User talk:AsceticRose/Archive 1

Muhammad's Character
Having a section on Muhammad's "sublime character" is inappropriate for Wikipedia. We have to remain neutral, not everyone in the world agrees that he did have a "sublime character". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Brough87 (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree and agree. The Prophets character is important per the Quran, but all statements should be sourced from Hadith and stated so to avoid the sensitivities of others and wikipedia law and protocol. Please continue your editting & improvements !! 70.127.227.92 (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Muhammad
There's nothing wrong with statements like "Muslims believe that Muhammad is the last in a series of prophets sent by God." There's a lot wrong with saying that he actually was the last in a series of prophets sent by God. When describing beliefs, it's important to describe them as beliefs.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your lead sentence was "Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim (Arabic: محمد بن عبد الله بن عبد المطلب‎) (c. 570 – 632), commonly known as Prophet Muhammad, was a messenger and prophet sent by God to guide the mankind to the right way." That's a belief, not a fact, and your statement presents it as a fact.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It's better. Linking "mainstream Muslim communities" to "Sunni Islam" is unacceptable, though. The Shiites would certainly be considered mainstream, and the Ibadi certainly aren't far out of the center.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Sunni would be considered mainstream or the first line on this page must change: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islam Also, in a strict abstract use of the definition of "Sunni" being those who follow the example of the Prophet those three groups may also feel that they are Sunni in practice and belief but not in politics or name... KWW, this is not 'deletionist' behavior? Research and update or make suggestions before deleting...please. 70.127.227.92 (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply:Muhammad in Islam
It can be used but the point is it would be a duplication of content and we have a template that can serve the purpose so its wiser to expand the template to server the purpose of infobox but if you are positive that the infobox should be added then i think we can start a consensus on the talk page.Thanks --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Muhammad in Islam, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Abyssinia, Islamic civilization and Abdullah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

reply
yes, your edits on Muhammad in Islam was great, you created content for that page. Kiatdd (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply:Muhammad in Islam
Hi, i have just made the columns as you have asked for here.The image you are talking about in the section is actually the template Six Islamic Prophets, so just copy   to the section you want it to be added. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't get you. Are you saying that the title in Arabic should be in one column and the English meaning in another column? In that case tables are used. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * you mean to say like this


 * an-Nâbî, "the Prophet"
 * ar-Rasûl, "the Messenger"
 * al-Habeeb, "the beloved"
 * al-Muṣṭafā, "the chosen one"
 * al-Amîn, "the trustworthy"

--Ibrahim ebi (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case you have to do it manually like this:
 * ♦ an-Nâbî, "the Prophet" ♦ ar-Rasûl, "the Messenger"
 * ♦ al-Habeeb, "the beloved" ♦ al-Muṣṭafā, "the chosen one"
 * ♦ al-Amîn, "the trustworthy" ♦ as-Sadîq, "the honest"
 * ...and so on... -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Re:Muhammad in Islam
For sure i will help you with the article in a short time by the way is also following Muhammad in Islam. I too find majority of the article related to Islam need to be improve currently my focus is on prophets in Islam that is Abraham in Islam, Moses in Islam etc. I will surely help you with this article and you are always welcome to ask for any help. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A wiser way is to get sources form other languages like Article Muhammad (PBUH) on Arabian Wikipedia here, Persian Wikipedia here, Urdu Wikipedia here etc they help a lot. I too have too look for the sources. What you can do currently is that the sources you have at the current moment of time you can cite them. And i will soon provide you the sources if i find them. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just got time to reply. I was talking about websites that you can cite although if books are concerned that another thing. In this case you have to cite books only in English language and one can only compare the points written by a Muslim writer and a Non-Muslim writer and then use the one which one feels are depicting the views of Muslims. I would provide you with a chart of the Quraysh clans in the near future that you can add to the article. You are right but there is a huge number of articles on Islam and there are a number of editors working on other articles and watching over edits. what you can do right now is, leave a message at WikiProject Islam talk page and on Portal:Islam talk page that can help to invite other editors to help. I feel you are doing a great job in increasing the article quality keep up with the good work. I will also help to improve the quality of the article and add content. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Muhammad in Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ansar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

re:
Hi, I just wanted to say that I am still thinking about your comment on talk:muhammad in islam, but it seems to me that may be the details of prophets life is covered in page Muhammad.Regards.Kiatdd (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Muhammad in Islam
Assalam o Alaikum Brother! Well, i came here to talk about your recent edits at Muhammad in Islam, in this revision. The content that you have shortened and deleted was very important, for example "he became an orphan at an early age, and spent most of his youth under the care of his uncle Abu Talib, mostly as a merchant." here, removing the text and facts that he was an orphan, is not appropriate. The text like "Perplexed by the laxer morality of his society, Muhammad, in later years, engaged" is also very important, so I request you to have a vision at it again, and at least restore the important text! Jazak Allah! Faizan (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well Thanks for your reply. I agree with your point, Keep up the good work! Faizan (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Re:Keep a surveillance on Muhammad in Islam
Sure Brother, don't worry about that! Faizan (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

