User talk:Abdusalambaryun

You aren't blocked
The articles are semi-protected. This means that unregistered users can't edit them, and new users have to be 4 days old with at least 10 edits. You might want to delete some of your complaints. Dougweller (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014
Hello, I'm NeilN. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Criticism of the Quran, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.  Neil N  talk to me  14:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. Please do not sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on article talk pages or project pages such as the Village Pump. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article? Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you.  Neil N  talk to me  14:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I am very sorry, thanks NeilN. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I will add, before you make any further suggestions for changes in Islam-related articles, please read MOS:ISLAM, which already answers some of the suggestions you have made. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * And one quick suggestion: if something is added to this site, it is added with the expectation that almost anyone can agree to it regardless of their religious beliefs. If a Muslim, an atheist, a Hindu, and a Christian can agree on something, it'd more likely to be included.  If only one group thinks something is true while everyone else disagrees, it's not going to be included.  That's more or less the point of the neutral point of view policy. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't agree, I only follow the truth and real information. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You're following subjective truth, what you personally believe to be true; not objective truth, what multiple people can see to be true regardless of their personal belief. Wikipedia goes for objective truths to remain neutral, and to not promote any particular belief system.  If you do not want to do that, you are welcome to try other sites.
 * Really, think about what would happen if we allowed everyone to put their subjective truths here. Would you want Christians to say in articles that the Trinity, Incarnation, and Resurrection of Jesus are the truth?  Would you want atheists to attack Islam in articles?  That is what would happen if we allowed subjective truths in the articles.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

UTC)


 * Hello, again, I really appreciate you advise, it is helping me improve, but please don't misunderstand me when I continue discussing does not mean I am not listening ( I am trying to improve and contribute). Regarding my disagreement was about articles related to Islam, so we are discussing Islam issues and names, and our argument started. Therefore, why other religious people have different truths in Islam and they never were in this religion. I never interfere in the Articles of other religions, because I know they know better truth information related to their religion and their understandings. When I say true I mean Muslim believe in Allah one God, and Christian, believe in Allah as the father God. So there still a lot misunderstanding in Wikipedia, the truth is not revealed yet I think, so I like to work with all religion people politely so we write down the truth of God in Islam and in others. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * We don't write articles on Wikipedia from any religion's point of view.


 * Articles on Christian topics are not written for a Christian audience, they are written for the world's population who understand English. Articles on Islamic topics are not written for a Muslim audience, they are written for the world's population who understand English.


 * While it is fair for an article to describe a subjective "Muslim truth" properly attributed to a source, it is not correct for an article to state a subjective truth in Wikipedia's narrative voice. That is, an encyclopedia article must not, under any circumstances, dictate any subjective truth to the reader as if it were objective. Doing so is a violation of the core policy Neutral point of view.


 * Wikipedia, any any other encyclopedia used as a reference work, is a secular project. This is sometimes difficult for religious adherents to accept. There are no favors given to any particular religion. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia is anti-religious. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes articles on religious topics. However, such articles should educate readers about each religious topic, without teaching or promoting any religious viewpoint. Therefore, we don't put honorifics like "pbuh" after Muhammad's name or refer to him as "Prophet", just as we don't refer to Jesus as "Christ" or "Savior", because these practices are unique to specific religions. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It is ok with me, I when I edit, I forget my religion, and include all readers to clarify the real information related to the subject. Wikipedia should include all title used by references as information, the Wikipedia does not need to follow the style, but it is responsible to describe it and give persons there title used by people of the world. Wikipedia should consider reality of the world and groups and languages and culture. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Allah
You've made the same point on multiple talk pages about the translation of Allah. I've explained to you in this post at the Muhammad talk page that you've misunderstood the difference between god and God. Please read what I've written. In English, God (with a G) is used to mean the monotheistic God. That is the God of the religions that believe in one God only: Islam, Christianity and Judaism mainly. That is why, in English, it is pefectly normal to translate Allah as God. DeCausa (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)