User talk:McKhan/Archive 1

Do not
DO NOT delete the contents of article Talk pages! Zoe 05:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Do NOT repost that article
DO NOT repost the article as I am the copyright owner of that article.


 * Not any more. Once you clicked "save page" you released it to Wikipedia and GFDL.  It's now the property of Wikipedia and its editors, to do with as we see fit.  Zoe 05:34, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 24 hours for repeated vandalism. When your block expires, please learn how to deal with other users in a civil manner and learn how to participate properly in the Wikipedia community. Zoe 05:36, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

You MUST add the following line....
Then you must add

Copyright © 2005 Ali Khan - http://www.AliKhan.org

NO, we must not. That is in violation of GFDL. Please read up on GFDL. This article is no longer yours to claim. Zoe 06:49, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Muslimunity
You don't have to respond to anything Muslimunity says about you. -- Phroziac (talk) 03:07, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Mainstream Muslims' Tawheed vs. Al-Ahbashs' Tawheed (Differences)
" Mainstream Muslims' Tawheed"

"Tawheed, usually defined as the unity of Allah or His oneness, is actually a term which means the process of repeatedly singling out Allah. The issue had arisen where people lost the concept of tawheed, and in fact, the popular mistranslation of the word tawheed is a result of this misunderstanding. It became necessary to explain tawheed in detail, to discuss its rules and principles etc. The reasons for this were may, however the overriding factor was that Islam had spread all over the world an deach society that accepted added more deviant concepts about Allah and worshipping Him. So, the concept is explained:"

" Tawheed al-Ruboobiyyah"

"The act of singling out Allah in all aspects of Lordship."

" Tawheed al-Uloohiyyah (or Tawheed al-'Ibaadah)"

"The act of singling our Allah as the only diety, the only god, the only one who is in reality divine. It is the act of singling Him out for worship."

" Tawheed al-Asmaa wal Sifat"

"It is the act of singling out Allah with all of His Beautiful names and Majestic Attributes, without denial of any of them, without likening them to anything, without claiming a similarity for them, and without distorting either their meanings or their actual wordings."

"This has lead to the scholars to further state that terminology which has not been used to describe Allah either by Allah Himself, or His Messenger may not be utilized to describe Allah. Why? Because many words contain misleading or unclear meanings behind them, and it does not befit Allah who best knows Himself, that we describe Him with descriptions that He did not use, nor His Messenger. We also refrain from denying specific things from Allah if they have not been denied from Him. This is, as well, because in order to be sure of how. So were an individual to claim that Allah does not have this or that etc. and these things being specifically denied were not denied by Him T'ala or His Prophet then we may not deny them. It is not permissible to estimate Allah as how He should be based upon human understanding. It is only allowed that we claim what He has claimed, or what His Messenger has informed us reaching us by way of authentic narration."

"So, the above method of understanding and implementing tawheed must be utilized completely in order for one's tawheed to be acceptable. If one of the categories above is missing, then this person does not have the correct creed, and he is not properly worshipping Allah alone. Some scholars have revised the above principles so that they utilize two instead of three, and they explain it as Tawheed al-Asmaa wal Sifat, including all of the Names and Attributes, as well as the characteristics of Lordship, and Tawheed al-'Ibaadah. This, too, is a beneficial approach for the subject."

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~**~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Al-Habashi's tawheed is divided into three principles or categories:

"1. The denial of the proper concept that Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] has many qualities, and his (Habashi) false interpretation of the words al-Ahad and al-Samad"

"2. The denial of any similarity to Allah in His [dhat - Essence] Essence and attributes"

"3. Allah is alone creating, originating and maintaining. So, there is no contributor in inventing, manufacturing, and sustaining the invented things."

 The First Category 

The denial of the proper concept that Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] has many characteristics.

We know that the source for this principle is Plato, for it was he who said,

"'The many is not found in Him at all, as the idea of assembly does not relate to Him under any circumstances. Therefore, He is simply one in Himself.'"

Then he says,

"'And because He is one from every angle, you cannot describe Him with a description that implies numerous substance.'"

Al-Habashi's source for this first principle is purely Platonic. Though, he did not copy it immediately from Plato, perhaps, he copied it from the books of the philosophers and the people of kalaam who studied Plato, Aristotle and others. Like Faraaby, Ibn Seena, Ibn al-Rumi, Ibn Rushid, Juwainy .etc

Here, elucidating the influence that the Greek Philosophers had over them is the saying of al-Faraaby,

"'The Inevitable Existence cannot be divided with divisions of quantity or meaning, otherwise each part of it's division must have it's own existence, so inevitably there are many esisting.' (Source 'Fusuws al-Hikam by Farrabiy. Inevitable Existence: 'al-waajib-alwujoob' ; This is one of the few terms from Ilm al-Kalaam which is used in this book. It is used in quotations of philosophers. It is the Greek Philosophical concept of Sustainer or Lord. It is the concept of that which must exist; which controls the existence.)"

and the saying of Ibn Seena,

"'The Inevitable Existence does not divide in meaning or quantity.' (Source: Al-Ishaaraat - by Ibn Seena)"

This verfies that al-Habashi wants to strip away the attributes in order to confirm Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] and that it disturbs him that the Essence [dhat - Essence] which is ONE could possess more than one quality.

Bu al-Habashi neglected the fact that this is Palto's theory, who was so excessive in his theory that he would not describe Allah with His many correct qualities. Yet he described Allah [with an additional quality] as khair [good] even theough he attempted to avoid describing Allah with a description implying many qualities in His Essence [dhat - Essence]. Plato, according to his own views says,

"'We do not describe Him as a substance or with appearance because the substance and appearance are relative things. So, describing Him as a substance demands the imagination to picture the appearance or design along with it. Because the imagination does not stop simply at picturing it as a substance only rather it goes on to picture it's parts as well and that is the design which without a doubt must have and abundance of contents.'"

The reader may notice that this is from the sayings of the Greek Philosophers; the knowledge of reason which drove many groups like the Jahmiyya, the Mu'tazila, the Haruriya, and others to deny the attributes of Allah. They stated their argument as Plato had; that describing Allah with something will lead to many things, which in itself denies the ONENESS of Allah.

Furthermore, he who theorized this principle is the same who 'assigned' the attribut of khair [good] to Allah [after being excessive in his theory that ONE cannot be described with more than one characteristic] and this is a contradiction and it amounts to nothing less than hesitation [in affirming Allah's attributes] and no rational Muslim believes that Allah accepts the philosophical principles, ideas or ways. For what Muhammad was sent with was enough, and in the opinion of those Greek Philosophers, no one truly knows these things but Allah. Yet their words cam from other than Him.

This brings us to al-Habashi's interpretation of al-Ahad, the One. That is, that [something that is one] cannot have a description or division in its essence [dhat - Essence] and there are no parts in it as Allah T'ala said, al-Ahad, al-Samad. However, you will not find that something which is described with characteristics cannot be called Ahad in the Arabic language. Contrarily it is proven that Ahad is a description of the creatures in the Qur'an as Allah T'ala said,

"'And if one [Ahad] of the idolators seek protection from you...' [Tawaba: 6]"

"'An not join any one [Ahadan] in the service of his Lord.' [Kahf: 110]"

"'Leave Me and him whom [Created alone [Waheedan].' [Mudathir: 11]"

Reference to people as alone/one or Ahad is made in these verses and these creatures are described with descriptions that befit them. Therefore, how is it correct that something which is Ahad cannot be described or divided? If al-Habashi's assertion was correct then Allah would not describe the creatures with Ahad. Yet these creatures are described with appearance, substance and with many attributes which lead to many qualities (as they calim).