re:
You finished the article before I could reply! I reviewed both articles, some sections in Muhammad in Islam are covered in Muhammad such as revelation (wahy), life in Mecca&Medina, Migration to medina (Hijra), Battles, etc. The sections prophethood, marriages, miracles and especially views of different madhhabs are notable, though the word madhhab may be interpreted as sect and sectarianism. The list can be expanded to include Bahai’s, Ahmadiyya's, sufi’s, etc view’s of Muhammad which is very interesting. Another interesting subject is succession, which is briefly mentioned in the main article section: post Muhammad and discussed extensively in page succession. M. in Islam can provide a summary of this important topic. There is a concept in wikipedia called forking, a fork is a second article treating the same subject with the purpose of giving an alternative view of the same subject. I am a little concerned that some editors may see this page as a kind of forking especially in an edit that was done some time ago and I noticed that another editor changed "muslim believe Muhammad is the last prophet" to "some muslims believe that Muhammad is the last prophet", therefore here we have conflicting points of views, however this page is M. in Islam and being apologetically written is acceptable in my view, Another example is the theory that Muhammad suffered from seizure attacks, this page can explain about these theories, it seems to me that they can be found in the works of 20th century writers such as theodor noldeke, some scholars don’t believe that Muhammad suffered from seizure attacks because if it was so it must have been mentioned in historical books and witnessed by his companions, revelations most probably were accompanied with some kind of altered consciousness and no involuntary muscular activity. This is mentioned in Muhammad section: Beginnings of the Quran.Kiatdd (talk) 07:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, the sections Muhammad in/and Qur'an sre interesting but a little essay-like is there any categorization of verses such as in Abraham in I., and some of the verses you mentioned seem unrelated such as 2:101, 3:81,39:33 (?).Kiatdd (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * the section notable early events is better renamed life or earlylife with no subsections, the names you suggest implies that the page is writen by a believer, which is not encyclopedic. did you check the verses? Kiatdd (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * while editing another page I noticed that each chapter of the Qur'an has a page, such as chapers 1, 2, 3,..., aftre going through the first few chapter pages I noticed that most of them are in poor condition, I think all of the 114 pages need proper clean-up.what do you think?.Kiatdd (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * It's really a pleasure! Thanks Faizan!-- Ascetic Rosé  talk  13:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Request for talk-page participation
I have replied there, thanks for notifying me! Faizan (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Look Faizan you are right but I didn't say it, it is mentioned in Muhammad (section "beginning of the Qur'an" line 18) and Quran (section prophetic era line 13). It is even mentioned in List of people with epilepsy. This theory (or allegation) needs discussion, we might be able to delete them from Muhammad and Qur'an.Kiatdd (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

