User talk:AAA765/Archive 7

Your note
Hi Aminz, I'll take a look, but I don't think I'll be able to help as I really don't know enough about the subject. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There are no other friendly editors like me, Aminz. I am unique. ;-D
 * Okay, seriously, I'll think about it. I have one or two in mind that I can ask. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, it was good to read! --Irishpunktom\talk 11:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Link
Thank you very much for the link. I read the article. Interestingly, I have the exact opinion of that person. But when I present Islam in front of anyone, I never put it as a religion but as an extension of human nature. For example, being humble to a supreme being and to consider other equal, being merciful and be kind to others and being honest is in our nature, the religious rituals stregnthens our nature in this regard. Even all rituals of religion have the same goal, and that is the realization of our nature and respecting it. And if goal seems to be different, I think we should question that practice. For example trimming nails, shaving armpit and pubic hair is evident from nature as every person is born with it, but it causes problems i.e. bad smell, health problems plus it doesn't suit to human's highest standards of aesthetics. In my basic study of Sharia (not to speak of fiqh), I couldn't find anything, which would go against nature but strengthens it to the highest degree. Thanks again for the article. Cheers!  TruthSpreader Talk 11:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you think of Isra_and_Mi'raj, as Encyclopedia of Islam and Muslim world by MacMillan reference considers it a dream, which was made physical journey later on, as Ibn Ishaq also considers it as a dream.  TruthSpreader Talk 09:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well! my reply was connected to the article in the sense that changing religion is a huge concept, and eventually it changes your social life, as said in the article. I was just suggesting that people should be told that it is not the denomination (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) that is important, it is the concept. And the concept is to respect the nature, which the religion tells us.


 * You asked me about Geckos, interesting enough, I read about it a few days ago, and I think the following link has very good information about it. But even if the prophet asked for it, the reason would be very similar to killing a snake or scorpion, as it can kill or hurt you.  TruthSpreader Talk 09:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Gecko cant kill or hurt you! Not poisonous at all only superstition.Opiner 10:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if it cannot hurt you, the aspect of being uncleanliness is still there, but interesting enough, Aisha, the closest wife says in one of the hadith that she is not even aware of this fact. But User:Opiner can also be right, this can be a superstition in the Arabian society, but as Aisha was unaware, this mustn't be a part of the religion, but an opinion of the prophet as an elder of society.  TruthSpreader Talk 10:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Who is Hayath Khan?  TruthSpreader Talk 11:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh sorry for not realizing. I think his concern was right to some extent. But I believe that a person doesn't become guilty, at least in front of God unless he faces the reality quite clearly and then rejects it just because of arrogance. And what Forward has in his mind, only God knows better.  TruthSpreader Talk 11:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And yes, I am aware of his death. Sad!  TruthSpreader Talk 11:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a comment on article Muhammad, it would be worthwhile to know the reason that why prophet asked to cut down four hundred trees after khyber.

I would definitely support your proposal. But we should also tell that he had a very good taste about things as well. For example, he used to like the horse of best kind etc. Personally, I don't find these two qualities contradictory. As the first one tells us that we shouldn't use extravagantly and show off. The second one tells us that we should have a taste of things in life and not just a dry person with no emotions.  TruthSpreader Talk 11:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

New article you may want to edit
Hello Aminz, I've started a new article about Saudi Arabia's first feature film: Keif al-hal?. I invite you to contribute to it if such an article might interest you. Thanks. :-) (→ Netscott ) 02:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Aminz, thanks for the response. I actually haven't seen the film myself. I've been gleaning information about it off of the internet and formulating the article that way. It's exciting to me to see Saudi Arabia enter into film making. :-) Take it easy. (→ Netscott ) 23:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Muhammad quote removal
And? I'm not even looking at who adds or takes away quotes nor am I targetting any member specifically; I'm simply trying to make sure Watt's statements are represented accurately. — Aiden 08:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you being serious? Have you even read the page the quote comes from? It in no way accurately represents the whole of Watt's statement. — Aiden 08:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A quote which attempts to paint the picture that Jews claimed something they did not, especially considering the author of the quote does not explicitely state they made such claims, should not be included as it is not accurate and just clouds the article. You cannot simply add a bunch of quotes to make an article. What you've been doing is the primary reason why this article was removed from the Good Articles list. — Aiden 08:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

source
I'll try to find it and will let you know when I'll get one. Cheers!  TruthSpreader Talk 03:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you please check your email. TruthSpreader Talk 16:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[|3RR report]
Aminz, there is often tag team reverting waring with quick reporting if you take the bait. Sometimes it can seem as if it is designed to anger you and thus discredit you -- it is best to avoid revert wars. --Deodar 07:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, just discuss the issues on the talk page and aim to build consensus. There is a great book called Getting to YES that you should read.  You need to take a more sophisticated approach to Wikipedia.  --Deodar 07:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You have to convince others of your points. Opiner is just one individual, talk to others on the talk page and aim to make friends by being nice to others.  You should learn how to debate others as well -- during university I joined the debate team and learnt a lot about how arguments are made, and they are similar to Wikipedia discussion pages.  --Deodar 07:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning all parties to stop the edit warring on Muhammad
Reach a consensus on the talk page or I will have no choice but to fully protect until you do - and this always happens to the wrong version. Consider this effective immediately.  Glen  08:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To be perfectly honest I really dont want to get involved in the dispute, my job is to protect all articles from the damage that comes for editors continually reverting each other. I suggest a RFC, or mediation session be filed if you cannot agree yourselves. Sorry, but Im just looking out for the best result for the article itself, and edit warring is not it  Glen  08:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Request
Hi Tariqabjotu,

There is a dispute over reliability of sources mentioned here. I think they are reliable but Opiner thinks they are not. I am trying to form a consensus. Would you please let me know what changes should be applied to this section so that you agree with its addition (to *reformer* section here or to some other article). Thanks very much. I would like to chat with editors individually and when a consensus is achieved, request them to comment on the talk page that they agree with the section. --Aminz 22:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * First, I think the inclusion of the full titles of sources (e.g. William Montgomery Watt, Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the Unviversity [sic] of Edinburgh) in the text is unnecessary. If the credentials of the source needs to be mentioned (and due to the edit war and overall volatile nature of the Muhammad article, they should), they can be placed in the footnotes. Additionally, I question the neutrality of the first paragraph at all because, although I'm sure these things were truly said by these sources, it appears to be a bit lopsided. I see a couple paragraphs essentially praising Muhammad for his treatment of animals (and even a statement that appears to denounce Christianity for it's anthropocentric views), but no contrary opinion. If I weren't too knowledgeable the subject (and, to be honest, I'm not), I'd want to know more about that contrary opinion, especially due to the last paragraph &mdash;


 * However, in Muslim culture hyena, bat, gecko, snake, and other reptiles as well as insects are considered to be ugly, dangerous, vicious, but also powerful and often ambivalent. While scorpion is considered as an ebodiment of demons and evil spirits.