It is known that Allah quotes the believer saying,

"'...and I do not associate anyone [Ahadan] with my Lord.' [Kahf: 38]"

So, if none can be described as Ahad "One" except Allah (as there is no attribute for Him which denies His Onenees) and Allah has described His creatures with it, and they have many qualities in them -- then this concept of al-Habashi is baseless. For this reason Ahad serves as a witness falsifying al-Habashi's explanation of tawheed.

Here then, al-Habashi is disproven from three directions:

"1. The Qur'an. For the Qur'an has been revealed i the pure Arabic language which does utilize the term Ahad to name something which has various characteristics and qualities. This proves that using this description is known to the Arabs and is acceptable in the language."

"2. The Arabic language. Because it is not a rule in the language that a thing cannot be caleld Ahad simply because it can be described or divided."

"3. The Greek Philosophers and Plato. Because these it is who forbade refering to Allah with attributes that would 'increase' His unity, and then described Allah as khair [good]."

 The Second Category 

The Second category of tawheed according to al-Habashi is the negation of any similarity to Allah in His Essence [dhat - Essence] and His Attributes.

There is no difference between us and al-Habashi in that Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] is not similar to any of His creatures, and that His attributes are not like those describing the creatures. However, concerning the attributes it is important to clarify the following:

No sane Muslim would assert that Allah's Attributes were in reality similar to those of His creatures. Just as it is true that Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] is not like that of His creatures. Allah has said,

"There is nothing like Him.' [Shura: 11]"

So, His Attributes are not like that of His creation. The similarity is in the word describing the attribute, not in its reality...

And this is distinguished by His sayings;

"'There is nothing like Him.' [Shura: 11]"

"'None is comparable to Him.' [Ikhlas: 4]"

"'Do you know any one who is called by His name?' [Maryam: 65]"

Yet Allah has described Himself with the words, Sameea [Hearing] Baseera [Seeing] while describing humans with the words hearing, seeing through seeing and hearing for humans is not like that of the Creator.

Allah has described Himself with the term Raouf [kind] Raheem [Merciful]

"'Indeed Allah is kin, merciful with the people.' [Baqarah: 143]"

and He has said abou the Messenger [Muhammad],

"'With the believers (he is) kind, merciful.' [Tawbah: 128]"

But the Prophet's mercy is not like Allah's Mercy.

So, denying similarity between the attributes of created things and the Attributes of Allah is in fact denying a similarity in the reality of these attributes not their terms. Because utilizing similar terms for both Creator and the created is normal and has been proven, whereas utilizing the reality of similar terms for both the Creator and the created is false and incorrect.

"'There is nothing like Him.' [Shura: 11]"

Using similar terms for reference is proven in the Book, but it is not proven in the sense of having a common reality. So, similarity does not exist between the reality of Allah's attributes and those of His creatures.

Contrarily, one finds the opposite in Allah's book - that is - one finds many verses proving that it is not possible to find any similarity at all between Allah and His creatures in any of His Attributes.

An example is the Attributes of power in Allah's Book about which He Azza wa Jalla said:

"'Indeed, Allah has power over all things.' [Baqarah: 20]"

"'Surely, your Lord makes plentiful the means of sustenance for whom He pleases and strengthens them.' [Israa': 30]"

and compare it with the power that is possessed by Hi creation as He says,

"'Except for those who repent before you gain power over them...' [Ma'idah: 34]"

"'...and (He) adds force to your stength.' [Hud: 52]"

Then read His saying,

"'Allah is He who created you weak, and then after your weakness He made you strong, and then after your strength He made you weak and gray haird.' [Ruwm: 54]"

Then it is clearly proven that there is no comparison between the attribute of Allah and that of the creatures. But simply because the words are the same, it does not imply that the reality behind the meanings are the same. This is all the more clear when there is a verse in Allah's Book which forbids a common reality in the meaning of these attributes.

"'There is nothing like Him.' [Shura: 11]"

So, if al-Habashi says that there is nothing comparable to Allah, then this is true, and if he says that nothing is comparable to His attributes, this is also true, and that we are looking for.  However,  that does not mean that one should deny an attribute of Allah simply because one finds that word in Allah's Book describing one of His creatures. As Allah T'ala said,

"'Indeed, Allah hears and sees [everything].' [Nisaa': 58]"

and He T'ala said about man,

"'And We gave him hearing and sight.' [Insan: 2] (Translator's Note: One must take note here, the Arabic descriptions are the same in both verses, although, we have translated them differently due to the preceding words and the context.)"

It does not befit Allah to describe Himself as 'hearing', seeing' and then to describe the human as 'hearing, seeing' as if the two attributes were the same in each case. But we see the human and we know how he sees and hears but as for Allah - "There is nothing like Him" - so nothing will cause us to compare Him to His creatures - even - if the word attributed is the same. For the sole reason that similarity is in the word,  not  in its reality. Otherwise there would be no reaon for Him T'ala to say, "There is nothing like Him," and it would be just a verse being recited with no use for it in this chapter. But no mind would think that Allah is like any of His creatures in their true characteristics. The only common thing between the descriptions of Allah and His creatures is the word which is used for the description. In order to confirm the characteristics of Lordship in all of what is attributed to Allah, we have what is common between Him and His creatures, for if this common pronunciation in the attributes did not exist, then we would have no idea what the attributes of Divinity meant. Just as there is no proof that Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] is like any other essence, and Allah's Existence does not mean that He Exists like others, it is the same concerning the attributes - they are not similar to the attributes of the creatures.

So, Allah Exists and the creatures exists and there is no comparison in this existence. Therefore, if we confirm Istawa' [Ascension] and Nuzool [descending] and Majee'ya [Coming] to Allah, this does not mean the ascending, descending, or coming of the creatures. This is the same if we confirm Hand, the Face, the Eyes... it does not mean the same hands, face or eyes of the creatures. So, according to al-Habashi, it is a must to withhold the attributes of Allah and their interpretation. Because confirming to him equals similarity. So, he combines most of the attributes ino the following:


 * - Hearing;
 * - Seeing;
 * - Power;
 * - Intent;
 * - Speech;
 * - Knowledge;
 * - Life;
 * - Existence;
 * - Everliving;
 * - Eternal;
 * - Oneness

Te remaining attributes are combined by al-Habashi into innovated attributes such as:


 * - Mukhalifat lil Hawadath (Not an Event) - This is another of the Ilm al-Kalam terms. It refers to the concept of something which does not do anything, or does not move, or does not change, or is unaffected .etc; it also implies one who has no parts. Al-Habashi attributes it to Allah as do many of the Mutakalimoon and their like. Stating that Allah will be seen on the Day of Resurrection without him being, "...short, long, light, dark, not moving, moving, and touching anything." (As quoted in al-Habashi's followers in their "Izhar Al-Iqedah Al-Sunnyah" - The Authentic Beliefs of Ahlus-Sunnah - Ahbash). It is a Greek philosophical attributes of the divine.

and


 * - Qiyaam binafs (Self-subsisting / Self-sustaining) - Another of the Ilm al-Kalam terms used by al-Habashi to describe Allah. It is used to imply, "Self sustaining." However, attesting to the implied concept has lead its inventors to claim that Allah will be seen on the Day of Resurrection without Him being, "...standing up, sitting on, leaning against, attatched to, unattatched to, seperated from, in front of, in the back of [anything]." (As quoted by al-Habashi's followers in their "Izhar Al-Iqedah Al-Sunnyah" - The Authentic Beliefs of Ahlus-Sunnah - Ahbash).

