User talk:Masssly/Archive 36

Preview Allah is Not We, Our and Us for acceptability
Hello Masssly,

Thank you for contacting me. I became discouraged to furnish clarification about why in the Qur'an Allah is referred to with the plural pronouns We, Our and Us because it appeared too cumbersome to enter a Wiki article.

Please help to mentor and assist me by reviewing the article I have prepared below. The article provides an objective way to conclude why Allah is represented by a party of men by using actual suras in the Qur'an.

Knowing that Wikimedia is a resource for factual data, I have tried to be objective. But in so doing, I have been able to draw conclusive evidence that also verifies a finding that Muslim leaders will find objectionable. Still, Wikimedia is a resource is to reveal truths that are based upon facts that can be verified.

Because of the sensitivity of the topic, your expertise is needed. The important thing is that people around the world are informed about the truth. To bow down to political correctness only continues to create a veil of ignorance that hides the truth. I am opened to any rewrite or recommendations you feel are advisable to allow the article to be read on Wikimedia.

***Allah is Not We, Our and Us***

Allah is referred to throughout the Qur’an as We, Our and Us. The enigma of why Allah is referred to in plural terms has been debated, misconstrued, and obfuscated by Islamic scholars, imams, caliphs, and mullahs. Actual suras in the Qur’an provides conclusive evidence that Allah is represented by a party of men identified as We, Our and Us. To answer why Allah cannot possibly be We, Our and Us, it was prudent to obtain a translation that has not been altered due to political correctness. The source therefore used is one of the earliest translations titled, The Qur’an, written in 1893 by Muhammad Zafrulla Khan.
 * We, Our and Us Identifies a Party of Men.

Not obvious to the average reader or devout follower of Islam is that it was about two decades after Muhammad’s death that a religious party assembled and added to his revelations many suras to form the Qur’an. More importantly, they also incorporated into the Qur’an the authority to invite goodness, enjoin equity, and forbid evil. This party is uniquely sanctioned in the Qur’an by the sura verse below.

Sura 3:105. Let there be from among you a party whose business it should be to invite goodness, to enjoin equity and to forbid evil. It is they who shall prosper.

This sura provides a clear statement that a party of religious leaders is authorized to enforce their judgment and any necessary actions to act in the name of Allah.

Many suras reveal that a party of organized religious leaders implements the many admonitions, warnings, and punishments in the Qur’an. We, Our and Us surfaces throughout the Qur’an not as Allah, the all forgiving and merciful God, but as fanatical aggressors who are responsible for the destruction of many towns and killing of innocent people using the authority of Allah. For brevity, they will be referred to as the “We Party.”


 * The We Party Abrogates God’s Commands.

The following sura goes as far as to abrogate or cause to be forgotten the previous commandments of God by the We Party.

Sura 2:106-108. Whatever previous commandment We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We reveal in this Qur’an one better or the like thereof: Knowest thou not that Allah has full power to do all that He wills? The sura belittles God’s all-knowing capability by challenging His previous commandments as being candidates to be abrogated, forgotten, or substituted for something better. Only the We Party arrogantly believes that they have the authority to alter the commandments of Allah. Further analysis of the suras below may surface an underlying and insidious reason for the use of We, Our and Us. By using these plural pronouns, initiates of Islam can easily associate themselves with Allah and carry out the warnings, punishments, chastisements, and the killing of nonbelieving infidels. Just a few of many suras are provided below to verify the underlying reason and ultimate objective of the We Party.

The following sura reveals the We Party is responsible for the destruction of many towns in the name of Allah. Such action contradicts Allah as being Most Gracious and Ever Merciful.

Sura 7:5-7. Little is it that you heed. How many a town have We destroyed! Our punishment came upon their dwellers by night or while they slept at noon. When Our punishment came upon them all they could utter was: We are indeed wrongdoers.

The above sura emphasizes the killing of innocent people while they are asleep at night or in the forenoon while at play. The next sura attributes this atrocity to the “design of Allah.”

