User talk:AAA765/Archive 10

The Holy Qur'an Wikisource
Peace onto you,

I am an ordinary muslim and concerned about one issue that I think is very delicate. It is about editing the Qur-an.

First, I am no scholar so please excuse my amateur writing and lack of supporting material.

('According to Muslim belief') The Quran is the word of God Al-Mighty, the essence of its last message to Humanity. Thus, it is most important. God has promised to protect it from corruption. "015.009 We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)."

Nevertheless, muslims have immediately (and continuously) put forth effort to protect Quran from corruption, that by proceeding to the compilation of the text and by learning it by-heart (synonyme of to guard/preserve in arabic).

Wikisource's initiative to provide an online copy of the Quranic text is to my opinion a very welcome effort to let the word of God be known to many people thanks to the internet technology. However, the other side of it is that any one (intentionally or not) can edit the text and thus may corrupt the word of God.

I would like to request, if possible, to limit editing of the actual text of the Quran to trusted administrators; if not possible, at least a disclaimer clarifying the above matter.

Thank you for your time. Looking forward to it,

All thanks to God. Al-Mighty, testify that I have transmitted.
 * The Holy Qur'an Wikisource —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.251.56.220 (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

consolidate EoQ?
When you get a chance could you convert the "Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an" (2005) print references in Islam to EoQ online references with an access date? Would be nice to consolidate these sources like we did with EoI. Thanks. - Merzbow 05:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Moon picture
Please see Talk:Muhammad regarding your picture.--Kirby♥time 05:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "As far as I know, a disc can be only split in two halves in one way."
 * That is completely incorrect.
 * First, an undifferentiated abstract circle may be split into two halves in an arbitrary number of ways, unless one stipulates that the split must follow a straight line.
 * Second, if the disc is not in fact radially homogenous, then each angle of split produces a qualitatively different result.
 * Finally, "splitting in two" or even colloquially "splitting in half" does not entail splitting into literal mathematical halves.Proabivouac 10:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Aminz, hope you don't mind me adding this to your talk page, responding to Proa's comments not yours. First: a circle can be split into two halves in an infinite number of ways even if one stipulates that the split must follow a straight line. Second: I can't work out what it means. "Radially homogeneous" should be part of the definition of a circle. Final point: yes, true. So much for the maths, which I think Aminz knows as well or better than any of us. Now I'll go back to see why Aminz thought the photo was a good addition. Itsmejudith 11:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Per point two, any photograph of the moon is more than just the (approximate) circle of its outline, there is also a great deal of internal detail (the geography of the moon,) such that even were it a perfect circle, and splits had to proceed in a straight line intersecting its center, they would still differ due to the asymmetry of content within the circle. Example, even were the earth a perfect sphere, splitting it along the equator is still quite different from splitting it along the Greenwich meridian.Proabivouac 11:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * On the miracles of Muhammad, it may be relevant to note that in popular English speech we say "If Muhammad will not go to the mountain, then the mountain must come to Muhammad". This must be from a story but I don't know how it came to be used as a common English expression. But even if moving a mountain is included as an example of something seemingly impossible, it is still easier than splitting the moon on the Greenwich meridian! For Aminz: I was interested to note that the reference to splitting the moon goes into Indian poetry. There is a beautiful line in the eighteenth century Vietnamese poem Truyen Kieu (the most classical work in Vietnamese literature, with a strong Buddhist inspiration) that refers to the moon being split. In this case lovers have to part and half of the moon is imprinted on her pillow while the other half lights his footsteps ahead. A French translation talked of the "crescent moon" being split (of course a crescent is double, and a crescent is important in Islam, is there any relation to the splitting miracle?). But the Vietnamese original clearly refers to the circle of the moon. Perhaps the idea of doubling or splitting of the moon has spread east through Asian cultural tradition, while the idea of the Prophet as a miracle worker spread west to England. Itsmejudith 11:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting observation. Thanks Judith. --Aminz 23:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * From the idea that an Indian king saw the splitting, I think there is a strong Asian association. As a non-believer I suspect it could be a folk story predating Islam. This is even a possible view for a Muslim who believes the story literally, because he or she could conclude that God offered that particular miracle at that time and place so as to make the strongest impression on a community who had already heard of the idea of the moon splitting. Itsmejudith 10:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Cohan quote
I removed this addition because his quote is already in the "Antisemitism in pre-modern Islam" section of the article. Including it in the lead is POV pushing and repeatitive.--Sefringle 20:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ishmael
I noticed that Ishmael paseed GA review. Congratulations. Majoreditor 21:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thanks very much. --Aminz 21:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm responding to. The reason I went for myth rather than religious figure is that there is no claim he did anything as part of any particular religion. He is revered primarily for what he is rather than what he did. In other words he is a subject of worship (so to speak) not a politician guiding people in the proper manner of worship. Further his actual existence is part of religious traditions and disputed, unlike say the middle ages popes.