Regardless of the fact that Allah has clearly described Himself with Istawa' [Ascension] and Nuzool [descending] and Majee'ya [Coming], according to al-Habashi, the attributes of Istawa' [Ascension] and Nuzool [descending] and Majee'ya [Coming] are anthropomorphized by the imagination. Other than this, according to him, they do not have to be spoken of. Yet, al-Habashi does not believe that the seeing attribute causes the imagination to make similarity, so here he contradicts himself.

As for the remaining known attributes, he has combined them as we discovered before, even though Allah Subhannahu wa T'ala has specifically mentioned them concerning Himself. So, where then is the benefit is combining or abbreviating them?

This is why we say that tawheed, according to al-Habashi, equals  T'ateel  [Denial / Denying]. And the solution for all of this is,

"'There is nothing like Him, and He is the [All] Hearing, the [All] Seeing.' [Shura: 11]"

The first part of this verse is the cure for the filth of tashbeeh [Anthropomorphism] - "...Nothing like Him". The second part is the cure for the desease of T'ateel [Denial / Denying] - "...and He is the Hearing, the Seeing". Only by this method is tawheed of Allah perfected.

 The Third Category 

The third category tawheed according to al-Habashi is stated by him as,

"'Allah is unique in creating, originating and organizing, so there is no contribution in inventing, manufacturing, or organizing the invented things.'"

No one disagrees with al-Habashi that Allah doesn't have any partners or associates in manufacturing or organizing creations. Even the idolaters agree with that. They are aware that Allah is the Creator, the Sustainer, the One who gives life and death, and they don't believe that anyone is a partner with Him in His Creating. This is well-known from the Book of Allah T'ala, Allah said,

"'And if you ask them, 'Who created the heavens and the earth and made the sun and the moon subservient?' they will certainly say, 'Allah'.' [Ankboot: 61]"

"'And if you ask them, 'Who sends down water from the sky, then gives life to the earth after it were dead?' They will certainly say, 'Allah'.' [Ankbooth: 63]"

"'And if you ask them, 'Who created the heavens and the earth?' they would most certainly say, ''The Might, Knowing One has created them'.' [Zukhruf: 9]"

So, they didn't claim that their idols were partners to Allah in organizing, creating, sustaining, and giving life or death. But the idolators' argument for worshiping the idols was their claim,

"'We only worship them to bring us nearer to Allah.' [Zumar: 3]"

The reason that they worshipped the idols was not because they thought that they created and sustained, and the proof for that is that if they were asked who created the heavens and the earth and gave life to the earth after its death they would say, "Allah" they did not say, "Allah, and our gods." Yet, this still wasn't enough for their tawheed to be correct, for if it was sufficient, the Prophet Muhammad would have left them alone with their idols. The idolators themselves know that their gods don't hear, benefit or harm them, and this is Ibrahim's argument against them when He asked them,

"'He said; Do they hear you when you call, or can they benefit or harm you?' [Sha'ara: 72]"

And the idolators knew that if they answered no, then it would be an argument against them, and if they answered yes, then it would be a proof that they were lying, and that is what made them excuse themselves from answering this question by saying,

"'We found our fathers doing this.' [Sh'ara: 74]"

Likewise, the Quraish did not deny the portion of Muhammad's message, which stated that one Lord gives life and death, creates and sustains .etc. But they denied what they thought was his implication; that all of their gods were really only one god. They said,

"'Did he make all of the gods just one god; this is surely a strange thing.' [Saad: 5]"

Most of the idolators admit that all of the partners they claim for Allah belong to Him. All belong to the creator of this World, Allah Glorious is He. It is known that when they would encircle the K'aba the idolators would say, "We obey You, No partner have You, except a partner for You, You own him and that which he owns." Abd al-Muttalib told Abraha, "The House has a Lord to protect it." This was when Abraha wanted to destroy the house of Allah. Abd al-Muttalib also said, ''"This is the house of Allah and his friend Ibrahim, so if He kept you away, that would be because it is His House." (Source: "Tahdheeb al-Seerat al-Nubuwiyya"'' by Ibn Hishaam) This, then, is a proof as Allah said,

"'And you forget those who you associated...' [An'am: 41]"

When the idolators are in trouble or hardship they forget the gods whom they associated with Allah and when the trouble ceases, by Allah's Will, they forget again, and they associate partners with Allah once more. Likewise, when Abd al-Mutaalib knew in his heart that they could not prevent Abraha from destroying the House he submitted to the truth and said, "The House has a Lord to protect it," and he did not assocaite partners in that with Him, and he submitted that Allah alone protects and defends the K'aba.

This tawheed is referred to as tawheed of ruboobiyya (Lordship), this is the tawheed that implies that Allah is the Lord and the Creator, the Sustainer, the Giver of life and death, and the All Powerful. Yet, this was not enough and it must be accompanied with another form of tawheed - tawheed of uloohiyya - that is the forbiddance of Allah's creatures to take others as gods besides Allah. As it does not benefit a creature to believe that there is no creator, maker organizer, except Allah - unless - he worships this maker and does not woship anything with Him, believing that He is the only one worthy of worship. Since the false gods are incapable of Allah's ability, they do not deserve to be associated with Him in worship.

The idolators do not benefit by believing that Allah is alone in sustaining, giving life, and death even if they call it tawheed of rububiyya because they do not include tawheed of uloohiyya with it, which states that if the Lord is the Creator, Sustainer, Giver of life and death, then He is the Lord for all creation and there is no other Lord beside Him.

Al-Habashi does not differentiate between these two types of tawheed, and he assumes that tawheed of rububiyya is the tawheed for the ability of inventing and organizing, which he mixed in with the tawheed of uloohiyya. So, in other words, to him whoever admits that Allah is the One who invents, then he has grasped the pure tawheed. Then he tries to prove this point of his by citing the statement of Allah,

"'If they had any gods besides Allah they (the heavens and the earth) would have been in a state of disorder.' [Anbiyya: 22]"

Then, al-Habashi claimed that this kind of tawheed is called proof of inability. This is incorrect because the idolators did not claim that there is more than one who has the all encompassing ability or more than one creator. They believed that the creator is one and - yet - they still worshipped many gods and this is proven from the Book of Allah by His saying,

"'And if you ask them, 'Who created the heavens and the earth and made the sun and the moon subservient?' they will certainly say, 'Allah'.' [Ankboot: 61]"

and for that Allah asked them afterwards;

"'...do you not admit?' [Anbiya:67]"

So, we learn from this, that al-Habashi's usage of the verse

"'If they had any gods besides Allah they (the heavens and the earth) would have been in a state of disorder.' [Anbiyya: 22]"

as proof for Allah's unity in creating and inventing is  not  an evidence - because - Allah has mentioned to use that the idolators admit that Allah is the only creator and inventor, but what he means in this verse is that only the the true god should be given tawheed of uloohiyya. So, He is a god with divinity in its real meaning and this is why Allah sent the Messengers calling to single out this divinity. He also meant by this that the idolators admit to His Lordship - yet - they deny His divinity or uloohiyya.