 * &mdash; which seems to get short-changed, drowned out by the positive analysis of Muhammad and Islam. I'm not sure what you mean when you say (to *reformer* section here or to some other article), but I must say that reading the current Reforms section, to me, is quite painful as it appears that you all tried too hard to make everything verifiable. The lengthy quotes and long titles of scholarly distinction really are unnecessary (or at least not in the body).


 * Your source from the professor at UC-Berkeley is okay (but not very good), unless there is contradictory evidence (in which case it would not be good at all). The professor appears to be an expert in engineering, a field far from Islamic and Near Eastern history, and so I would prefer a better source. But again, I don't see it as a significant issue. The second and third sources seem fine, and I really don't know much about the fourth source to say it's great (although the fact that it was published by an established publisher makes me optimistic). --  tariq abjotu  00:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin
Did you put any request infront of any admin?  TruthSpreader Talk 09:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What about User:Grenavitar.  TruthSpreader Talk 09:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * do it.  TruthSpreader Talk 09:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Why youre asking only the Muslim administrators?Opiner 09:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Duroav wasn't Muslim, Is Gren Muslim?? --Aminz 09:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR Block
Right, I'm blocking you yet again for breaking our three revert rule. Reverting is not OK, no matter whether you believe you are right or not, no matter whether you believe others are putting false information onto Wikipedia and trying to disrupt it or not. The three revert rule stands as a reminder of that and we block because we want to stop serial reverters. Please when you return be more willing to use talk pages and follow our dispute resolution procedures if necessary. Robdurbar 12:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Robdurbar, I was in the middle of a dispute resolution process. I can explain the diffs. Opiner was asking editors to come and write against me. --Aminz 12:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

According to this, I was right in removing POV tags. Please see, here, an admin agree that the whole section I was restoring was encyclopedic. If one removes an encyclopedic section, then that's simple vandalism and 3rr doesn't count. --Aminz 12:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

edit conflicted with the above
 * Well getting other editors in is a perfectly acceptable thing to do (unless of course, he's doing it through personal malice; there's no reason why you can't do the same(see Meatpuppets for when it is wrong to do this). Looking at your talk page, it does seem like you're working on this. I'm sorry it took so long to answer the 3RR report; they are usually delt with more quickly.


 * Given that it looks like you're trying to resolve this, I'm happy to unblock for now - but consider this a 'suspended' block as far as I'm concerned. As long as you stop reverting so much, I'm happy. --Robdurbar 12:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, I will not revert. If you could help us with dispute resolution, that would be great. --Aminz 12:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My IP address is still blocked. --Aminz 12:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But Aminz, what I want to press home to you is even where you are correct and other users are being disruptive rerverting more than a couple of times is not the way to do things. The three revert rule - and please make sure you've read it - is there to stop edit wars; when enforcing it, it is irrelevant who is 'correct' in any dispute. Yes you can remove a tag if you think its being used incorrectly; but if the user re-adds enough times and you keep on removing it, you will have violated the rule. --Robdurbar 12:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, sorry, give me 1 minute :) --Robdurbar 12:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What's your IP? The software only gives me the last few digits. --Robdurbar 12:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, the 3rr policy says it does not apply to self-reverts, correcting simple vandalism. Removing big chunks of texts which are encyclopedic is simple vandalims, isn't it? --Aminz 12:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Aminz 12:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Only if it is done with the aim to vandalise - if it is part of a content dispute, and the 'blanking' user believes that he is improving the article through it, then no. Anyway, the four diffs under which you broke the rule were removing the pov tag twice and removing a source (that you claimed was inadequte - maybe it was, I don't care, but that's the sort of thing you can bring to a talk page instead) twice. --Robdurbar 12:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * [Edit conflict]::::Just to clarify, the answer is definitely no, it is not vandalism. If the edits are made in good faith to improve the article then they definitely do not count. Read the vandalism policy which states "While having large chunks of text you've written deleted, moved to the talk page, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism" Hope this helps  Glen  12:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please put yourself in my shoes, you do lots of research and write something, then a persistent editor comes and removes it without any reason. Can you remain silent? --Aminz 12:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. An admin agreed with me that the section was encyclopedic. --Aminz 12:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I know it can be frustrating but its just the way its done. Remember that there is no rush in getting it right here and, in the end, it is better to take an issue to a talk page if a revert has been reverted, rather than revert again, make your case and work with users. In the long run, it encourages trust and respect between people who may disagree and makes the whole thing more fun and easier.


 * Obviosuly its not always as easy as that; but as I've said, there are always alternatives to reverting. --Robdurbar 12:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Come on Aminz its at least three editors! if were so 'persistent' how come were not violating? And youre removing things other editors took just as much hard work to put together. Youre off the hook for now so celebrate. Not everyone get to reverting all the time and only block for a few minutes. Stop arguing and thank these kind admins.Opiner 12:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is only you, Str1977 and Aiden (and recently you recalled ArrowXXX). That's pretty much it. --Aminz 12:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to answer this all hypothetically. I havn't looked much further at the acutal dispute; if there are any specific problems, then there are places to report those. See my response at User talk:Robdurbar for some of the more specific issues raised there.

So, in a hypothetical situation, it has been raised before that a group of users could 'game' the three revert rule and that this is a flaw in it (see Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule). However, it has also been observed that such behaviour is very rare and that more often than not, when users complain of such 'cartels' or 'gaming of the system', it is usually the single user who is being unreasonable. That, of course, does not mean that such problems do not occur. To quote User:Mangojuice:
 * let's imagine that, say, someone is trying to rewrite World War II to indicate that there was no Holocaust. They repeatedly edit to a prefered version of theirs, and everyone else editing the page reverts them. No discussion is possible between the two groups: the lone user is wrong, and the others are right. On the other hand, imagine a situation where some barely notable company has 5 editors trying to keep their company's article POV to promote the company, and only one honest WP editor knows about it. When the honest editor tries to fix the POV they get reverted by the cartel repeatedly. The difference between the two situations is based on who's right... but that first situation is much more important, critical, and common. So, no prohibition on "cartels." In the second situation, the honest editor does have options: they can report the situation at WP:ANI or nominate the article for deletion, or simply put up a request in a wikiproject for backup.

