User talk:Mosesheron/Archive 2

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Misuse of edit Summary

Greetings,

I just want to remind the "experienced User" how Edit Summary works:

"Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content." (WP:REVTALK)

Also kindly reminding you of another Wikipedia rule you might have forgotten: "Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith – that is, the assumption that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it." (WP:GF)

I also want to point to this Essay to remind you that the image is about a model attempting for sketch Islamic perception on the mind, while the claim of the image was to be the model of Islam per se.

best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: I knew this was coming. So telling someone to "be a little more careful before reverting" in cases where it is evident that due care was not taken is a misuse of edit summary? It's not about good faith, but care and scrutiny. Was that an original research? It was not. Yet, without making further inquiry you labelled it as so. Now, you have come up with the recipe of this. How is this applicable here? I am cognizant of the fact that no model can represent the divergent aspects of Islamic thought. Adding a qualifier is necessary and that easily solves the case. What you seem to be missing, however, that this is quite a mainstream one. If it isnt, please direct us to some alternative models. Mosesheron (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I have now changed that description to this: "A four dimensional model of human personality, consisting of ruh, nafs, qalb and 'aql". I think this should reconcile our differing viewpoints, as it merely represents what the source is all about, stating nothing specific about Islam. Also, I want to repeat here what I have already stated. There is in fact a general consensus among Islamic scholars about the four spiritual components (ruh, nafs, qalb, aql) of human personality shown in that model. This is evident in numerous scholarly sources. The centrality of these four spiritual components in Islam, as far as we are concerned about inner human faculties, is thus indisputable. Regards. Mosesheron (talk) 06:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The model is actually fine, (I personally wouldn't put Allah on the opposite end of Shaytan, since Allah is pretty much all-encompassing, but wthin this model, it makes sense. In the end, it is not up to us to decide. I sincery suspected this model to be one of the many-User generated models we often find on Islam related articles. (Maybe you remember the icons on the infoboxes). I apologize for inconvenience by reverting this too hasty. However, I don't think that much damage is done. It is always possible to clarify misunderstandings without assueming the other person had bad intentions. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: That model was in fact "generated through a grounded theory analysis of interviews with 18 key informants with relevant academic or religious expertise". It thus reflects a consensus within the relevant academic and religious communities, which actually supports my previous claims about the centrality of such a model within Islamic thought. It was only later that I came to know of this as I had not initially taken the time to read the entire article. Furthermore, I agree that it is important to "clarify misunderstandings without assueming the other person had bad intentions". I consistently make an effort to uphold that principle. In retrospect, I realize that my edit summary in that article did not reflect my best judgment, and I apologize for any confusion or misunderstanding that may have caused. Best regards. Mosesheron (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

On Ruh

Want to discus the sources. Can I know your religion too brother? Thanks. —Some1 ^{talk} 10:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Punetor i Rregullt5: My religious background is irrelevant. But, since you are curious, I am a Muslim from Bangladesh. Now what difference does that make? Please share your thoughts. Furthermore, I sincerely request you to clarify your changes on Ruh. Why did you remove that diagram, given that it is from a highly reliable scholarly source. The article states in a very clear and plain language that the model is based on a consensus of 18 different religious and academic experts. Does that mean nothing to you? Also, you erased lead contents. why? On Wikipedia, lead is ideally a summary of the article itself. So we usually do not include anything in the lead that is not clarified in the body first. The sources that have been cited are also highly reliable, and of course scholarly. I mean at least the ones that I have added to that article, and upon which the lead mostly relies, because its prominence depends mostly on Quranic accounts. The section on rūh's coverage in the Quran elaborately discusses the contexts of its appearance in various places of the Qur'an with reference to specific verses and sura numbers. You could independently verify those claims made in the article. Waiting for your response. Mosesheron (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The phrase “God’s own spirit” can be misinterpreted. The spirit created by God is better, because that is what the verse means. Quran also talks about “Allah’s she-camel” like it talks about the spirit. Right? So to include the meaning is better because it doesnt get misunderstood. Some1 ^{talk} 07:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Punetor i Rregullt5: Here is how notable translators translate 15:29.