Sura 7:97-100. We afflicted them suddenly with chastisement, while they perceived not the cause thereof. If the people of those towns had believed and been righteous, We would surely have bestowed blessings upon them from heaven and earth, but they rejected the Prophets, so We seized them because of that which they did. Do the people of these towns now feel secure against the coming of Our punishment upon them by night while they are asleep? Or, do they feel secure against the coming of Our punishment upon them in the forenoon while they are at play? Do they feel secure against the design of Allah? None feels secure against the design of Allah, except those that are losers.

The above suras violate the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” The excuses given in the above sura to rationalize such killing presents a ruthlessness and disregard for God’s creations. This is an example of the We Party speaking for Allah. But this cannot be God since He would disobey His command, which means He no longer is a God of truth that guides the morality of mankind.


 * The We Party is Led by a Religious Leader or Commander.

The ruthlessness of fanatical Islamic terrorists continues in many countries today. It is the Qur’an itself that is used as a medium of indoctrination to motivate Muslims to kill in the name of Allah. Below, this conclusion is clearly found to be true as the Qur’an reveals it is a religious leader of high rank that tells his army of men to draw on the wrath of Allah to kill disbelievers or hell shall be their abode.

Sura 8:16-19. O ye who believe, when you encounter an hostile force of the disbelievers, turn not your backs on them. Whoso turns his back on them on such an occasion, unless maneuvering for battle or turning to join another company, shall draw upon himself the wrath of Allah and hell shall be his abode. An evil resort it is. Thus on the day of Badr it was not you who slew them, but it was Allah who killed them; and it was not thou who didst throw gravel at their faces, but it was Allah Who threw it, that He might confer a great favour upon the believers. Surely, Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. That is so; and Allah will surely undermine the design of the disbelievers.

The above sura was written by a commander as one reads of the strategy not to turn and run when encountering a hostile force unless it is necessary to maneuver for battle by turning and joining another company. But notice in the second paragraph that the commander uses his leadership to strengthen the resolve of his troops by stating “it was not you who slew them, but it was Allah who killed them.” Clearly, these are not the words of Allah but a commander or a powerful religious leader. The commander’s technique of using Allah as sanctioning atrocities has been a successful form of brainwashing or leadership to convince his fighters that the killings were not through their own volition but by Allah who supports and directs their cause. This mind trick is another way of convincing people that they are not responsible for their misdeeds but some outside force, which they attribute to Allah. But this thinking reminds us of the infantile answer made popular by one of our greatest comedians, Flip Wilson, with, “The devil made me do that.”

To rationalize the killing of innocent people, the religious leader of the We Party tells his fighters that “it was not thou who didst throw gravel at their faces, but it was Allah Who threw it,” and, “that He might confer a great favor on the believers.” This mind trick by religious leaders allows them to make their followers obey their will by placing the act of murder on Allah. But think about it, would God kill His own creations for not worshipping Him? Is the all-forgiving and merciful God unpredictable by rescinding His command “Thou shalt not kill (Exodus 20:13)?”

Are imams, caliphs and mullahs around the world actively raising their voices to prohibit fanatic parties of men from shedding the blood of disbelievers? Or, are they mesmerized and entrenched in the dogma of the Qur’an whereby they are incapable of love, compassion, and forgiveness of those who follow another faith?

We must all pause and acknowledge that God has introduced Himself to people of many cultures and nations. His only desire is that human beings love one another—this was His last command to mankind, which in all its simplicity is the Word of God.


 * Conclusions.

This answer resolves the conundrum why We, Our and Us is believed by Islamic religious leaders to represent Allah. Islamic scholars, imams, caliphs, and mullahs are welcomed to challenge the conclusion that We, Our and Us is a party of men and not Allah. It is this party of men that are resistant to all criticism against the Qur’an by shutting down debate and resort to killing their opponents because they lack the credibility and truth to defend the Qur’an. Any person with just a high school diploma can easily agree with the conclusive evidence provided above that Allah is represented by a party of fanatical men identified as We, Our and Us. The above evidence surfaces an underlying objective why We, Our and Us, a party of men, is mentioned throughout the Qur’an. They have from the inception of Islam forced the belief in Allah for the unification of all Muslims and create a Theocratic Islamic Empire.