This clearly allows people to request that other users get involved. My response would be that a single user who thinks he is right and thinks that others would agree with him, can always post on a relevant WikiProject (for example, WikiProject Prophets of Islam or WikiProject Islam) or make a Request for Comment. Of course, the new contributors he speaks to may disagree with him; or the may support him.

On the other hand, note that Sock puppet states It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. Clearly, there is a line which cannot be crossed here. It is OK - indeed, it is encouraged - to ask for comments or inputs on problem pages; but it would be wrong to go to certain users who it is known share a point of view and ask them to intervene. --Robdurbar 14:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Reforms under Islam (610-661)
I don't really know what to say. I have a bunch of problems with the article that I will try to list here. Firstly, "Sociological reforms" doesn't make so much sense, since, women, economic, and literary forms would all be "sociological" It is what sociologists say, but, bad section title.

There are too many quotes without commentary. It is close to violating fair use and... well, it ruins flow, etc. The problem here is that encyclopedias have always been written by experts. I would say we editors have problems in that regards. So, when an expert does a quote it's supposed to be reliably non-anecdotal. For us it's harder to trust that. Also, we need to make sure they are representative of a person's work. Patricia Crones work was being used to call Muslims bloodthirsty when she was talking about a theory of state building saying that violence brought tribes together. So, we have had problems with that before.

There shouldn't be "notes" and "references" if the notes contain some references and the references is only some of the references. It's mixing two systems. For instance it makes note 10: Schimmel (1992) p. 67 meaningless since it's not in the references. One system needs to be chosen. All references listed in "references" and notes referring to them or all sources listed under notes. I think the split system is better because it allows for different page numbers of the same texts much more easily.

I think I may have a problem with the whole premise of the article. I'm not full sure... but, I will voice my concerns. Why isn't this a part of history of Islam? Maybe History of Islam (610-661)? I am also not sure what constitutes a reform? It seems that any belief developed throughout Islamic history is retroactively considered a reform. Take slavery, for instance. The article says:


 * The pressure from the European opponents of slavery on the Ottoman empire to abolish slavery was not because of the situation of slaves in Muslim lands (as it was no worse than, and even in some cases better than, that of the free poor) but because the processes of acquisition and transportation of slaves to Muslim lands often imposed appalling hardships although "once the slaves were settled in Islamic culture they had genuine opportunities to realize their potential. Many of them became merchants in Mecca, Jedda, and elsewhere."

It's not that that statement is completely wrong. But, Which European opponents are being discussed, there were many many different European ideologies... and what time is this? In the 1500s European opposition would be completely different than in the early 1900s. More importantly, what is the Muslim view on slavery? It has varied over time. So, which of the reforms were done in 610-661? Do the reforms have to be enacted during that time period or are they only ideational reforms? If they are ideational reforms only then you have to show that Islam has been interepreted in vastly different ways over time. In fact, any "Islamic view" will be a reform during that time period. By limiting your time period you are also invalidating lots of those sources since they are generalizing about Islamic history. They also aren't making explicit whether the changes are in what Islam prescribes or how it was practiced. We can't assume that people adhere to the predominant view of the Islam of their time. You really need to clear up the methodology for this. We also have the problem that 610-661 in Arabia is relatively a black box. We don't have many direct sources that we can really verify from the times. There is a growing wave of revisionist scholars who don't even know when the Qur'an was compiled or where Muhammad really lived (Wansbrough questioned if there was a prophet and Crone questions modern day Mecca as the location). So, how can we judge what reforms took place then? This article takes modern interpretations of Islam and puts them as reforms made in 610-661.

So, let's take literary reforms. If it wasn't codified when Muslims say it was then it wasn't a reform of the time. But, that's something we can get over easily. However, it states "not only did the Qur'an create an entirely new linguistic corpus" Is this a reform? Well, not really... it was a work which helped to influence later Arabic writing and thus the language.

This article seems to muddle many things together without saying what is being considered reform. If Islam starts widely accepting female imams will that fit into this article? The point is, Muhammad's normative message is widely up for debate. So, without a lot more information from the time period I don't think we can decide what is reform from that era. Of course, most Muslims go back and claim that their views are really the views from prophetic times but that's just groping for legitimacy.

Animals: my answer to this kind of goes along with everything else. We can't know what the interpretation of Muslims towards animals was from 610-661. We are reading hadith compiled after that date which you can take to be true or not and then interpretations of those hadith from even later than the hadith themselves. So, what from that can we say is reforms in that time period.

So, what should be done? Well, clear up definitions. If this article means just reforms that were initiated by prophetic message and then events during the post-Muhammad era then it should all be placed in articles about Islamic laws and the realities of Islamic lands over time. If, however you want to keep era reforms then... I think you will have a hard time with the period of 610-661 since it is not well known. We also cannot do "Reforms under Islam 1950-2006" because there are not many primary sources addressing the changes (that I know of). It would just be "Fazlur Rahman in Major Themes of the Qur'an argued for a more categorical way of looking at the Qur'an to better understand its message while Scholar X argued that taqlid must be adhered to by following earlier scholars. A group labeled Muslim feminists led by Aminah Wadud argued that females could be imams in mixed gender plans".

Now we could, plausibly do "Reforms under Islam (1500-1700) by stating the predominant themes at the beginnings of that time period and what changes were at the end and then what social factors, and religious rulings had changed over the times. Still, this would be incredibly difficult because we would be trying to limit the changes to how Islam changed things even though economic and demographic changes would have a huge effect.

Your research is not bad... it could be used in other articles... but, I don't know where this article is going or what it is supposed to be. It needs to be defined much better. So... yeah, I should probably rewrite this to be more clear... but, let's see what you think, first. gren グレン 16:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Reliable source
Hi Aminz. Yes, it's a 100% scholarly source. I'm sure I don't need to remind you that it still has to be used fairly (remember a certain user who kept misrepresenting sources?). As for getting angry, I wouldn't advise it. It increases the level of stress hormones and eventually shortens your life. As the Americans say "Don't get mad, get even." Email me if I can help in any more specific way. Take care now. Itsmejudith 19:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Judith, Thanks for your reply. I don't think I have misrepresent it(or any other sources). If you can point me to any specific point, I will accept it and try to change myself. Thanks --Aminz 19:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you leave the article alone for just a day or two and let other users improve it. Remember, you've done your bit in just creating it. I'm sure that Scott will protect it from vandalism, for example. I need to think about it a bit. I have an enormous amount of respect for Gren, and the points he makes are worth considering. I'll leave a message on his talk page to see if we can come up with some more positive suggestions for the page. Itsmejudith 21:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. Meanwhile I can work on historical impacts of Christianity which I've started :) . --Aminz 23:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've looked up how Albert Hourani treats the issues that you deal with in the article. He is regarded as at least just as important a historian as Lewis, perhaps a better one. His first chapter is "A New Power in an Old World", and there is a section "Muhammad and the Appearance of Islam". Some of this is worth quoting:

"There is room for scholarly discussion about the way in which these beliefs developed. The Arabic sources which narrate the life of Muhammad and the formation of a community around him are later in date ... Sources written in other languages fully attest to the conquest of an empire by the Arabs, but what they say about the mission of Muhammad is different from what the Muslim tradition says, and still needs to be studied and discussed. On the other hand, there seems little reason to doubt that the Qur'an is substantially a document of seventh-century Arabia, although it may have taken some time to assume its definitive literary form. ... It seems best therefore to follow the traditional account of the origins of Islam, although with caution. "

Hourani then goes on to tell of the life of the Prophet, the revelation, the relationship with the Jews of Madina and the Flight. His next chapter is "The Formation of an Empire" which explains the political geography of the formation of the caliphate. His Chapter 3 is "The Formation of a Society" and that is where he describes the differences between Islamic society (as it had developed by the tenth century or so) and the empires that preceded it. He does not describe any reforms having been made in the first Islamic century.

So in general I think there is something to be said for Gren's argument - that we cannot tie down the reforms of Islam to the seventh century. The "before" and "after" of the coming of Islam is important and yes it should be described in the encyclopedia, but the reforms inevitably took a long time to settle down, and the position was different in countries with long complex histories and cultural traditions. After all, we are talking about Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Iran - countries with some of the longest civilisations on earth. I'm sorry if this is a bit negative but I would be pleased to help in any way with this article or other ones that you want to contribute to. All the best. Itsmejudith 09:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. We can carry on "brainstorming" on how the article(s) should be structured. Just a thought: how would it be with an article Muhammad as a statesman? I'd also recommend you to get the Hourani "A History of the Arab Peoples" from your uni library. It's a useful reference in so many ways. Hope to be back online 9-10 hours from now. Itsmejudith 10:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Islam as this week's WP:AID winner
Dev920(Mind voting here?) 15:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The Quran
The article Criticism of the Quran is about the inhumanity of and contradictory statements in the Quran. Yes, Muslims feel reassured knowing that their religion is not the only one with violence in its past and violent holy books, but that doesn't necessarily mean that quoting the Old Testament (or quoting a doddery Watt quoting the Old Testament) is always appropriate in any discussion of the problems in the Quran. Something you might not know about Christianity and Judaism is that they don't believe the Bible is the literal word of God, just that it is "divinely inspired." Of course it is impossible for Muslims to think this as Muhammad said that he was just "reciting" the literal words of God. It is in large part this feature of Islam that has ensured that Islamic ethics have not and probably never will progress beyond those of a seventh century Arabian warlord. Arrow740 22:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to be unfamiliar with Christianity and Judaism. There are Christians and Jews who practically view the Bible as Muslims view the Qur'an. And yes, Islam is a practical religon. I admire Jesus for his high standards, but they were highly impractical. And you might want to study the history. In overall, interestingly enough, Muslims have been much more tolerant than Christians. Most Christians of the history have been Christians by name, so have been Muslims. But Muslims by name were more tolerant that Christians by name. --Aminz 00:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am very familiar with both, though I subscribe to neither. There are a minority of Christians and a minority of Jews who take something like the Muslim line. I don't believe that Muslims have been more tolerant than Christians overall. You should examine the history of the Muslim invasions of India. However, I don't believe that the actions taken by political groups subscribing to a religion necessarily reflect the essense of a religion itself. If we're looking at history, it is much more instructive to look at Muhammad. We have to see that Muhammad was an immoral man by current standards; I think most reasonable people would agree with that. The question is, does that mean he wasn't holy? The real question is, would God hold his final prophet to such a low standard? Jesus and most of the other prophets of Israel were actually holy men. They did not seek to gain political power or capture slaves in war. In fact, Jesus, the Buddha, Guru Nanak, and other holy men gained large amounts of followers based solely on their holiness; people were attracted to them because they sensed the good in them. Muhammad lived for many years in Mecca and attracted few followers. It was only after he was expelled that his religion took on a more "practical" tone, and Muhammad stopped being a peaceful preacher of a new faith. It's in the Medinan surahs that you start to see Muhammad the politician, and it's here that we see the verses about capturing concubines and such. As regards Jesus being impractical, it depends on what your values are. Jesus said not to get bothered by minor insults (turn the other cheek, etc). In doing so he changed the Old Testament teaching. 600 years later Muhammad took a great step backward when he set the eye-for-an-eye mentality into stone. Islam from the Medinan period on was a very practical tool for Muhammad the political leaader, but it is unfortunate that these verses, many of which are basically a warlord encouraging his troops, are still looked upon as God's word today. Arrow740 02:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

ok
Ok, I accept that. But please, as WIkipedians, we have to document the volume of criticism Islam has endured, whether it is true or not. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 13:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you again. And yeah, I am ... tired!  TruthSpreader Talk 08:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * what do you think of The New Encyclopedia of Islam(2002), AltaMira Press. ISBN 0-7591-0189-2 . Is it scholarly, I found in the library, seems to be an excellent source.  TruthSpreader Talk 08:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Reforms of Islam article
Hi Aminz

As you know reliable sources have to be quoted accurately and it seems that Opiner doesn't understand that. One of the things I thought about the article as it stands is that there is a lot of "according to Professor X of the University of Y, Islam achieved Z". How about changing those statements to just "Islam achieved Z. ". In my view it would sound more encyclopedic. Whether Professor X is a good source can be discussed on the talk page. I'll look at Opiner's changes.

Best wishes Itsmejudith 14:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've commented to Opiner that I don't paticularly agree with his reasoning on that one. I think you are fine to revert a change once (see the Harmonious editing club; it is really only edit warring if you start reverting reverts, or if you revert every change that people make. Have you tried making a post at WikiProject Islam, to attract a few outside views? Alternatively, you could perhaps find a sociologist, theologist or historian who quotes the art theorist's work, to justify your use of it.