• "So, when I have made him and have breathed into him of My Spirit, do ye fall down, prostrating yourselves unto him" (M. M. Pickthall)
• and when I have formed him fully and breathed into him of My spirit, fall down before him in prostration (Muhammad Asad)
• "When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit, fall ye down in obeisance unto him." (Yusuf Ali )
• so when I have proportioned him and breathed into him of My Spirit, fall down before him prostrating (Nasr et al)
• When I have shaped him, and breathed My spirit in him, fall you down, bowing before him! (Arthur John Arberry)
• when therefore I shall have completely formed him, and shall have breathed of my spirit into him; do ye fall down and worship him (Sale)

As for 32:9:

• and then He forms him in accordance with what he is meant to be, and breathes into him of His spirit: and [thus, O men,] He endows you with hearing, and sight, and feelings as well as minds: [yet] how seldom are you grateful (Muhammad Asad)
• Then He fashioned him and breathed into him of His Spirit; and appointed for you hearing and sight and hearts. Small thanks give ye (M. M. Pickthall)
• But He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him something of His spirit. And He gave you (the faculties of) hearing and sight and feeling (and understanding): little thanks do ye give (Yusuf Ali )
• Then He fashioned him, and breathed into him of His Spirit, and endowed you with hearing, sight, and hearts. Little do you give thanks (Nasr et al)
• then He shaped him, and breathed His spirit in him. And He appointed for you hearing, and sight, and hearts; little thanks you show (Arthur John Arberry)
• and then formed him into proper shape, and breathed of his spirit into him; and hath given you the senses of hearing and seeing, and hearts to understand. How small thanks do ye return (Sale)

For 38:72:

• and when I have formed him fully and breathed into him of My spirit, fall you down before him in prostration!” (Muhammad Asad)
• And when I have fashioned him and breathed into him of My Spirit, then fall down before him prostrate (M. M. Pickthall)
• When I have proportioned him and breathed into him of My Spirit, fall down before him prostrating. (Nasr et al)
• When I have shaped him, and breathed My spirit in him, fall you down, bowing before him! (Arthur John Arberry)
• When I shall have formed him, therefore, and shall have breathed my spirit into him, do ye fall down and worship him (Sale)