"'Did he make all of the gods one god?' [Saad: 5]"

Each Prophet started His invitation to Allah with the saying;

"'Worship Allah; you have no god bu Him.' [Ar'af: 59]"

And Allah Azza wa Jall said,

"'And ask those of Our Messengers whom We sent before you, 'Did We ever appoint gods to be worshipped besides the Beneficent God'...?' [Zukhruf: 45]"

Concerning the fact that there is only one creator and organizer, the idolators have admitted to this. Thus, al-Habashi does not support pure tawheed which eradicates shirk from its very roots, rather he approves of what the idolators said. His evidence fails to show the truth and it fails to nullify the falsehood.

(Source: Excerpts from "Habashis: A Warning and Refutation of the Heretical Group Known as the Habashis Al-Ahbash," Translated by Abu Zakariya)

Wikipedia is a paradise and haven for Pedophiles, Perverts, Amateurs, Pseudo-Scholars, Agenda-pushers, Wanna-be-Academics, Egoistics, Control-freaks, Teen-agers and Bloggers .etc.
Wikipedia is a paradise and haven for Pedophiles, Perverts, Amateurs, Pseudo-Scholars, Agenda-pushers, Wanna-be-Academics, Egoistics, Control-freaks, Teen-agers and Bloggers .etc. Its "anybody-can-edit" approach tantamounts to the prositution of facts, subjects and the realities on the ground. Wikipedia Guidelines are just the tools to facilitate that prositution. Consequently, Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is a child which was born dead from the day it was conceived by its founder. And this child will remain dead, no matter how much money, resources and exposure is poured by the companies like Google, Yahoo .etc on its coffin. McKhan

Diffs
1

It doesn't change the fact that I am the Author of that article
Nevertheless, It doesn't change the fact that I am the Author of that article...

I did NOT give permission to any of the editor of WikiPedia under any license or cirumstances to edit that article NOR I realeased that article under ANY Free License, knowingly, to WikiPedia.org or its affiliates.


 * Sorry, but you did. Every time you click Save Page, you buy into the Wikipedia contract underneath the edit box:
 * All contributions to any page on Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Project:Copyrights for details).
 * If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.
 * Which bit of that didn't you understand? Tearlach 23:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * hi, about your question, the answer is no. I did not take part to the writing.--equitor 02:13, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for standing up for WikiPedia-NPOV guidelines and helping to maintain the integrity of WikiPedia Islam-related pages that they not be used for link-farming, spamm or one's agenda purposes?
I am very disappointed to find out that I have been blocked for standing-up for WikiPedia-NPOV guidelines.

Unfotunately, Adminsitrator Commander_Keane played right into the hands of Al-Ahbash / Habashies' gang, which includes but not limited to:



.etc

(Anybody with a little bit of commonsense and by paying attention to the "date-stamps", "contributions", "target-pages", "style", "verbage", "semantics" .etc can figure the TRUTH out that there is an ON-GOING and Constant / Complex Vandalism + Delibrate Three revert rule Manipulation. - and delivered their wish by blocking me for 24 hours.

Above users, specially and, are using WikiPedia Islam-related pages to link-farm, spamm and for marketing purposes to promote their own sect and pursue their agenda.

I am NOT guilty of violating or manipulating the Three revert rule NOR I am guilty of link-farming, spamming or using WikiPedia Islam-ralted pages to market or promote my group. All I have been trying to do is to maintain the integrity of WikiPedia NPOV-guidelines and reverting back to Tearlach's version.

There are two parties:


 * McKhan, a mainstream Sunni whose family has been Sunni for centuries
 * Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP, a religious sect / cult, which denies the TOTALITY of the Quran and have SUBSTANTIAL and FUNDMENTAL differences with mainstream Sunnis and yet classifies itself as a Sunni and thereby hides itself behind the mainstream Sunnis like myself, to seek legitimacy and recruitment (You are more than welcome to read Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context, a research report by an INDEPENDENT / ACADEMIC outlet)

Tearlach is NOT a mainstream Sunni NOR he belongs to Al-Ahbash / Habashies group. He got involved and wrote a WikiPedia-NPOV compliant version.

I totally appreciate the fact and have repeatedly acknowledged that if two parties don't see each other eye-to-eye then only a NEUTRAL / INDEPENDENT party can do the job.

However, Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP don't appreicate that nor the fact that if I will write that page according to my wishes, that page will NOT be somewhat NEUTRAL like the way Tearlach has written.

Here is


 * Al-Ahbash / Habashies' version of 'Al-Ahbash' (A party)

and - here is


 * Tearlach's version of 'Al-Ahbash' page, (A NEUTRAL / INDEPENDENT party)

It is quite obvious that Tearlach's version of 'Al-Ahbash' page is more WikiPedia NPOV-compliant.

Furthermore, Tearlach has already addressed all the objections raised by the Al-Ahbash / Habashies on his version as per following:

Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP's Objections: "an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunni and Shi'a theology with Sufism"[10] ? + "anti-Salafi, and with Sufi and other beliefs seen as heretical"[11] ?

NPOV / Tearlach's Response: ''It was an attempt to summarise and merge the descriptions at the three cited sources: their own promotional website; a critical description; and what appears to be a fairly balanced and properly-sourced paper in an academic journal. It incorporated other academic sources such as Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context. Tearlach 15:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC) + Read NPOV. I chose those links because they represent a spread of views: one well-referenced and (as far as I can tell neutral) academic article; one from the official AICP site, which is completely uncritical of Al-Ahbash; and one fairly representative of what its critics say about it.'' Tearlach 02:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Morever, fairly and impartially speaking, Tearlach has given AICP / Al-Ahbash / Habashies quite favorable but blanced POV on WikiPedia:


 * a). by not calling them a CULT but merely a "sect"
 * b). by providing an external link to Al-Ahbash / Habashies' arch web-site and to another contrary link
 * c). by quoting their BOGUS and OXYMORONIC claim that AICP / Al-Ahbash / Habashies advocates pluralism, and opposition to political activism and violence (There is ample material available over the internet to refute both claims)

and


 * d). by quoting AICP / Al-Ahbash / Habashies' FRADULENT slogan from their own web-site, "the resounding voice of moderation" (despite the fact that the very same "the voice of moderation" castigates every that individual / web-site / organization / outlet - which - expose the Al-Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' agenda and beliefs as either "Wahabi", "Kaafir", "non-Muslim", "Islamist" or part of a "smear compaign" .etc)

Consequently, I, as a party, support Tearlach's version of 'Al-Ahbash' page, WikiPedia NPOV-compliant version - over - Al-Ahbash / Habashies' version of 'Al-Ahbash' which doesn't offer any balance nor it offers what the ciritics say about Al-Ahbash / Habashies.

I have repeatedly pointed-out that I am a mainstream Sunni and my family is Sunni for centuries. As I have reiterated before that I am NOT guilty of inserting / promoting HIDDEN links, rewriting a WikiPedia NPOV-compliant version to a more Habashanized version on WikiPedia AND other projects' Islam-related pages (I invite everybody to visit 's contributions to see IF I EVER did that on WikiPedia) to seek legitimacy and recruitment for my group but Al-Ahbash / Habashies are.