To obtain more evidence of the validity of this conclusion, you may place an Internet search on Nicholas Ginex to access the website titled, Future of God Amen. This website presents five novels which includes an overview and book reviews of Allah, We, Our and Us.

Nicholas Ginex (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Nicholas Ginex (talk), I noticed you have started working on your proposed article in your sandbox, that is the right place to start. You are allowed to carry out experiment there whiles developing the article till it is okay to move it to Namespace. I have put your sandbox on my watchlist to follow on your progress. Meanwhile let me know if you face any challenges I would be happy to assist you in any way I can. Kind Regards... —Sadat ( Masssly ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Red Hat Linux article
Hello there! Please have a look at my talk page. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

AWB
Hi. Please read the rules of use for AWB. Point 4 is quite clear - "4.Do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits. An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit." Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Noted! Thank you. —Sadat ( Masssly ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Rollback granted
I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AMasssly granted] rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. &mdash; MusikAnimal talk 15:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

List of Angry Birds Toons episodes
Good Day Masssly! I saw your edits at List of Angry Birds Toons episodes and it seems you added content with no references of it whatsoever. Talking on the FAN side, Angry Birds Toons does not feature episdes of cross-over games, as the ones you put, but of those of non-crossover games. for short, i shall revert the edits until there Are sources of your edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibirds11 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Wikibirds11, I believe this message was rather meant for 121.96.10.10 but not me. Indeed I reverted edits of 66.169.150.113 because I thought he intentionally blanked this section, but if you think her/his action was appropriate because 121.96.10.10 did not provide reliable sources that's okay. Please see Revision history of the page. Thank you though for corresponding. Kind regards... —Sadat ( Masssly ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. &mdash; MusikAnimal talk 01:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

update Joe Savard
Hello Masssly,

Excuse me but this is my Grandfather (Joe Savard) and I probably have a better idea about his history. Is it possible to post the truth about my Grandfather? Also, I just created my account in Wiki and my plan is even to post some pictures in four days.

Please let me know if it is wrong to post in Wiki the correct information.

Thank you. Stewart Savard

Stewartsavs (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Stewartsavs I would like you to know that your contributions are most welcome once they adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Since you are new I left you some useful links on your talk page to facilitate your movement here and please have a look at this and this before you upload your grandfathers images. I wish you all the best. Kind regards... —Sadat ( Masssly ) ❤T☮C☺M☯