 * Oh, and I agree with Itsmejudith's style suggestion above unless a view that is paticulalrly singular or controversial is being discussed. Robdurbar 22:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Authority
You seem to think that if a tenured professor writes something, it should be accepted. Why do you speak that way? A tenured professor is someone who has been given a PhD by tenured professors, and then tenure by other tenured professors. That's it; it doesn't mean that he's highly intelligent, or at all wise. Arrow740 05:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Spencer has no formal education on Islam. He is criticized by Academic scholars like Carl Ernst. His books are published by right wing publications. There is no reason to use him while there are too many scholars available. --Aminz 05:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if it were the case that his books are published by right wing publishers (which seems to be largely false), that does not mean that he is not a good source. The scholars that get PhDs from the incenstuous ivory tower elite institutions, like the ones you listen to, are largely not credible (except possibly Ibn Warraq; I'm not sure if he finished his PhD with Watt or not). How can you expect a scholar who does not view Islam with rose colored glasses like they do to get a PhD at all? This is why Spencer didn't get a PhD; there was no one to work with. Arrow740 06:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To weigh in on this one here: we cannot make sources gold-dust just because they have bueen published by someone with higher education qualifications. On the other hand though, that sort of conspiracy theory is just completely unworkable. If we were to follow that line of thinking, we would be unable to use most sources. Read things critically, of course, critique things, but assuming good faith neeeds to apply to how we view our sources too. --Robdurbar 09:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That is reasonable. I'm not claiming Aminz can't use those sources, just complaining about them. Also the worshipful tone he has when he talks about these people is something of an issue for me. It is painful. Arrow740 10:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, well I'm logging off Wikipedia now (I have work to do) but I've dropped a note/or will first a drop a note for a few others to look in on all this. It is interesting that Arrow claims Aminz's sources are left wing; and Aminz you have claimed that this other writer is right-wing. This worries me as it suggests that there might not be much of a compromise; so at the moment I suggest you return to the article's talk page and keep discussing. Remember that the neutral point of view allows us to present opinions, but as such (see WP:TIGERS). --Robdurbar 10:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think ANI is quite appropriate yet. If this scholar is offending Islam and claiming that Muhamad was anti-Semitic, your best option is to provide a raft of credible sources that prove otherwise. --Robdurbar 10:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're so worshipful of authorities because you want what they say to be true, or if you're just naturally in awe of people in positions of power. The issue with Spencer is that he doesn't have a PhD or tenure. Where could he get a PhD? You have Ernst, and you have Spencer. Both are scholars. One is in the establishment, one is not. One is not very famous or influential, the other is both. That's it. Arrow740 10:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * just like Spencer to absolve himself of any responsibility for failing to get educated about islam before talking of it. regardless of whatever kind of excuses he may invent (or you for him), the fact remains that he has not a single qualification related to islamic studies. this, as well as his typically unscholarly, sensationalist work about islam, means that the ways in which he can be used on wikipedia are rather limited.  ITAQALLAH   17:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * He is educated about Islam (this is getting ridiculuous). Prove that it is unscholarly and sensationalist. Anyway we both know that we should use him in Criticism of the Quran and Criticism of Islam, regardless of other articles. Arrow740 22:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * of course he isn't educated about islam: what formal education does he have? he may be used in the criticism articles because he is notable (though not reliable), but what must be ascertained is in what manner and to what extent he can be used.  ITAQALLAH   00:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * He's a reliable source, at the very least for what we're using him for. He knows more about Islam than you, I have little doubt. Arrow740 00:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * he's not really a reliable source, by any stretch of the imagination. doesn't matter if you think he knows more about islam than me: i'm not claiming to be a reliable source.  ITAQALLAH   01:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * He knows a lot about Islam (more than you). So he learned it. Thus he is educated about it. Also, see WP:RS, you will see that he is a reliable source. Arrow740 03:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * what fallacious reasoning. rather, he is a false authority, with no academic qualification for the subject in which you want to declare his words as gospel truth. at least Aminz is using real academics.  ITAQALLAH   12:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You said that he isn't educated. As I indicated, that's stupid, as he knows a lot about Islam, and could only attain that knowledge through the process of education. Arrow740 09:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Spencer's scholarship has been questioned by scholars of his field. I don't know any one whose scholarship has been questioned to that extent. Spencer's books are not publisjed in the presses that peer-review the books. This is quite important in relation with WP:RS--Aminz 09:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This from them who want to using the Professors of Art! A degree in toilet science is qualified to talk about Islam but a career of talking about Islam is not!Opiner 09:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Im telling you again the 'peers' of the peer review are just that. Other specialist in your field. NOT from other field to check what youre saying about that.Opiner 09:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

A Professor of Islamic Art at Harvard University who publishes his work in a famous press is a reliable source. --Aminz 09:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * On Islamic art yes, possibly even on other kinds of art. Not on every topic. Arrow740 10:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Re article protection
Aminz and Arrow740. This is too much. Remember wikipedia policies re to verifiabilty, notable sources and so on. Saying Muslims are anti-semites (re pigs and dogs) or Jewish are racists (chosen people) is OR. It is so damn obvious that there are people out there who are Muslims anti-semites or Jews recists. So what?! IMHO, as i always love to be clear and not looking to be mean or offend anyone but if you both understand this than you are into the game of wikipedia. If not than you are a pain in the ass just abusing your knowledge.

If Arrow740 thinks Muhammad was anti-semite than it is his POV and no problem w/ that. On the other hand, if Aminz argues that it is not the case than it is his POV and no problem w/ that. BUT DON'T MAKE A FUSS OUT OF IT. Your problem guys is that you got a temperament and that's not a good thing to edit this encyclopaedia. You got to leave that temperament in your closet and walk the way out w/o it. --  Szvest   →  Wiki Me Up ®  11:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never said Jews are racial whatsoever. I never insulted Jews. --Aminz 20:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message Aminz. Just insist on WP:RS and, like Szvest says, don't let yourself get wound up. Easier said than done, I know. Itsmejudith 17:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