I have also warned many times that the agents / sympathizers of Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP will continue:


 * to make attempts to Habashanize this page and other WikiPedia / similar projects' Islam-related pages by twisting WikiPedia and others' guidelines to the maximum extent and by incorporating hidden links to wage a blatant and hegemonic smear campaign using "Islamic" sounded web-sites


 * to castigate / shun / discard / ignore / discredit / "refute" any criticism / evidence by any individual / web-site / organization / outlet - which exposes the Al-Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' agenda and beliefs - as either "Wahabi", "Kaafir", "non-Muslim", "Islamist" or part of a "smear / defemation compaign"


 * to use "politically correct" language / jargon / ebonics / verbage / semantics to their benefit and pursue their agenda and beliefs against the other party


 * to purse their "divide and conquer" strategy by trying to DIMINISH / LESSEN and ultimately REMOVE the FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE (S), demonstrated / presented / preached by themselves on this very page and by practicing their hedious, vicious, contemptuous and dangerous tactics elsewhere on the web and in their material and Musallahs, between mainstream Sunnis and Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP to seek legitimacy, recruitment and hegemonic superiority of their beliefs and agenda,

and


 * to ignore / discredit all the INDEPENDENT, NEUTRAL and ACADEMIC sources and material which doesn't follow the tag-line of Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP.

Al-Ahbash / Habashies agents are ganging-up on WikiPedia Islam-related pages to SANITIZE themselves to pursue their agenda of seeking legitimacy and recruitment under the guise of mainstream Sunni Muslims.

Indeed, FIRST - Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP's agents tried to castigate me as a "Wahabi", "non-Muslim" .etc and NOW they are trying to FRAME me and trying to manufacture a CHAOS (by creating HOSTILE environment, by manipulating 3 Rvv rule, by calling me a "Wahabi" and therefore trying to portray me as a "Terrorist" .etc) to get me banned from the WikiPedia that they could continue their on-slaught on WikiPedia Islam-realted pages with free-hand to seek legitimacy and recruitment under the guise of mainstream Sunni Muslims.

I invite all the fair-minded and sincere WikiPedia Admistrators to compare / investigate



with



.etc

by using a little bit of common-sense and by paying keen attention to "date-stamps", "contributions", "target-pages", "style", "verbage", "semantics" .etc to figure the TRUTH out that there is an ON-GOING and Constant / Complex Vandalism, link-farming, marketing, Delibrate Three revert rule Manipulation .etc

I hope WikiPedia administrators will be able to figure that conspiracy out and rather being a complicit or playing right into the hands of Al-Ahbash / Habashies, will co-operate to maintain the integrity of WikiPedia-NPOV guidelines and rest of vulnerable WikiPedia Islam-related pages which are on the stake.

McKhan · (talk · contribs · deleted · cross-wiki · wikichecker · count · pages created · auto edits ·  · [ block log] · rights log · identified · [ lu] · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi )

Template:Copyedit
Please stop removing the tag from the articles about Pashtun tribes. All it means is that some native English-speaker will go through them and correct the grammar. It's not going to mess up the articles. --Khoikhoi 20:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry... Those articles are good...
Don't worry.. Those articles are good... There are no "native" speakers of English. It is on the record that most of the "native" English speakers FAIL in English.

McKhan


 * I'm a native English speaker. What do you mean there aren't any? --Khoikhoi 07:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Does that make you "special"?
Does that make you special or superior 'coz you are "native" speaker? - Or - Are you simply being xenophobic? McKhan


 * Jesus Christ, I'm just trying to answer your incorrect statement above, There are no "native" speakers of English. I'm not trying to brag or anything. I also don't see why you think your articles are the best and don't need to be improved. --Khoikhoi 05:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply
Ok first off, your English is not that good. You may think that the article is understandable, but it's not. That's why I added the copyedit tag. Now the article is readable. I never added any information to the articles, so why is it a crime that I don't know anything about them? I just wanted people to be able to understand it. Please stop threatening me. When I said that the Pashtuns live in Afghanistan and Pakistan I meant their homeland, not the diaspora. --Khoikhoi 06:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You do have some complex... Don't you?
The text of those pages was written by the British Intelligence officers almost 100 years ago. And what do you know about my English? Do you even know me? McKhan


 * No, I don't know you, but based on what you just wrote I do know your skills in writing articles in English. I suggest you edit the Pushtu Wikipedia instead. --Khoikhoi 07:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I just couldn't care less about your immature judgements. You should stay away from those page which you know nothing about otherwise I will make sure that you get blocked - yet again. McKhan


 * Threatening others with blocks when you really can't do anything except complain is incivility and general harassment. NSL E (T+C) 07:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you the buddy of Khoikhoi? McKhan
 * No, I'm an admin. NSL E (T+C) 07:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Good for you. I can also be an admin. But I simply don't have time to waste with amateurs. McKhan


 * You have been blocked 3 hours for general incivlity. It's short, I hope you learn some manners. NSL E (T+C) 07:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Who cares? I don't. McKhan


 * Greetings, McKhan. There are many hunderds of admins. And in the interests of constructiveness, I would press on NSLE to also tone it down a notch for the time being. Our encyclopedia needs people like you to contribute, but we also have a style guide to keep in mind. Also, please review ownership of articles. I think the problem is that in some of the articles, the prose and the narrative are not entirely clear, in that the reader might find it difficult to tell what each individual component refers to (see my questions regarding Wur on Khoikhoi's talk page). Thank you. Regards, El_C 07:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've unblocked you early, I hope you cooled down a little. Try to be less incivil, if possible. We're all here to help. As El_C pointed out, he's asked you a few questions here, perhaps you could answer them to clear this up. NSL E (T+C) 08:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit - Indian tribe pages
Hi. I notice you and user Khoikhoi have been having a bit of a revert battle with his copyedit tag on the Tarkani and Salarzai pages. I am agreement with Khoikhoi that the articles did need a copyedit as they really weren't in an understandable form. I have done my best to extract what I think is a readable and accurate version of the text that was there. Please review it and correct any errors, but don't simple revert it to the old version. Kcordina 15:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, you will agree with Khoikhoi because he invited you to "copyedit" them though they were quite understandable without your "copyediting." It is quite amusing to read your claim that you have made them "readable" and "accurate" though you know almost nothing about the Pashtun history AND for the fact that the text which I posted there was written by the British Officers almost 100 years ago. McKhan


 * No one invited me to copyedit the pages, in wikipedia if a {{copyedit} tag is added to an article it appears in the Wikipedia_articles_needing_copy_edit category where any interested party can pick up the article to try and help to improve the language. This system generally works very well as it allows people, such as me, who have a reasonable ability with the English language to help improve articles, even if they are not experts in a field.  In answer to your other points:-


 * I'm afraid the articles were not 'quite understandable' - for example, what does (8,000 ; Babukarrah and Charmung valley, Bajaur) mean?


 * I did not claim to have made them "readable" and "accurate" - if you read my comment what I actually say is I have done my best to extract what I think is a readable and accurate version rapidly followed by Please review it and correct any errors, hoping that an expert in the field would use the clear language I had used to build an accurate article.


 * You are quite right that I know nothing about the Pashtun history, but I do know about clear English. As explained above - that is the idea of the copyedit.  One person supplies the language, another supplies the knowledge.  That is why I asked you to review the article.  As great as the British Military is, simply because something was written by one of its Officers, doesn't mean it is written in good English in the context of Wikipedia.