proposal
The series of sura articles are very important, I have a plan for them: What's your opinion?Kiatdd (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Interpretation of the Qur'an is a contraversial task, there are many viewpoints: sunni, shia, sufi,...and there are many methodologies: scientific, philosophical,... Therefore I suggest deleting everything that can be classified as interpretation.
 * I suggest a three-section organization of the sura pages: original text of a sura, translation, and a note.
 * I suggest providing two translations for each sura.
 * For longs suras only the first page of the sura (or selected verses), and for short suras the entire sura.
 * Please check this, the source is Ibn Kathir a notable interpretor,the source is here. This example shows the nature of interpretation! Kiatdd (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree, at least for "scientific, philosophical" facts, they cannot be deleted, and the scientific facts are not contraversial(controversial). Faizan (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Kiatdd, I'm not sure if you are trying to underestimate the importance by Quranic interpretation by using the phrase "the nature of interpretation!". If I'm wrong, I seek apology; but if I,m correct, then please study more about Quranic interpretation, (which is alternatively known as Tafsir, or commentary of the Quran). It is a very vast area of knowledge that includes almost everything of Islamic knowledge. The Quran is the first and primary source of Islamic jurisprudence. And it is mainly the commentators (notable ones like Inb Kathir, Imam Qurtubi, Muhammad Shafi Usmani, Jalal Uddin Suyuti) who help work out such laws. I'm not an Islamic scholar who can exactly make you understand the importance, but you will find more reliable info over Internet, and better if you start studying any such tafsir to know actually what it contains, and how important they are. By the way, you should make it clear what perception you have about Quranic interpretation. -- Ascetic Rosé   08:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * AsceticRose and Faizan, I am not saying that interpretation is evil and I don't underestimate its importance. Anyone is welcome to have his/her own interpretation of the Qur'an. I am told in page Sura 113 that Muhammad was "bewitched and sick because of a curse under a stone in a well and when Aisha removed the curse he was relieved and sura a-Falaq was revealed". The source is Ibn Kathir. From a technical point of view the source (Ibn Kathir's tafsir) is a primary source. As primary sources, tafsirs are subject to peer-review and scrutiny. Tefsir at best only relects one individual's opinion on the Qur'an, which may or may not be accurate. Here you may argue that Ibn Kathir was a highly regarded Muslim, I see this a case of argument from authority. Avicenna was a notable physician, but can I write medical articles based on his works? If I say Avicenna’s books (and Ibn Kathir's) are not reliable am I underestimating the importance of his character and his nobility? Kiatdd (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Kiatdd! Tafsir is not an individual opinion, it is the opinion of the Islamic scholars, which is based on their knowledge not their personal opinion! And these Tafsirs are accepted by Muslims, and we consider them more authentic than anything else! And don't compare Avicenna with Ibn-e-Kathir, a common physicist cannot be compared with a great scholar, even if your point regarding Avicenna is right, then you will have to write "notable articles" according to Avicenna's valid research! And I did not question your question your "importance of their character and their nobility". Faizan (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Kiatdd listen, any one can never be welcomed to have their own interpretation of the Qur'an in the same way as any one can not be welcomed to have their own theory regarding medical treatment procedure or any other specific branch of scientific study. I guess, you are a qualified doctor. Now, if anyone come to you with his own theory of eye-operation, will you apply that to your patient? About the bewitchment of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), it is absolutely true, and clearly said in Hadith. And it is the hadith based upon which Ibn Kathir made this commentary. I can't understand, what wrong you have found there. And most importantly, Faizan is right: Tafsir is not an individual opinion. Those scholars who made these tafsirs, had, as a compulsory rule, vast knowledge on Hadith, Arabic grammar, Islamic history, and many other theological faculties. And blending these all, they made these interpretations by using their intellect. Pathetically as you mentioned, there is hardly any case where these scholars' interpretation is incorrect. And surprisingly, why can't you write any article based on Avicenna's work? who has forbidden you? Ok, your idea about Quranic interpretation may not be as clear as it should be because every person does not know everything equally, and it is natural. But in this case you should first try to know and study about it rather that think it otherwise. If possible, I'll try to clarify it more in future, InshaAllah. -- Ascetic  Rosé   14:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! I was so excited to see the star. I'll be in touch. Kiatdd (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Request for talk-page participation
Well now the sections look perfect! I commend your effort. Faizan (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry bro for being late! Faizan (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad
Participate here in the discussion related to some references being claimed as blogs. Faizan (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hijra (Islam), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Aws and Mansura (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/FAQ
Eh... I think that Q9/A9 of the Talk:Muhammad/FAQ should also be discussed, it's presenting just a point of view of an individual, and it's best visible at Criticism_of_Muhammad, then there is no need at FAQ, The Criticism_of_Muhammad says "Critics such as Baptist pastor Jerry Vines and Netherlands Party for Freedom leader Geert Wilders have cited the age of Aisha to denounce Muhammad for having had sex with a nine-year-old, referring to Muhammad as a pedophile.", So it's a point of view of the critics, they are many people who commend Prophet Muhammad too, then why it's not in FAQ? I think that we will need discussion on it too, now or soon.  Faizan ( talk ) 10:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, I agree with you, but I think that a FAQ for saying him a pedophile is not necessary, and annoying. JUst due to some comments by those individuals, this was added in FAQ. Anyway, that ok!  Faizan Al-Badri   -  Let's talk!   13:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, thanks for the replies! All the best!  Faizan Al-Badri   -  Let's talk!   13:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Faizan Al-Badri  -  Let's talk!   06:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Robert Cawthome
Hello Ascetic! Need your valuable comments at Articles for deletion/Robert Cawthome. Faizan Al-Badri  -  Let's talk!   08:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Acculturation Model, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Age (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Muhammad in Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Heya
Assalam o Alaikum Ascetic. How do you do? Kaisi ja rahi hai zindagi? Everything best here. Hope the same for you too. Fai zan  17:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Fai zan  17:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: I'm saddened
I am too Ascetic, but I just warned against reverts. I did not know that his edits also changed the statement which was agreed upon by the discussion. I have asked the editor to get consensus for his edits. No worries Ascetic. Get happy again. Come on. Fai zan  17:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=559829259 your edit] to Muhammad in Islam may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=560160160 your edit] to Muhammad in Islam may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ] died near Medina when he was on a mercantile expedition to Syria. Back to his mother at the sixth year of his life, Muhammad accompanied his mother [[Aminah

Talkback
Fai zan  07:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC) +1 at my talk. Fai zan  07:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)rr
 * You have got new messages. Don't feel that you wasted my time, I shall be glad to get you out in the future too. Fai  zan  07:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Flowers
I see you have some flowers and things. User:Giano has suggested that he is in need of some flowers at the moment, perhaps you could prepare a bouquet or similar?

Many thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=562673532 your edit] to West Pakistan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * next year however result in the secession of East Pakistan as the new country of Bangladesh.