hey Aminz
good work on providing some well sourced contributions of late. i was just flicking through Forward's book a moment ago (need to return it soon) and i recalled that his short sira work actually devotes quite a bit to Muhammad and controversial aspects- including modern critiques, and deals with it in a somewhat insightful manner. i think you'd find it a great read: perhaps you could check it out sometime. (i put this on the wrong talkpage!)  ITAQALLAH   00:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Getting used to the "real world" is a good thing. But you haven't responded yet that how can we change the list into a prosey language at Talk:Islam or you can post your comments there on talk page. Cheers!  TruthSpreader Talk 04:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank for what :p  TruthSpreader Talk 05:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean, correcting the link.  TruthSpreader Talk 05:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not a bad idea. I am not very aware of Criticism of the Qur'an but I know what is happening on the talk page of Muhammad as a reformer.  TruthSpreader Talk 08:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I remember that User:Pecher actually raised this issue of using WP:RS and WP:V on Banu Nadir article, and all the admins helped him to the fullest. Why can't we use these very important policies to backup our case. It is a shame!  TruthSpreader Talk 08:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Itaqallah has recently got a few offers (see User_talk:Itaqallah).  TruthSpreader Talk 08:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * For which one?  TruthSpreader Talk 08:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats
Congrats Joturner. When did you become an admin?!! You deserved it man. --Aminz 06:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Jazakallah khairan. I became an admin not too long ago &mdash; about three hours ago. --  tariq abjotu  06:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Joturner, though we sometimes disagree (historically I mean :) ) but may I stop by your talk page when I needed help? --Aminz 06:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course; there was never a point when you couldn't. --  tariq abjotu  06:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Lies
As regards anti-Semitism, instead of listening to biased people, why don't you examine the evidence yourself? Saying that you'll only believe something if someone else says it is an abdication of your responsibility to make your own decisions. You make this choice because deep down you know where reason would take you, and it scares you to think of losing something that has shaped you since you were young. Arrow740 08:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a response
Indeed it is a response. You put it in there in response to other things present in the article. This article is Criticism of the Quran, and we should place criticism first, because that is what the article is about. Pro-Islam stuff should come after. If you want to write an article about peaceful interpretations of the Quran, then we can put your stuff first there, followed by the other stuff. Arrow740 08:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is about criticism of the Quran. Keep that in mind. Arrow740 09:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries
No worries Amin. It is part of the discussion. It was not an offence to me as you were explaining yourself. I am also sorry if i were a bit harsh on my message to you and Arrow. The point is that i feel sad when i see your long discussions/edit warring on articles and believe that unless you do not refer to the village pump (policy) you will find it so hard to reach a concensus on the matter of sources. This is my little thinking. Feel free to approach me anytime and don't feel sorry. --  Szvest   →  Wiki Me Up ®  09:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
I signed up. It's a pity that RfCs don't get any responses, because how to make the article NPOV should really be resolved at that stage. Anyway, I hope that mediation will yield some positive results. Itsmejudith 13:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a Persian
No indeed, I'm British - I realise my username is a bit misleading, but it's what some of my friends in Delhi call me (my name is Alexander, of which "Sikandar" is the Urdu version, the "ji" is a Hindi honorific, used ironically in my case). I actually wrote most of the section on Said's academic critics, and I don't much like his work for all the reasons currently set out on the page. However I can't abide the politicisation of this dispute: many scholars have taken issue with Said's claims about "Orientalism" on academic grounds, but it should not be used as an opportunity for political mud-slinging - one should simply point out the inconsistencies and inaccuracies in his approach. Unfortunately plenty of people want to hijack this to make crude anti-Islamic and anti-Palestinian points, and that I object to strongly. Thus far I have found myself holding the ring in Hindu/Muslim disputes on Indian history pages and Turkish/Iranian disputes on Central Asian pages. I'm not sure I have the energy to get sucked into Jewish/Muslim disputes as well. It seems some people only come to Wikipedia in order to fight. Sikandarji 00:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I was actually in the library, and I just thought of putting a few quotes as section "Resurrection" had a POV tag. But I can't understand, how to tell that scholarly POV has to be respected. I am hopeful that we might be able to get a ruling over this issue in the latest mediation effort. Cheers!  TruthSpreader Talk 08:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines
Please indicate your agreement with or disagreement with both of the proposed guidelines. If you disagree, please give a logical argument for that disagreement. Arrow740 10:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with your summary idea. One problem with this is that I do not think it would be possible to provide short neutral summaries of the issues. The Crone piece is not neutral; the Quran advocates certain treatment of pagans, and a different treatment of Muslims, so her piece (if you summarized it correctly) is not only biased, but false as well. Another problem is that, again, the focus of the article is the criticism itself, and general discussions of particular issues belong in other article. Perhaps we could link to the Quran article. It just doesn't make sense to start sections with material that doesn't really belong. Arrow740 10:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
I'll respond by tomorrow. Arrow740 10:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm involved. I mean, I'll comment if I'm around but I didn't get into any of the edit wars... I'm not sure if I even edited. I'm also somewhat busy... or, at least not coming to Wikipedia as much when online so I may not be around so much. It used to be unheard of to see edits from a week ago in my "last 50 contributions". Since I have never been a part of mediation I don't know if I can 'weigh in' if not involved. gren グレン 21:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Aminz, I haven't really been involved with the dispute so I'm not sure how I can help in this dispute resolution step. How do you think I might be of assistance? (→ Netscott ) 00:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism
Thank you for reverting vandalism of my talk page. --BostonMA talk 12:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I couldn't understand Dab's comments on Talk:Islam. Is it a positive or a negative comment? :(  TruthSpreader Talk 15:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * there are so many article on "antisemitism" that it is difficult to keep them updated ;) BTW, I agree with your reasoning on antisemitism article, and this is what I was saying as well, Dhimmi rule should have been aboragated after "Sahaba" but instead it was appropriated for later eras. Maybe, I'll be not available for today. Best of luck!  TruthSpreader Talk 12:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Dost
Your wikifriend BhaiSaab used no sources at all. My sources are medeival? pardon me if I die laughing!Hkelkar 00:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * responded on your talk page. --Aminz 00:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The Political Theory of the Delhi Sultanate (Including a Translation of Ziauddin Barani's "Fatawa-i Jahandari," circa 1358-9 A.D.), trans. Mohammad Habib and Afsar Umar Salim Khan (Allahabad: Kitab Mahal, n.d.), 67.
 * It is cited in this paper (among others) hope you have access to MUSE. So yes, it is peer-reviewed.Hkelkar 00:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can email you a copy of the paper if you want.Hkelkar 00:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The findings of this paper are irrelevant to Hkelkar's argument, it doesn't say anything about the establishment of Muslim castes. I suggest you not waste your time. BhaiSaab talk 01:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Indian caste system
Hi Aminz,