Can we please try and move back from the mud-slinging of this debate and work together to achieve a good set of articles. It seems there are at least 4 articles which may need some work. I propose the following as a route forward. Everyone leave the articles alone for the time being, while I shall attempt to find an impartial person, with an interest in articles of this type that can attempt to mediate a solution between yourself and KhoiKhoi. I had hoped I would be able to do that, but you seem to be intent on drawing me into the shouting match. Give me a day or so to find someone. Kcordina 09:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In view of the absence of progress in resolving this dispute, I have lodged a request with the Mediation Cabal, who will hopefully be able to help everyone arrive at a sensible conclusion. (see request here. Kcordina 10:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
Recently, user Kcordina requested the Mediation Cabal to mediate the dispute concerning the Pashtun tribes articles. After reviewing the articles, I am forced to conclude that you are in violation of Ownership of articles. Please review the policy and feel free to ask me anything if you have questions. Thank you. Olorin28 00:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Erm, we got it under control here right now, let's try not to overwhelm McKhan with notices, shall we? Thank in advance. Regards, El_C 00:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked you for 24 hours as a result of your recent behaviour on Qibla. You have undoubtedly violated the WP:3RR as well as engaging in an edit pattern that clearly disrupts the normal functioning of editing an article. -Splash talk 19:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Kakazaifoeipage555.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Kakazaifoeipage555.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 14:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for investigation (65.92.130.151, Cronodevir, and Muslim_Sunni)
Hello McKhan. Note that your request for investigation was archived because it is a user or content dispute. Such disputes are best resolved through the dispute resolution process; please list the user again if they blatantly ignore that process. Thanks. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 20:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism (March 2006)
Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Jibran1 06:32, 30 March 2006


 * I sincerely apologise for the warning that I have given you. I was looking through the history of the article and had noticed that you had erased links from the 'External links' section, multiple times, after they had been put back. Upon further investigation of Vandalism & External_links and a readthrough of the dialogue between you and Art LaPella, I realised that I might have been a bit hasty in putting up the warning on your page. My mistake. At this point, I just want to add that I put that warning up on your page, in good faith and in the interest of the article. I am not taking sides, and I can assure you that there was no "nepotism" or "nationalism" going on. I would put up a warning on Muslim Sunni too, if your accusations towards him are true, however, I could not find his name listed as the webmaster at the Sunna.info website. Furthermore, Sunna.info seems to be an informative websites as I did find some interesting articles on it.
 * Please do continue to contribute to Wikipedia. I'm sure your inputs and efforts are appreciated. Once again, my sincere apologies to you. --Jibran1 23:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for violation of 3RR at Al-Ahbash
Firstly, let me begin by saying that I apologise for this delayed notice of your block. Seconds after I applied the block to your account my internet connection dropped out, then I fell asleep.

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violation of the Three revert rule (3RR). It's never acceptable to revert an article more than 3 times in 24 hours over a content dispute - whatever your feelings about the content issue are. The article was Al-Ahbash. In the future, please use discussion rather than reverting to change articles.--Commander Keane 04:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Al-Ahbash
I'm not part of the Al-Ahbash myself, but do you have a source that states they are considered kuffar by most Muslims? BhaiSaab talk 17:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, Read ABOVE and:


 * - Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context
 * - Jamaa’at al-Ahbaash (the Habashis)
 * - Doctrines compared between Al-Ahbash and to mainstream sunni Muslims
 * - Tawheed: According to Al-Habashi

أحباش لبنان.. دور بارز في السياسة وعصا غليظة في وجه معارضي سوريا ]
 * - Al-Ahbash: Evolution and Beliefs
 * - The Habashies Weighted On The Scales of the Sharee'ah (Jurisprudence)
 * - A Sufi response to political islamism: Al-ahbash of Lebanon
 * - Al-Ahbash: Their History and Their Beliefs
 * - Habashies / Al-Ahbash / Ahbash / AICP
 * - ICPA-AFIC connection: Pathetically Flawed - by Dawood Yusuf - NIDA'UL ISLAM - ISSUE 2, VOLUME 7, DECEMBER/JANUARY 2000/2001
 * - Lebanese Group 'should Be Investigated
 * - Australian Islamic organisations label al-Ahbash extremist
 * - Andrew Robb & The Government's preferred Lebanese sect
 * - Is Andrew Robb sponsoring fringe isolationist Islam?
 * - The Brethren & The PM’s Favourite Muslim
 * - A warning and refutation of the heretical group known as the Habashis (al-Ahbash): Translated excerpts from Abdullah Muhammad al-Shami's (al-Radd °alá ... al-Habashi") : Islamic theological studies - by Abd Allah Muhammad Shami
 * - [http://www.alarabiya.net/Articles/2005/10/23/17980.htm يبيحون مخالطة المرأة وبيع "الصبي الحر" وشرائه
 * - Dossier: Al-Ahbash (April 2001) - Middle East Intelligence Bulletin

No matter how Al-Ahbash / Habashies deny, the fact remain the same: The most FUNDAMENTAL / CRUCIAL difference IS that Al-Ahbash / Habashies DENY the TOTALITY of the Quran .,,

McKhan

What do you think about Shi'a? BhaiSaab talk 17:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream Muslims Vs. Al-Ahbash has been list for deletion. BhaiSaab talk 18:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I responded to your statement on Talk:Islam. BhaiSaab talk 23:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Responded. BhaiSaab talk 23:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Responded again. BhaiSaab talk 00:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You should be aware that I have no agenda against you. You shouldn't take my listing of your article for deletion personally. BhaiSaab talk 03:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't add copyrighted text to Wikipedia
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your creation of the article, Mainstream Muslims Vs. Al-Ahbash, but we cannot accept copyrighted text borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Please see Copyright problems for more information on this topic, or generally, Policies and guidelines. Please do not remove the copyright violation notice placed in the article or repost the suspected infringing text. However, if you would like to rewrite the article in your own words, follow the link in the posted notice to create a temporary subpage. If your new article is appropriate, and not a further copyright violation, the reviewing administrator will move that new article into place once the copyright status of the original has been resolved. Happy editing! BhaiSaab talk 20:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read wikipedia's help section on minor edits. BhaiSaab talk 22:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you feel the need to bring back old discussions? The topic was locked for over two months and I had it unlocked. Its better to start afresh. Archiving is a regular process. BhaiSaab talk 00:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It is still under progress. And you better stop pushing your Shia agenda on Wikipedia Islam-related page and stop using Sock-puppets. Your archving is not written on the stone. Contexual Archiving is more crucial. McKhan

Just because I forgot to sign in doesn't mean I'm using sock-puppets. There is no Shi'a agenda; why, do you consider them kuffar too? This is probably the third or fourth agenda you've accused me of. BhaiSaab talk 00:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Aminz, a Shia, was helping on the Al-Ahbash page. I will recommend that you should study the subject first and then try to work on this page. McKhan
 * I don't care about who's a Shi'a and who isn't. Furthermore, you have been reported for violation of 3rr. BhaiSaab talk 00:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome
I am happy that you liked it. BTW, did you finally get to create that table? (I think we decided to put it in another format though) --Aminz 07:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever Imfatima2001 gathered and wrote, I simply formatted and posted it as a new page, Mainstream Muslims Vs. Al-Ahbash, along-with her table. Please, feel welcome to see the current status of that page here. I wish I had more time to re-write that table, at least. McKhan


 * First, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad#Dispute_regarding_Khyber_War There is a nice table there.
 * Secondly, it was good if you could summerize everything in a sentence or two. The table was hard to read. You can give references to some websites (WP:RS ones) for further reading. The table will be then added to the "Crticitism of Ahbashi" section in the article. I am also still waiting for the other party to make their own "Responses section".
 * Take care, --Aminz 07:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for all the help and for the example. I will check it out. Take care and Good night. :) McKhan


 * I didn't do anything. Good night, --Aminz 08:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the importance of the following text?