Hope that explains my position on the matter. I can understand if you want to dispute where I listed him and if you would like to do something on the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Good articles) I'd have no objection. IMHO it most certainly is biased that Jesus is listed in the one category and Ishmael in the other (I think they should both be in myth) so I wouldn't mind opening this entire issue up. Anyway very nice job on the article! jbolden1517Talk 21:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm letting you know I did open this up. Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles.  You have a valid point regarding Acadmic POV vs. religious POV.  I don't consider him a religious figure since I consider existence a prereq and I am positive of his non existence (there was no proto judaism in 2000 BCE). But you are absolutely correct that I'm assuming an academic POV in making that claim.  I'm not really sure what the alternative is to that other than complete chaos.  So from my perspective Ishmael isn't a religious figure for the same reason Mickey Mouse isn't a famous actor.  Anyway, we'll see if there is a consensus one way or the other on this.  Regardless though, I am fixing the anti muslim bias with Ishmael being a myth and Jesus being a religious figure.
 * Oh and thanks for adjusting the counts and changing the list and...! I don't know what happened with that post.  Must have hit preview not submit or something.  :-) jbolden1517Talk  23:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad
FayssalF, if you have time to look at this dispute, it would be much appreciated. In my experience Aminz works hard and adds material which is often useful. However, it is often desperately in need of editing, and he makes this process very contentious and time consuming. I am near the end of my wits on how to deal with this. The text is also problematic; as a compromise I had removed the image and placed a clean-up tag on the text, which it seemed he'd accepted, but then resumed edit-warring the doctored photo back onto the article with the assistance of Kirbytime (himself fresh from a block for edit-warring) and over many objections. This kind of material makes Wikipedia look like a joke.Proabivouac 19:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments.Proabivouac 23:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I'll be sending an email for both you and Amin w/in 24h. Cheers. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  00:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor quibble
Aminz, this is per this section titles a minor quibble, and sound advice: when you cite things, don't worry so much about the published volume in which it appeared except in the bibliography, where this is covered by, "in …" after the article's title, and a seperate entry for the volume and its editor(s). Saying that something is "from The Encyclopedia of the Qur'an" or "from Oxford press" (etc.) isn't orthodox or particularly relevant. Instead, reference the author(s) of the article with the date and relevant pages: "Author (DATE: page(-page))." This is the same practice you should adopt in academic papers. Besides the considerations of orthodoxy - and you may not realize this, but - citing a volume, besides hindering our ability to evaluate the material, also deprives academic scholars of proper credit for the material they produce, upon which their livelihood and reputation depend. There is hardly ever the need to cite a volume, publication or publisher except as the formal bibliographic accompaniment to the Author:Year format. My aim here is only to evangelize academic best practices to Wikipedia. Not all fields expect page numbers, for example, but this is a shortcoming of those fields. Ideally, we would have direct links to all passages in a universal dataset, and one day (probably in our lifetimes), we will, but for now we deal with this paper dataset, in which reference to author:year:page(s) is the next best thing.Proabivouac 06:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll try to fix the references as you proposed. I think, within wikipedia, the publications are important because they show the reliability of the source (certain journals and publications practice peer-reviewing).
 * I have seen usages like "Claude Cahen in EI" (S.D. Goeith in A Mediterranean Society p.586). The EoI and EoQ articles are signed but the date of their publication is not clear. Unlike the paper version, the online version does not divide the material into pages. Thanks for the suggestion. --Aminz 08:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Splitting moon.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Splitting moon.JPG, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Proabivouac 08:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Islam is a belief system
The ism category is intended for the names of sets of beliefs. "Islam" is the name of a set of beliefs. Therefore Islam is properly categorized under isms. The suffix -ism is not a requirement for this category. Please help me populate the ism category appropriately, thanks. Gregbard 23:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection of the Qur'anic texts in Wikisource
Hi Fayssal,