and on and on...I can refer you to many others but I don't think that is really necessary. There is this remarkable unanimity among various notable translators in rendering these verses into English. They are justified indeed because the Arabic phrases that the Quran uses are "mirruhi" (15:29, 38:72) and "mirruhihi" (32:9). So where really is the exception? Well, exceptions were made in these regard most notably by Sahih International, which some have called an "ultraconservative translation", influenced, as we are told, by "Wahhabi ideology" (See Sahih International for details). SI translates 32:72 as "So when I have fashioned him and had a spirit of My Own ˹creation˺ breathed into him, fall down in prostration to him", 32:9 as "Then He proportioned him and breathed into him from His [created] soul and made for you hearing and vision and hearts [i.e., intellect]; little are you grateful" and 15:29 as "So when I have fashioned him and had a spirit of My Own ˹creation˺ breathed into him, fall down in prostration to him." One cannot but wonder at the level of hypocrisy involved. Now, there is no doubt that the "preeminent position of strength in the global expression of Islam" is Wahabbism and Salafism as rightly observed by Gilles Kepel (see International propagation of Salafism and Wahhabism for more). These translations are a manipulation of the Quranic text on the scholarly level. More so, It is an attempt at severing the God-Man relationship, speaking from a strict religious point of view. Now, it is not our task to impose anything of our own on the Quranic text as Wikipedia editors. In this regard, we must only rely on reliable sources. Nothing more. Best wishes. Mosesheron (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I also want to highlight here that my use of the term "God's own spirit" in the article is not the result of interpretation of terms such as "His Spirit" or "My Spirit" (which would be justifiable anyway) or WP:Synth. For this, I relied on Sarra Tlili, 2017 (cited in the article), which states the following on page 7: "The Quran also refers to ruh in several ways: ruh al-qudus, al-ruh al-amin, al-ruh, and My/His (God's) ruh. It is unclear whether these are references to the same or different individuals/concepts." Mosesheron (talk) 05:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. But not the meaning, or tafseer is, not that Adam is part of Allah, audhubilah, rather, the spirit was created by Allah, “My created spirit” in this sense. Some1 ^{talk} 14:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Punetor i Rregullt5: "the spirit was created by Allah, “My created spirit” in this sense", the text itself does not say that. That's an unwarranted insertion into the Quranic text. How one is to understand that phrase is a completely different discourse. Mosesheron (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Punetor i Rregullt5: As per the Quranic image of the creation of Adam, it does not become complete until God breathes "His/(My) Spirit" into Adam. Hence all commentators agree that this Spirit is the source of life that was blown into (nafakhtu/nafakha fihi miruhihi/mirruhi) Adam. Now, what are its interpretations? According to the Study Quran, "I … breathed into him of My Spirit, many commentators see My Spirit as a reference to God’s Power, though others take the phrase more literally as the Spirit (al-rūḥ) and see it as explaining why Iblīs would be called upon to bow before Adam". So, evidently there is a disagreement among commentators about the interpretation of the spirit that was blown into Adam. The article clarifies that point in the body. But one has to take notice of different usages of the term in the Quranic context. One such usage is "My/His Spirit", i.e., "God's own spirit", as attested by the Quran and upheld by many pre-modern and modern scholarly sources. It might be figurative, it might be literal. We don't know. What we know for sure is its use in the context of the creation of Adam in 15:29, 32:9 and 38:72, where the Quran refers to "His or My (God's) Spirit". That is why faithful translators do not insert extra-Quranic words while translating those verses. We are unable to accept false meanings promoted by Sahih International. Mosesheron (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Prostration in the sense of respect brother, not worship. Yusuf saw a dream of stars bowing to him, but it wasnt worship. We now have different rulings after Prophet Muhammad came so images and statues are haram, and this kind of bowing too. What are the notable imams explaining what you say, except the westerner scholars? Some1 ^{talk} 15:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Punetor i Rregullt5: Look, as a Muslim myself, I don not have slightest intention to play with the Quranic text. That goes even beyond scholarly integrity and my role as an Wikipedia editor. I have thus further clarified the issue both in the body and lead with recourse to scholarly sources. True that most commentators understand that phrase figuratively, with some taking a more literal view. But I stand by what I have said about the phrase's meaning and usage in the Quran, as opposed to its interpretations. I am not very fond of Western scholars myself. On interpretive levels, Various positions are held by highly esteemed Muslim scholars too. Translators on the other hand are almost unanimous on the meaning of those two phrases (mirruhi/mirruhihi...My/His Spirit). And God knows the best. Mosesheron (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at the article now. There should be no disagreement. best wishes. Mosesheron (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Dunya

You removed it from Category:Quranic words and phrases. Why is that? Is it not present in the Quran? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: Indeed it is. That is why I added that category to that page in the first place, along with many other pages. Then an editor reverted me here, citing the rationale for inclusion of that category. The page indeed says: "This category is not for articles about concepts and things but only for articles about the words themselves. Please keep this category purged of everything that is not actually an article about a word or phrase. See as example Category:English words." So I kind of felt obliged to undo my edits, and thus ended up removing that category from what I perceived as "articles about concepts and things". I must say I do not agree with that rationale myself. Any thoughts on that? Mosesheron (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you’re clearly in the right on this Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 04:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Maybe we will have to rethink about it then. Mosesheron (talk) 04:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fihi Ma Fihi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rui.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)