"[1]. Al-Ahbash / Habashies DENY the TOTALITY of the Quran [2]. Wikipedia:personal attacks by mckhan : Racial ephithets, Another [3]. Wikipedia must NOT allow these personal and slandrous attacks on its contributors + McKhan is a mainstream Sunni Muslim and NOT a Wahabi + Only MAINSTREAM, INDEPENDENT, ACADEMIC and / or RELIGIOUSLY AUTHOROTATIVE sources have been quoted [4]. Wikipedia:personal attacks by mckhan : Racial ephithets [5]. Wikipedia NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW (NPOV) Guidelines must be implented, respected and adhered to.... Tearlach's version continues to be Wikipedia NPOV-compliant... [6]. mckhan goal on Wikipedia is Defamation [7]. Tearlach's WikiPedia NPOV-compliant version vs. Al-Ahbash / Habashies' Marketing-flyer Version = Tearlach's version continue to meet the WikiPedia Guidelines [8]. Scandal of The Wahhabi mckhan (Wahhabism are responsable of the 9/11 world trade center attack ) [9]. Al-Ahbash are NOT on Wikipedia to help but to promote themselves + Wikipedia must NOT allow these personal and slandrous attacks on its contributors + McKhan is a mainstream Sunni Muslim and NOT a Wahabi + Only MAINSTREAM, INDEPENDENT, ACADEMIC and / or RELIGIOUSLY AUTHOROTATIVE sources have been quoted + Tearlach's WikiPedia NPOV-compliant version vs. Al-Ahbash / Habashies' Marketing-flyer Version = Tearlach's version continue to meet the WikiPedia Guidelines [10]. Stop hiding behind your finger [11]. Table [12]. This article [13]. Table? [14]. Got it [15]. The table [16]. Al-Ahbash [17]. See also [18]. alahbash AND mulims [19]. New ChangesWho teaches The Tawheed that speaks of substance and unessentials? [20]. Tawheed: According to Al-Habashi [21]. Ahbash المشاريعيون، الأحباش، جماعة من أهل السنّةa [22]. Ahbash [23]. Ahbash, Sufi response against wahabies نهجنا a [24]. Tawheed: According to Al-Habashi [25]. This article remain under progress"

BhaiSaab talk 02:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is called CONTEXUAL ARCHIVING. McKhan
 * The only context it establishes is that the you claim Al-Ahbash deny the totality of the Qur'an, which I'm not so sure is true, and that you and other editors previously made personal attacks against each other. Not a pretty context. BhaiSaab talk 02:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll have to read more about the Al-Ahbash before I can say what they believe. Islam's talk page is currently 106KB. Dhimmi is not an article I regularly edit, but its talk page is about 160KB. I don't subscribe to the views of any of the people you mentioned, but it's not as if their articles are being copied and pasted onto Wikipedia, so I don't see how that's relevant. BhaiSaab talk 03:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I read most of it. That doesn't mean I believe it though. BhaiSaab talk 03:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Q: "What do you think what Al-Ahbash believe in about the TOTALITY of the Quran and Tawheed?" McKhan
 * A: "I'll have to read more about the Al-Ahbash before I can say what they believe." BhaiSaab talk 03:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * McKhan
 * Right, I said "read more." That doesn't indicate that I haven't read about them at all. BhaiSaab talk 03:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mean that you have achieved the knwolege-level of a religious scholar and therefore you should castigate expert opinions from mainstream scholars like Dr. Ahmad Sakr and Dr. Muzzamil Siddiqi and many more as "Polemics", "Original Research", "Non-Verifiable" .etc McKhan
 * Well of course I'm not a religious scholar. I haven't categorized those scholars opinions, but I have described a few of your edits as such. BhaiSaab talk 03:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't insist on my edits when I see other's peoples edits are reasonable. The only feeling that piece of text leaves is that of animosity. Why don't you propose what you would like to do with the article on the talk page so we can move forward? Also, I think you're quite able to help me improve the Islam article. If you can, please do that. BhaiSaab talk 03:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it has got to do more with the control than the edits by themselves. What is posted up there on Talk:Al-Ahbash page is a compromise. I know Al-Ahbash / Habashies very well and I have done my home-work on them for years. I know plenty of them here where I live. It has nothing to do with animosity but pure logic and their practice of hiding behind mainstream Sunnis to seek legitimacy and recruitment. So, I am quite comfortable with the subject of Al-Ahbash / Habashies. As far as other pages of Wikipedias are concerned including Islam, I am not going to waste my time in haggling. I have already got enough on my plate. Thanks for the offer / invitation, though. McKhan
 * It has nothing to do with control. Timothy Usher has left a message for you on my talkpage which I agree with completely. BhaiSaab talk 03:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't need to know a lot about Al-Ahbash to know how to distinguish between what is allowed and what is not allowed by policy. BhaiSaab talk 03:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you've noticed, I haven't made any content edits on the Al-Ahbash article because I feel I should read more on them before I do so. I feel I have enough knowledge about Islam to edit Islam-related articles, and I don't particularly appreciate the sarcastic tone. BhaiSaab talk 04:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the amount of editors countering your edits regarding the Al-Ahbash speaks for itself and "my haggling." BhaiSaab talk 04:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This discussion isn't going anywhere, so I've started a new one on Talk:Al-Ahbash. BhaiSaab talk 04:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Good luck. Keep talking to yourself. Nobody is going to baby-sit you about the sources. McKhan
 * Does that mean you won't participate? I find that unfortunate. How do you expect the article to move forward then? The best source about a people's beliefs are the people themselves. BhaiSaab talk 04:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good luck. Keep talking to yourself. Nobody is going to baby-sit you about the sources. McKhan
 * Is there an echo in here? BhaiSaab talk 04:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, In your mind. McKhan

Minor Edits
Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." BhaiSaab talk 17:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream Muslims Vs. Al-Ahbash has been deleted. BhaiSaab talk 19:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The above user
I see that User:BhaiSaab has tried to bait you here. Feel free to join the discussion on his actions here. Bakaman Bakatalk 01:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Flat Earth
As an expert in Ahbash, please add your comments to this article: Muslim flat-earth theories. --Islamic 01:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Your mail
Re: Al-Ahbash. You can request protection on requests-for-protection. But you can't request prot to your favoured version. If the page is in a long dispute, then you want WP:DR William M. Connolley 12:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wara
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Wara, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Wara fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: dab page for only two articles and one is non-existant To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Wara, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Wara itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

