doubtful whether this is the original text. However we do have the excerpts quoted by Tabari and other historians."[15]
- These are the list of books which are available in Amazon with references to Abu Mikhnaf.[16]
--Sa.vakilian 04:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- من به این نتیجه رسیدم که این دو تا منبع یعنی طبری و ابی مخنف عملا یکی هستند و تفاوت هایشان ناشی از ترجمه است هر دو معتبر و آکادمیک هستند و [17] توضیحات لازم را هم دادم و دیگر برایم مهم نیست زرا چی فکر می کنه. من بر اساس همین متون ماجرا را به عنوان فکت و نه دیدگاه شیعه می نویسم.--Sa.vakilian 06:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
شما می تونی من را سید صدا کنی . روان تر و خودمانی تره.--Sa.vakilian 09:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
What's your idea
Salam.
Do you agree to invite User:Itaqallah to write Sunni POV. He's very knowledgeable.--Sa.vakilian 15:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support
Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 20:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Please look at Battle of Karbala#Historiography of the battle of Karbala
Salam. I should confess that chalenging with Zora make this part more academic and I hope she accepts it now, but I can't bear her anymore if she doesn't accept it. Then I revert whatever she add or delete. So I propose you become a mediator between us and we'll add our ideas in the talk page then you'll add it in the article after discussing.--Sa.vakilian 07:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've receive a boiling point. How do I deal with her?--Sa.vakilian 04:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Prophet Mohammad.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Prophet Mohammad.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MECU≈talk 02:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:3RR
No, I haven't. Two of the edits you must be counting are qualified restorations of your material, not reverts. Aminz, sourced material does not equal neutral use of said material.Proabivouac 08:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no doubt that you are acting in good faith, insofar as you are editting according to your real beliefs. This is exactly the problem: Wikipedia isn't a platform for these beliefs, however benevolent they might be. You believe that Muhammad was the prophet of God, which is fine, and I'd guess that you believe that determination to be one at which any informed and fair-minded person would arrive. That does not make your edits any less tendentious.Proabivouac 08:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Eide Mobarak
Salam. Man eid qadir ra be shoma tabrik miguyam va omidvaram be Ali shabih tar shavim hatta be andaze yek gam.--Sa.vakilian 10:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Also please explain why you removed "Secondary source"[18]. Tha History of Tabari, Baladhyri, Ibn Kathir and the other later historians aren't primary sources.--Sa.vakilian 10:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
No personal attack please
Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thank you. -- Karl Meier 11:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Re Sincerety of Muhammad
I'll be watching that. Thanks Aminz. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 13:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Fayssal. The argument that some editors bring is that it is not neutral to say that Muhammad was sincere. I think neutrality (WP:NPOV) means presenting the POV of all scholars rather than arguing that the content of what the scholars actually say should be neutral. --Aminz 13:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- The solution to that is to bring both POV's together. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 13:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- You mean the POV of non-Muslim non-academic
scholars? --Aminz 13:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)- I didn't mean that. If they are as much notable as the ones you brought than of course we should mention them. WP:RS. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 13:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- You mean the POV of non-Muslim non-academic
- The solution to that is to bring both POV's together. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 13:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, But we can not mention views of non-experts, can we? I personally think that the real view of the majority is that the Qur'an is the product of Muhammad's unconscious (from their writing style). But I have no source for that. --Aminz 13:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Everything is well explained at WP:RS#Aspects of reliability. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 13:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not clear that the concept of an "unconscious" is nowadays broadly accepted as useful. It is futile, for example, to ask to what degree a poet, painter, musician, etc. is creating material from their "unconscious," just as it is useless to try to identify "prophets" on the basis of this indefeasable attribution.Proabivouac 20:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, But we can not mention views of non-experts, can we? I personally think that the real view of the majority is that the Qur'an is the product of Muhammad's unconscious (from their writing style). But I have no source for that. --Aminz 13:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, this material is already in the article: "Other historians, such as Watt, Reeves and Schimmel, accept Muhammad's revelations as sincere.[4] [5][4], [6]." The trouble is that you wish to turn these into a dedicated section, with a decidedly POV title, including each quote redundantly given in full.
Ask yourself: if half the readers walk away from this article believing that Muhammad was the prophet of God, and half walk away believing him to have been an imposter, would you feel the need to correct this second group? Neutrality means allowing people to arrive at their own conclusions, without being confronted with a long list of generic testimonials. These add nothing factual to the article, and are only topical because Muir's allegation broached the subject. Even so, I'm not clear from your quotes that any of them were saying Muhammad was invariably sincere, only that he wasn't an outright fraud. It is often taken to be a sign of insecurity to feel the need to rebut what is never said.Proabivouac 20:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
He was so narcissistic that he was able to convince himself what was he was saying was true. Arrow740 20:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- ^ S. D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, University of California Press, p.278
- ^ SuraLikeIt.com - Website claiming to have met the "Surah like it" challenge
- ^ Kitab Maqtal al-Husayn, tranlators' forward
- ^ a b The Cambridge History of Islam (1977), p.31
- ^ Reeves (2003), p.6
- ^ Schimmel (1995) p.51-2
- Here it is, the last group of text. I dont see you were reverting something. It seemed to be an actual edit.--Matt57 23:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- To prove its divine origin, Qur'anic verses like