I recently got a message from an IP address requesting full protection of the original Qur'anic texts in Wikisource against vandalism. Can you please take care of that if you think it could be permanently protected. Thanks. --Aminz 22:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for uploading your images. You very much look like Persians :) --Aminz 22:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Amin. Oh so you know my face now :) Cool beans. Wikisource admins are the ones who can help in that. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  22:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Islam and antisemitism
All the information we have on this subject comes from the Qur'an; therefore, it is a claim of the Qur'an. Jayjg (talk) 03:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, regarding the inuse tag, it has been on for three days now. That's enough. Jayjg (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not correct. Please see Historicity of Muhammad. Further, it is quite awkward to attribute everything to the original sources. Historians tell us which ones are reliable and which ones aren't. No historians (except a few who reject the whole matter altogether), as far as I am aware, has challenged that statement. Using "Claim" there seems just unnecessary.--Aminz 03:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three days? I have never added it for more than a couple of hours. --Aminz 03:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What sources besides the Qur'an do we have for the interactions between Muhammad and the Jews of Yathrib? Jayjg (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the inuse tag, I see you removed it in the middle, then Bless Sins readded it today, then removed it, then you re-added it. In any event, you added the inuse tag today, and then did not make an edit for almost 40 minutes. If you're going to put an inuse tag on, then you should actually edit the article. Jayjg (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides the Qur'an we have Muslim traditions (Sira - Maghazi)... I know that there are Non-Muslim sources written in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and Hebrew by the Jewish and Christian communities. These sources touch upon the relation of Muhammad with Jews but I don't know whether they confirm this sentence or not. Apparently there are some essential differences but I don't know what they are. I will probably know soon since I'd like to raise that article to GA status God willing.
 * Aside from this, adding the term "claim" to such a statement seems unnecessary unless some scholar challenges it. On the contrary it gives the feeling that there are such scholars.
 * Nevermind about InUse tag. I first added it to avoid the edit conflicts. I'll remove it. --Aminz 04:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, it's a terrible article, and I doubt it could ever make "Good article" status. This is not a reflection on your edits, though. Jayjg (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Qur'an, apes, and pigs
The Qur'an says Jews were transformed into apes etc. Some Muslims think that means literally, some figuratively, some think it applies to a small group, some think it is relevant today. It's not up to you to decide that you know what the Qur'an really means. Jayjg (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is only a recent phenomenon on the behalf of some modern writers. The source I used clearly says that: "the qur'anic verse qualifies the Jews of Medina with the epithets apes and pigs. Some modern writers have applied this term to the Jews of twentieth century."
 * What we are doing here is filling up a lot of space quoting these modern writers who all make the same point. This is only 50 years.
 * In fact, I think it is more appropriate to use note the application of the term to the Jews of Medina as a continuation of previous statements about the Jews of Medina. --Aminz 05:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It has been applied in the past, and it has been applied recently as well. It seems more of a continuous, rather than a recent, phenomenon. Jayjg (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your sources(of course if you have any)? I have provided one to the contrary. --Aminz 23:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Some are already in the article. Your source doesn't contradict it, it just says it happened in the 20th century as well. Jayjg (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find it. Can you please quote it here: i.e. a sentence saying "all Jews are pigs". That section is nothing but a quotefarm of some 2000+ quotes.