 * So what does all that mean ? You never mentioned that I can or can not edit what is in the acrticle. Am I able to update the article about my Grandfather in WIki or not ?Stewart Stewartsavs (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course you can and I can see you already are. I can only encourage you to include some references and sources to improve verifiability and reliability of your grandfathers article. Happy editing! —Sadat ( Masssly ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Surveen Chawla
Hi, I do not why you have reverted my edit on this page as i was reverting vandalizing edits. Pls spend few minutes researching about the television dramas added by the IP before which are all Pakistani dramas and Surveen Chawla is an Indian punjabi actress. I was just saving all the content or reverting IP vandalism and its not right your telling me I have vandalized. After all this article was put of my interest and feel sad to preventing vandalism on such page. Feel free to talk if anything else. And do your home work before an edit! Daan0001 (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Daan0001, frankly I do not understand what you mean and I wish you could express yourself better in the English language. However I do sense you are frustrated about a revert I made to one of your edits. If I am right about that could you please point me to that page, there must be a better way of resolving this. Kind regards... and thank you for the advice. —Sadat ( Masssly ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, seems like your having difficulties understanding English. But that's ok you can work on it. Page is Surveen Chawla which is already mentioned in talk section been clumsy is not my fault. Anyway, do whatever you want Im not going to walk through your mistakes. If you are sensible enough realize mistake and correct what you have done wrong. I do not want to get involve any further. Best Regards. Daan0001 (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ...and you are welcome! Have a good day. —Sadat ( Masssly ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Masssly, 's revert of the IP adding unsourced content to Surveen Chawla was perfectly valid and certainly not vandalism as you labelled it. I have again removed the laundry list of programs the anonymous user added as they are not supported by reliable sources. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ponyo I do appreciate your response. We all make mistakes and I only encourage Daan0001 to deal with other Wikipedians with some amount of respect even if he's on the right side. Kind Regards... —Sadat ( Masssly ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well to be fair, reverting a long-term editor's good faith edits, labelling them vandalism, and templating them with a vandalism warning isn't likely to generate good faith on their end. He didn't just revert your edits, but came here to ask you why you labelled the edits vandalism, only to have his English skills criticized. What's done is done, and yes everyone makes mistakes, but respect should go both ways.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Warning about false accusation
Dont try to distract anyone. I only reverted blanking of contents in Religion in Morocco. That contents had been added by someone else. So you need a little more time to check edit history to see who add them. And you even removed referenced materials in Séléka. See for yourself, dont accuse me of changing the contents cuz you're doing the same thing, trying to get rid of even cited details. ༆ (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Was expecting a response to all the "false accusations" as carried by heading of this section, apparently no good reasons are available for all the "false accusations". —Sadat ( Masssly ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you!--—Sadat ( Masssly ) ❤Talk☮C☺Email☯ 10:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

CCI Notice
Hello, Masssly. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Demiurge1000, its rather unfortunate that I'm responding to the CCI Notice this late. I made a mental note to respond but I forgot all about it until you brought it up again in my rollback permission request. You were not mistaken in requesting the investigation, however I would like you to reconsider since those edits I made were unintentional. The first four listed pages were oversights of which I am now promptly cleaning up. As for the fifth page in the list, it is very clear that that was actually one of my earliest edits if not my very first (I'm not too sure) and I did not know anything about the rules just yet. I can assure you that I have no history of copyright violations except a few images I naively uploaded in my early days (which were removed instantly) and as such I would like you to withdraw your request. Kind regards... —Sadat ( Masssly ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Masssly, thank you for your reply. It does not come especially late, because no decision has yet been taken by the CCI clerks as to whether a CCI investigation is required. I have added a note at the CCI request page mentioning your reply here.


 * It is not my practice to withdraw CCI requests once made; instead I leave it up to the CCI clerks to decide what action (if any) needs to be taken. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Masssly. I do apologize for the delay in processing this request. Unfortunately, in my review, I have found that copyright issues do seem to exist and have continued beyond your earliest edits. While the bulk are more issues of Plagiarism with brief runs of copied content, I have blanked two articles due to more extensive issues. You can see a more completely description of the problem at Talk:Yusuf Soalih Ajura. This particular article, created in January 2014, seems to have content copied from multiple different books. The CCI is open at Contributor copyright investigations/Masssly. You may not receive individual notice of any issues discovered. In order to avoid spamming users in your situation, we ask CCI reviewers not to place the usual templated notices on your talk page. If you wish to keep track, please watchlist that page for changes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

My changes
You may feel that the article was better but it is incorrect. Marching Band is not an athletic event and the bands success is mentioned in the section labeled "Extracurricular Activities" which is exactly what the band is. It is not now nor has Marching Band EVER been an athletic event.

You can see that section of the article is written to honor the athletic success of the school — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.206.48.180 (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Adoption
While I was going through the backlog of users who would get adopted, I came upon you! You have a userbox saying that you would want to get adopted (and you are a rollbacker, reviewer and has more than 10000 edits). Are you sure you didn't mean you want to adopt someone instead of someone adopt you? Thanks,  TheQ Editor    (Talk) 13:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Am glad you noticed, the userbox has been around for a while, I've just removed it. Thanks. —Sadat ( Masssly ) ❤Talk☮C☺Email☯ 00:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)