The article used to say that Muslims have a caste system entirely based on Fatwas. I later attempted to correct this, and Hkelkar attempted to compromise and say that some castes were based on the influence of Hinduism in India, and some were based on fatwas. As I've shown on the talk page, the fatwas have no role in establishing any castes, but only proving a limited "religious" legitimacy for a specific period of time. BhaiSaab talk 01:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I see --Aminz 01:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * he has shown nothing of the sort. He has not cited any reliable sources (I have).Hkelkar 01:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The file of the Darling paper is here: Hkelkar 01:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong. muslim societies in yemen and Central Asia have observed castes.Hkelkar 01:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please show me the source. It is interesting. --Aminz 01:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you must remember that Hkelkar does not consider sources like The Times, The New York Times, the Encyclopedia of Islam, or Britannica reliable sources. There's not much we can do about that unfortunately. BhaiSaab talk 01:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedia of Islam and Britannica are undoubtedly reliable sources but as to The Times, The New York Times, well I prefer to check the author. --Aminz 01:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I did add the page #. Look at the citation carefully.Hkelkar 02:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I added my comments on the talk page. It seems like a misrepresentation; the source says "Muslim writers" were not influenced by Hinduism - Hkelkar added that Muslim castes were not influenced by Hinduism. BhaiSaab talk 02:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aminz, I'm writing you an email right now. Please do not comment further on this issue until you read it. :) BhaiSaab talk 03:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikistalking
Amin, I mean no offense, but I do not consider you to be fully sane, and I will not respond to questions or requests of yours unless I have to. Arrow740 08:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Your posting
Could you please clarify what you were referring to in your last post on my talk page. Thanks. Str1977 (smile back) 08:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Has been cleared up. Str1977 (smile back) 20:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Johnson
Johnson's works of history have likely outsold those of Lewis by a wide margin. Jayjg (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This kind of discussion should be carried out on article Talk: pages. Jayjg (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism
I didn't break the 3rr rule. BhaiSaab talk 05:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I added you to yahoo but you're not showing as online. BhaiSaab talk 06:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Re Thruthspreader block
The block expires in around 10 minutes from now.  Szvest   Ω  Wiki Me Up ®  11:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting a request for me. I've inserted the information, can you have a look and see if it looks fine (and gramatically OK). :)  TruthSpreader Talk 11:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Question
Hello!!!

It is again me, this time with a simple question, but I really need your feedback. I am involved in a dispute in which some editors consider Paul Johnson (journalist), a conservative journalist who has a lower-second class degree in Jesuit method at Stonyhurst College at Oxford, to be more reliable than Bernard Lewis & Encyclopedia of Islam for the following reasons:
 * Johnson's publications are have likely outsold those of Lewis by a wide margin
 * Encyclopedia of Islam, Brill academic publisher, is a POV teritary source.

In fact, the quotes from Encyclopedia of Islam are removed and quotes from Johnson is replaced. I would be thankful if you could comment about it. Maybe here on your talk page is good! Thanks very very much. --Aminz 01:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * J. K. Rowling's books have outsold those of Bernard Lewis, but I wouldn't say she's a better source on Islamic topics. Given Bernard Lewis's credentials, I'd say he is more reliable than Paul Johnson. They do have a point about the Encyclopedia of Islam; it's not terrible, but I'm sure you could find better if you're trying to resolve a dispute. I would prefer to see the context of the debate, however. --  tariq abjotu  02:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a question: Each article in Encyclopedia of Islam is written by an scholar. What if it is written by Claude Cahen? --Aminz 02:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see and  --Aminz 02:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

And this is one of the edits in dispute where Encyclopedia of Islam was deleted in favor of Johnson because Encyclopedia of Islam is a POV teritary source. --Aminz 02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, BTW, in this dispute, the quotes from Lewis, Mark Cohen, Claude Cahen, Norman Stillman, etc etc are removed and replaced with Bat Ye'or, Johnson, etc etc. --Aminz 02:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't you all just put both quotes in the article? --  tariq abjotu  02:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you please comment on the need for usage of Johnson, Bat Ye'or when we have those scholars. --Aminz 02:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you please let me know why Johnson is a reliable source. He is a conservative journalist who has a lower-second class degree in a college. Should I put it side by side with Lewis and Claude Cahen??? Just because he is a popular writer? --Aminz 02:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Joturner, as Admin User:Gren pointed out here, Dhimmi regulations have nothing to do with antisemtism. I have lots of sources which confirm this. But they are reverted by User:Beit Or; Slimvirgin; Humus spies and Jayjg. --Aminz 02:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I have studied this issue for awhile. I've seen only one notable writer who thinks Dhimmi regulation is related to antisemitism and that is Bat Ye'or. But this is rejected as a myth by Lewis and as a distortive picture by Mark Cohen. --Aminz 02:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not the be-all, end-all source on reliability and suitability of sources. Regardless, I don't appreciate what appears to be you badgering me until I wholeheartedly agree with you. Like I said and implied earlier, I don't think being a popular writer is grounds to be sourced in an article if the subject is not his or her expertise. It is reasonable, though, to present different viewpoints. Some of those viewpoints may be more critical of Islam than others – that's just a fact of life. Lastly, why do you say Admin User:Gren? Being an admin is not supposed to give one's opinion more weight in these circumstances. --  tariq abjotu  02:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ernst
That is what we call an argumentum ad hominem. Arrow740 07:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? Can you please explain why he doesn't publish his books in presses like Oxford University press, Cambridge University Press etc etc? --Aminz 07:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * For the simple reason that these university presses publish only the works of university professors. Not being published by a university press says nothing about the quality of the book. Beit Or 09:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not true. I have seen a few amatures who have published a book or two in academic presses. Presses which publish scholarly works, have a blind peer-review process. --Aminz 09:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What about naming anmes? Beit Or 10:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Isa
This question falls outside my area of expertise. Would you share the EOQ's theories?Proabivouac 08:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Link
I have looked at the link. Please could you explain what you would like me to infer about it? I see two academics who clearly don't admire each other and my gut feeling is that this implies we should only link to peer reviewed material by either of them. That fair?

Please bear in mind I am trying to operate in this area as a peacekeeper ref how WP should work: my own knowledge of what is and isn't maintstream etc is still paper-thin. --BozMo talk 11:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Crusaders
Aminz, you wrote, "Muslims never fiercely slaughtered others as Christian crusaders did." That is totally incorrect. During the invasions of India, atrocities were committed on a scale far surpassing anything we've been discussing, and similarly justified by religion. There are many more examples, but those are among the most obvious.Proabivouac 03:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Did he really write that? Where? Muhammad himself did so. Arrow740 07:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And yes, the Muslim atrocities are legendary to us. Arrow740 07:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * On User talk:FayssalF. Re Muhammad, the Banu Qurayza, and according to Stillman also the Banu Nadir, were the exception.Proabivouac 07:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not studied Islam in India or in general relation of Islam with polytheists. But did they do a wholesale masacre of city's citizen and then had their corpse dug up, mutilated and their heads collected? Maybe you can provide some sources? That would be great.