--Aminz 23:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See footnotes 23 and 24. I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by 2000+ quotes; I see five quotes regarding apes and pigs in that section, all of them brief. Have I missed some? Jayjg (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, feel free to read through this. Jayjg (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw reference 23 and 24. Thanks. In fact, I myself added reference 24 and I am aware of that in North Africa. But please note that the section we have is about antisemitism inside the Qur'anic literature. That for example during tensions between the two community, the phrase was used by Muslims in abusive language, or that a certain Muslim dynasty in North Africa set up certain regulations are indirectly related. They deserve a brief mention in a few sentences (with the details coming in relevant sections). Currently, we have dedicated more than 1 page to it writing about what Dr. Muhammad 'Abd Al-Sattar stated on Syrian TV or what 'Abd Al-Sattar on  November 8, 2005 said. By 2000+ quotes I mean quotes coming from year 2000 and afterwards. --Aminz 08:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Aminz, that's a valid objection. However, generalized statements about how Islam is not antisemitic! neither convince nor not solve the problem. What is really needed is someone willing to research earlier periods and report on them fairly, with a mind towards curiosity rather than POV pushing. You could be that someone; you certainly have the energy and good citation habits. I don't mean to troll you when I say I'm disappointed at some elements of the direction you've taken. At the same time, I completely understand why you feel a list of grievances an unfair and inadequate treatment of this subject. But the real problem with this article is that it's not informative enough. The dearth of specific information about medieval periods cannot be solved by generalized pronouncements - even if well sourced - to the effect that anti-semitism didn't exist. I am convinced that an informative treatment will not only find something in the middle of "Islam is anti-semitic" vs. "Islam is not antisemitic", but will transcend this question entirely by providing a historical and non-essentialist treatment of the matters under discussion, per Itsmejudith's worthy comments on talk. I think you might be exactly the person to do this, if you can break out of the battleground trap. See Christianity - few would say either that Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic, or deny that the Christian world has a substantial (and, until very recent times, arguably worse) history of anti-Semitism. Islam is a little more complicated due to the details of Sunnah, but the general point that non-antisemitic interpretations are possible, just as antisemitic interpretations have at times been (and no doubt now are) prevalent, is still valid. The most convincing way to demonstrate this is to review the details, while refraining from general characterizations.Proabivouac 08:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind comment. This article is indeed a tough one because of its connection to current politics. The basic facts are plain but the conclusions drawn from them vary greatly depending on the writer. One main problem is the term itself and what we mean by it. The term was originally created for the purpose of explaining the attitude of West towards Jews rather than the attitude of Muslim towards Jews. If the term were to develop under Muslim rule, it would have focused more on discriminations rather persecutions; on humiliation rather than accusations of conspiracy. The term even seems to be a misnomer because Arabs are Semitic too. Some have tried to use the expressions like "Muslim anti-Semitism" to differentiate it from "anti-Semitism" now referred to as "Western anti-Semitism". That's a very big problem. A new term is needed. Bat Ye'or has done it for us: "Dhimmitude". But this term is not as popular as anti-Semitism. --Aminz 09:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Dhimmitude is much of it, but not quite all of it: both Qur'an and Sunnah draw distinctions between Christians and Jews, for example, this verse wherein Jews are grouped with "Pagans" against Christians and Muslims, also see this. This material is not especially compatible with the theoretical underpinnings of the concept Ahl al-Kitab, but assigns to Jews in general a Pharisaical role as the Munafiqun of God's religion.Proabivouac 09:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The verse in question is concerned with Muhammad's own experience in Medina. Both Jews and Pagans were his enemies. The next verse also I think shows that this was Muhammad's own experience.
 * Later Muslim jurists did not distinguish between Jews and Christians in terms of the regulations. The experience of later Muslims was different. They were in war with Christians rather than Jews. Since Jews did not made a significant effort to convert others, Muslim polemists, with the exception of Ibn Hazm, found it for the most part a waste of time to refute Judiasm. The Jews were ignored for the most part but they were occasionally mentioned in texts with a theme of cowardness and weakness.--Aminz 09:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the Qur'an
Thanks for wikilinking Islam in your post to my talkpage, I wasn't quite sure what it was. Also I suggest you read my edit summaries carefully to save us both time in the future. Arrow740 22:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wisdom
Aminz, just as longness is called length, wideness width and youngness youth, just as freeness is freedom, wiseness is called wisdom.Proabivouac 08:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks ;) --Aminz 08:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am glad I grew up speaking English, because it would drive me mad to try to learn it. :-) Tom Harrison Talk 12:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

GA review
Please do not nominate articles for GA review and then delist them a day later, particularly without following up with the GA review. The point of the process is to obtain a vote. If you're going to delist an article, then delist it. If you request a review, then let the review take its course. If there is a consensus in your favor, we will delist the article. Regards, Lara Love  T / C  04:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

hello
re:, i feel a number of the changes here are a little too opinionated to merit inclusion. the citation to Lewis especially stands out: sure, it might be Lewis's opinion, but a) it doesn't need to be declarative and b) we shouldn't have to be giving priority to the opinion of one academic over others. we might be able to fit in a sentence about the golden age there, and i'll see what i can do regarding that.with regards to the Uthman slaying, i think that is again unnecessarily opinionated. if there are multiple perspectives of an event, as there are bound to be in this instance, it benefits to be unspecific. also, we shouldn't be focusing on inserting more information, as i think we are comprehensive as we need to be for an introductory article. in this respect, going into specifics about the Qur'an and how it was described by the mu`tazilah, ash`ariyyah, hanābilah, and so on, is just way too much detail for this page IMHO.  ITAQALLAH  02:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur on all counts. Also, Aminz, with due respect to Lewis, this sentence - "During the centuries that are called "medieval" in European history, the Islamic civilization was the the richest, most advanced, most powerful, most creative and most enlightened region in the world." - besides laying it on rather too thick, is arguably untrue, see China.Proabivouac 02:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Itaqallah, your argument is rather weak because you do not speficify who are those other scholars. To Proabivouac, I'll write comparisons with India and China. --Aminz 05:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no comparison to China, actually: paper, compass, gunpowder and printing trump pretty much anything from the west in this period. Even the deleted science material only congratulated the Islamic world for having borrowed them from China, and for borrowing zero from India.Proabivouac 10:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My latest edit (later compressed by Merzbow) mentioned that Islamic civilization may have been may have been equalled or even surpassed in some cases but overally Islamic civilization was undoubtedly the most advanced, Lewis says. Period. --Aminz 10:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Lewis is an expert on Islamic history, not on world history. I am certain that it would be just as easy if not easier to find scholars who make the same claim for China.Proabivouac 10:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an unproved claim. --Aminz 10:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Opinions as to which civilization was the greatest are unencyclopedic and are expressly prohibited by WP:PEACOCK. Just state the facts. Beit Or 19:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Karl Meier's comments
Karl, on Qurayza, my edit had two parts (please see the footnote #2). On Islam, Lewis further says that Islamic civilization was the the richest, most powerful, most creative and most enlightened one but Merzbow removed all these. Your edits go beyond fair representation of Lewis into representation of your own views. --Aminz 09:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is evident that it is your edits that is going very far into being a presentation of your personal views. I have mentioned to you before that cherry picking quotes and opinions in order to turn articles into a chorus praising Islam, Muhammad, the Quran etc. is not acceptable.

As for your reverts, please mark them as such, and avoid making small edits within them that will then have to be restored. It would benefit everybody if you would make your reverts and other changes in separate edits. -- Karl Meier 09:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in hearing your false accusations. I don't like it when you suddenly appear and edit articles without any knowledge of what the sources really say but with the pretext of neutrality. --Aminz 09:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is quite obvious that you don't mind or care very much about the neutrality of Wikipedia's articles. This time the fact that you keep insisting on including biased material, has ensured that a featured article candidate is not stable, and therefore no longer a suitable candidate. -- Karl Meier 09:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, your removal of sourced material simply because you percieve it as biased would count as lack of AFG and disruption. I think you are under probation by Arbcom for that. I can imagine someone in the future percieves the fact that say in 19th century west was the most advanced countries in the world as a biased statement. But fortunately wikipedia is not supposed to quote non-experts.--Aminz 09:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't you calm down a little bit, Aminz? WP:Civility please. I am not the only editor that is opposing your cherry picking of quotes and opinions that speaks in favor of your personal views, and I am not the only one that is reverting your biased editing on that article. Even Itaqallah is now opposing at least some of your editing:  -- Karl Meier 10:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Must agree with Karl Meier. Of course that doesn't mean that none of your additions are valuable, but I doubt there is anyone here who can state with a straight face that they're neutral. Saying that Karl only "perceives" them as biased is taking the piss, really.
 * It's also long past time for you to stop talking about Karl's probation. You've managed to work this into just about every thread, including some where he was wikistalked by banned editors using revert-only accounts, and you pop up to point out that Karl is on probation to try to get him in trouble. See WP:CIVIL, letter, now see WP:CIVIL, spirit.Proabivouac 10:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Lewis is clear on this matter. In general I don't feel it necessary to prove myself to anybody. I don't recall being proved to have misrepresented any passage anytime. Proabivouac, I have for long noticed your systematic pressures on me to have me say something which could be used against myself. As such, I asked you before not to edit my talk page. Several of your comments tend to judge about the behavior of other editors and their neutrality whatsoever. I am by no means interested in hearing them nor have I personally found your judgments neutral. --Aminz 10:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Aminz, you don't own any pages here on Wikipedia, and anyone is allowed to make comments on your discussion page, even if they are sometimes critical towards your editing and behavior. What is not allowed, however, is to threaten people with hell-fire in order to scare them away from making comments on specific discussion pages. -- Karl Meier 10:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never threaten anybody by hell fire, please don't put words in my mouth. Proabivouac himself chose to read my comment that way. I did appeal to our responsibility towards God of being fair culminating in the last judgment. --Aminz 10:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I also read your comment that way: it was clear that you were threatening Proabivouac with divine judgment. In addition, I must agree with Pro that you do not edit in a neutral manner; on the contrary, the overwhelming majority of your edits are quotes chosen selectively to present Islam in a more favorable light. Those subjects that are not controversial or do not offer an opporunity to shill for Islam, but are encyclopedically important, leave you cool, which is the reason why Islam was mostly developed and has been nominated for FA by Merzbow, not you. I can't disagree more with your claim that you ahve never been "proved to have misrepresented any passage anytime". On the contrary, see point #3 in Requests_for_comment/Aminz. Furthermore, I am not interested in your answers like "see WP:CIV" or whatever policy you usually link to when you have nothing to say. Beit Or 19:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