Indians were polytheists and Muslims might have done to them what Christians did to everybody except themselves(well actually sometimes themselves as well). In any case, my comment was regarding the historical tensions between the two big empires in classical times. --Aminz 08:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The idea that Christians killed everybody who came under their rule is your own, personal fantasy. Beit Or 09:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course not. I was commenting on Crusades. --Aminz 09:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * First, your comment was worded generally so that it was meant to apply to all times and places. Secondly, even when applied to Crusades, your claim remains a fantasy. Beit Or 09:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Any Sources? --Aminz 09:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on, sources aren't needed for use talk posts, otherwise you'd be in real trouble. Aminz, I believe you were referring to Siege of Jerusalem (1099). However, these were not Byzantines ("the two big empires in classical times".) In fact, the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople, crippling the Byzantines and substantially contributing to their defeat at the hands of the Muslims.Proabivouac 10:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And we don't need to agree on the talk pages. Muslims weren't allowed to mutilate dead bodies; nor to kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man; nor to harm livestock, animals, etc etc. Anyways, I am gonna sleep. --Aminz 10:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's funny: instead of presenting sources to support his claims, Aminz demands that others present sources to debunk what he says. It's like asking to present schoarly sources debunking the claim that the sky is yellow. Beit Or 07:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have any source. I haven't seen anything incident like that. I think this discussion is not very fruitful. --Aminz 07:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it's very fruitful in the sense that it exposes the distortions to which you usually resort in smearing other religions. Beit Or 07:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * please keep a minimum of respect to others in your comments. --Aminz 07:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sealed Nectar
I hadn't meant the last chapter, actually, but this one. Take note of which hadith are credited (including several obvious forgeries) and which are ignored.Proabivouac 04:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, actually we know Anas didn't know Muhammad when he was born BUT that might be a poetic expression of his grief. In Arabic language it might even have poetic structure. I dunno. But I can not confidently reject it. --Aminz 09:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed the link; try it now. Read the whole page, if you have time: the primary intent is to be to shore up the legitimacy of Abu Bakr's succession and to discredit the Shi'a. If this source is to be accepted as reliable, then the premise of Shi'a Islam is false.
 * Another hadith which should be considered dubious is the order to expel Jews and Christians from the Arabian penninsula. Were it so, we might ask, first, why is Muhammad contradicting the Qur'an, which does not prescribe expulsion, why is Muhammad breaking his deal with the Jews of Khaybar and, most obviously, why didn't Abu Bakr follow these instructions? For these reasons (at least), it is widely believed to have been forged in the time of Umar.Proabivouac 02:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, per WP:Verifiability, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. A shia source can bring All-POV back to any such article.
 * The hadith might have been later forged to explain what Umar did. That a significant number of Hadith were forged is not disputed. --Aminz 02:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We can verify that Mubarakpuri says that at the same time that we can verify he's not applying the critical analysis expected even in Islamic scholarship, which weighs the different traditions and only accept the most reliable hadith which don't contradict the Qur'an and the better attested aspects of the sunnah. Am I wrong? For example, at least one might mention the claims of the Shi'a and give a reason to refute them. Otherwise, such scholarship is hardly different from preaching, only a series of polemical and dogmatic pronouncements.Proabivouac 03:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, actually they do have critical analysis. In any case, we can not write everything based on western sources for many good reasons. These sources, even though biased, satisfy WP:RS. --Aminz 03:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * i can see no narration on that page which is regarded as forged, or even weak. traditional Muslim scholarship is agreed upon the fact that the material contained within certain hadith works has been rigorously authenticated, if not by the compilers themselves, then by the scholars after them. a lot of these narrations are in fact mass-transmitted, discounting possibilities of forgery. one notable example which comes to mind is Ibn Hajar and his Fath al-Bari (among other similar works), wherein he comments upon and analyses the chain of narration as well as the text itself. within Islamic scholarship is also the science of mukhtalif al-hadith which is the analysis of narrations which apparently contradict, even if both are considered authentic. the same also goes for when you have mutawatir narrations apparently conflicting with the Qur'an . i would suspect that Mubarakpuri says very little about Shias because the work is a biography of Muhammad, not a heresiographical piece.  ITAQALLAH   19:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you are aware that not everyone equates Shi'a Islam with heresy. Of course one shouldn't expect a direct discussion of subsequent political events, but they are addressed indirectly when Muhammad is shown virtually annointing Abu Bakr as his successor.Proabivouac 22:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The first reason that Prophet Muhammad took a negative attitude towards the People of the Book (being shocked according to Encyclopedia of religion) was to see that the community of "one God" have been divided into warring sects because of a few theological differences. I think the problem is with those who slaughter others for the pretext of heresy . Both Shias and Sunnis believe that :"We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered", so why should anybody be in schism? . --Aminz 02:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Such boilerplate is moving, but could not have addressed the question of whether Muhammad should have been succeeded by Abu Bakr or Ali. Instead, both parties were reduced to putting words into the prophet's mouth posthumously to justify their positions, as there were otherwise no earthly basis for the legitimacy of the regime, nor any established mechanism to determine succession. Conflict was therefore entirely inevitable.Proabivouac 02:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Islam and antisemitism
Is there a reason why you have inserted a second reference to Gerber's work into Islam and antisemitism? Beit Or 10:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this a good source?
Salam (Peace), I found the following medieval book. Boy does it have A LOT of information. On wikipedia would this be considered a reliable source? Keep in mind that this book was written hundreds of years ago, reviewed by a modern scholar (the same who translated it), and had been translated into other languages. Also, keep in mind, the current version I have is not in English, though I have no problem reading it.Bless sins 17:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Translated by Muhammad Aslam Qasmi.

Islamic revolution
Salam. Dear Amin, I get into trouble with translation of Ayatollah Khomeini's commandment for Bazargan. Can you please help me with it? Could you please look at Talk:Iranian revolution and translate it?--Sa.vakilian 08:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Islam and Judaism
I've some questions about the section you added to this article. Please see the talk page. Thanks. Feer 13:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk page
Please respond to my concerns on the talk page at Bat Ye'or and kindly self-revert. Arrow740 05:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggested move
I'd like to move Second pledged at al-Aqabah to Second pledge of al-Aqabah. Is this okay?Bless sins 17:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Tagging
Aminz, please stop tagging articles or sections. If you think they're POV, change them or suggest changes on talk, but tagging them is disfiguring and should be done sparingly, as a last resort. This was mentioned during your RfC, so please do pay attention to it as a serious, and I hope constructive, criticism. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Beit Or is disputing neutrality, not me. He wanted to remove valid criticisms on the basis of neutrality. --Aminz 00:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)