re. mediation request
While you added some of the involved parties, you forgot to add all the involved parties to the Islam and antisemitism, so I have taken the liberty of adding the involved parties that you had forgotten to add. I also added a couple of issues to be discussed.--Sefringle 19:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation for MA article
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.--Sefringle 19:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

re:
i don't think that can be clarified: because we don't know what specifically Lewis is referring to, or what particular groups he has in mind. i think it's best to just mention the term 'deviant groups' and leave it at that, especially in the absense of any clarification by Lewis.  ITAQALLAH  21:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not using other sources to clarify this? I think this is important because the concept/application of heresy in Christianity (and thus english language) has significant differences from the Islamic one. --Aminz 02:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * well we need Lewis to clarify what he meant. otherwise it may constitute original research in synthesising two sources to advance a position. i really don't think the sentence on deviant groups is needed, because the section is referring to other religions (unless what is meant by deviant is breakaway religions such as the baha'i faith or something)  ITAQALLAH   12:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we can avoid using Lewis at all when his sentence is not clear. I think it is important to clarify "deviant form"s,i.e. do hanbalis consider shafi'ies as untolerable deviant forms? what about shias? --Aminz 18:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * i think we can do without that part of the sentence. without any specification, the phrase "deviant groups" becomes ambiguous and a little unnecessary.  ITAQALLAH   20:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. It was ambiguous. --Aminz 20:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 04:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 08:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

Quoting religious sources
Here is the discussion I've had before with other people. No one said we cant quote directly from religious sources. And there are 100's of places here which I think I showed you before where we quote Quran and Hadith all the time. The fact that those hadiths shine some light on places you dont want to be illuminated, doesnt mean they cant be quoted. Dont refer to comments of users who have been banned indefinitely. And for the record, where is what Blueboar said: SIMPLY quoting the text is not OR, or POV etc. Commenting on it could well be.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Music links
I am concerned about the copyright status of the YouTube material that you link to on your user page. Do you have have any information or sources that indicate that the material is not copyrighted, and/or that YouTube is allowed to host it? -- Karl Meier 11:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As you have not responded, and have not provided any clarifications regarding the copyright status of the material that you link to, I have made a decision to remove the external links myself. -- Karl Meier 17:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Waiting for you to remove OR from Quran
References 2-16 in Quran should also be OR for you because they're being referenced directly as in Islam and animals. Do you plan to do anything about it? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Sufism
ٍSalam. Chetory shoma?

Please write your idea about talk:Islam. Thanks-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Kramer article
Interesting article, thanks. Certainly worth a mention. Jayjg (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bibliographical information on Banu Qurayza
Just a quick reminder about what you promised. Str1977 (smile back) 08:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have now added the Bibliographical information. --Aminz 09:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Please answer my question on the talk page regarding Watt. Str1977 (smile back) 20:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. One last tidbit is missing. See talk. Str1977 (smile back) 08:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please guide this user
Salam. Aqa User:Maysam 1382 an Iranian user who whould like to work on Shia related article. Unfortunately I'm not active. Striver is not active too. Can you please help him to become familiar with WP .-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza
Let's restart discussion on talk. As of now I suggest you self revert on that article.Bless sins 04:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Jazak Allah. In about 1-2 days, I'll post something on the talk page. Meanwhile feel free to post someting yourself.Bless sins 04:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Milestones
You may find something of interest in this influential book:Proabivouac 06:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)