About the Ahbash page
I agree with you that only mentioning the Nizar Halabi assassination in such a stub article might not be a good idea, but from what i see on your talk page it seems that the Ahbash are pretty active on Wikipedia so why their article is still a stub ??? anyway i think it should be expanded in the future and yes them being mentioned in the U.N report should also be mentioned in the expanded page with the assassination of Al-Halabi since from what I know he was assassinated because of the Ibn Taymiya dispute. « Hiram 111  Δ TalK Δ 15:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well never mind this I've just read about the dispute concerning the Ahbash page and I think it should at least contain a section about their beliefs and differences from the mainstream Sunnis and their political status in Lebanon but It seems that the issue is very complicated and it has caused a lot of headache for many editors, so i guess it would be better to leave the article as it is for now, though it lacks a NPOV. t.c « Hiram 111  Δ TalK Δ 16:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your kind notes and precious understanding. I am glad that we have editors like you on Wikipedia who, at least, read the Talk Page for the background. McKhan (talk) 10:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:ShukriyaKhanum.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:ShukriyaKhanum.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

I believe it is a crop of the second picture on, which is marked copyrighted; I believe crops are still copvyios, but need another admin with expertise in images to review

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

March 2012
Your addition to Talk:Al-Ahbash has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Your addition to User talk:McKhan has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Add it again and you will be blocked Darkness Shines (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Do not follow my contributions just because I removed a copyright violation from your talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also make another personal attack on me again will result in your being reported to ANI. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not impressed with your threats. McKhan (talk)
 * They are not threats. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Complaint about you at the 3RR noticeboard
Hello McKhan. Please see WP:AN3. You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind message. :) McKhan (talk)

April 2012
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Al-Ahbash. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Wifione  Message 02:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkness Shines (talk • contribs)

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/AmandaParker. Thank you. Osarius     Talk 10:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for using multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. regentspark (comment) 23:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Last warning
In light of the evidence brought up in Sockpuppet investigations/AmandaParker, I'm letting this be your last warning. You have already engaged in an unhealthy amount of edit warring, but to top it off, when that failed, you tried to accomplish your purposes through skulduggery and subterfuge. You've also shown an unhealthy predilection for The Truth.

So, either take my advice, or leave it. I'll even mentor you through the process if you accept my advice; this way you might even get a compromised version of your text into the article (the universe doesn't revolve around you and yes you might be wrong, so, no, you might not get your version of the text exactly how you want it). But if you don't, I'll just block you outright and no one will shed a tear. And you will never get your version implemented. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If I recall correctly, you and I go long way back, thus, perhaps you DO understand what is exactly happening on that Ahbash page. It isn't about my "version." The irony is that I didn't even write ANY of those versions which are up on that page. I just want Wikipedia and its editors to do the right thing and NOT fall prey to the agenda of Ahbash / AICP / Habashies which they have been pushing through for years on that very page through various tactics. IF you really want to get involved in this then you should read my recent discussion with Baboon43. Over the years, I have provided AMPLE academic sources (Muslim and non-Muslim) on that very talk page. As long as that Wikipedia page is up and keep on showing up as the top Search Engine Result page, I will keep coming back to that page to make sure that the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' are not able to use it as their marketing tool. Think about it. McKhan (talk)


 * That attitude is a non-starter. This isn't a battleground. I suggest you stop treating it as one and start abiding by our rules now or else the page will get semi-protected and the other editors will have the right to revert your edits on sight and at will; you will not ever get your point of view across that way. If you believe you have a valid point and it has been ignored, try WP:DR and/or Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks to one of your previous comments, (e.g. The Truth) I stumbled upon to pages like "How to win a revert war", thus, I hope you are able to clarify this for me: If the Wikipedia is only interested in the status quo stance and it does contain pages like "How to win a revert war" (albeit under the "tag" of "Humor" and "Sarcasm") then it seems like that Wikipedia is only interested in "quantity" of the editors (i.e. "status quo) but not the quality of the content presented on its pages which is quite a disappointment as I am only interested in the subjects which I have knowledge of/about and I am sure that there are plenty of editors like me out there on Wikipedia. Is Wikipedia a game? McKhan (talk)

Habashi
Please take a look at my edits to the page, I've compromised your version with the other version. Sakimonk  talk  00:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, indeed. Please, get ready for long, intensive and frivolous "discussions" as well as edit-warring. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

Ahbash
Wow...there is a lot to catch up on. I will do my best to brush up so I can make informed comments and help improve the article. Also, have you thought about archiving your talk page? It's quite long. I found that creating archives for mine every so often makes it a bit easier to navigate. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your prompt response and going through the archives of Al-Ahbash's talk page. Regarding my own talk page, I like to keep the way it is but thank you for your kind suggestion. :) McKhan (talk)

Posting another editor's location
If another editor asks you not to post his location, please do not do so, as it is considered a privacy violation. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Baboon43 (talk) 06:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Merger
While I fully support the merger you have done it wrong, see WP:MERGE I have never done a merger either so it would be best to self revert yourself and ask someone who knows how do do it to, well, do it. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Where should I ask? McKhan (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, perhaps ask an admin? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

RFC
I noticed you wished to make the RFC you started a little more prominent, however it is not currently an RFC. It has expired. You need to relist it by adding the template and signing again. Darkness Shines (talk)
 * Thank you for your kind advice. . McKhan (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason I looked at the article on Al-Ahbash what that on 24 April you posted this notice on User talk:Shabiha (the latter is on my watch list). In the notice you stated that you had removed his edit. But as far as I could see, you had not.

The problem with the RFC you posted on the article is similar - you say why you want things changed, and assume that we will understand what you want changed. Maybe people who have been editing the article for months understand what you mean. But people like me, who have "fresh eyes", do not understand the point you are making. I do not think that asking even more people to get involved is going to help.

What would help would be if you listed changes you want, and put the explanations with them.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Al-Ahbash, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. SudoGhost 02:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. McKhan (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have clarified. It's not that I disagree with your edit, at least in terms of grammar and spelling (I didn't look too much into the content issue), it's just that it shouldn't be marked as a minor edit, that's all. - SudoGhost 04:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ericloquence
Message from: Ericloquence - 2 may 13 - 10pm

Helping improving section - belief.

In the technical academic aspect, Islam is divided in 2 categories: The beliefe "^Aqidah" and practice "Fiqh". As known in Muslim theology, belief is a condition of Islam. Sufisme is not included in belief, but it is a way of practicing Islam. An example of that is that a Muslim can be Muslim without beein a Sufi.

Also I saw no citation saying that, but I found citation of their website saying "The A.I.C.P has as guides the Qur’an and the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad and the path of the Islamic scholars like Imam Ash-Shafi^iyy, Imam Malik, Imam Ahmad and Imam Abu-Hanifah", which is more appropriete to use.

Also, it's not appropriate to talk about "takfir" without citing article.

Saying that AICP is mainly in USA is a mistake. I found many internet website, conferences, associations and radios abroad.


 * , Thank you very much for your kind message. I will try my best to answer all of your points one by one:


 * This page is about Al-Ahbash - an extremely controversial subject - which uses its not-for-profit organization, Association of Islamic Charitable Projects (AICP), in the Untied States, North America and Middle East and Islamic Charity Projects Association (ICPA) in Australia, Thus, the Al-Ahbash are also known as the AICP or ICPA.


 * Since this page is on the Wikipedia, which aspires to have Neutral Point of View (NPOV), thus, it is extremely important that any version of Al-Ahbash (and other Al-Ahbash related pages) should present the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents (including "Wahabis", "Salafis", "Infidels" or "Kaafir" .etc) objectively under the light of pertinent sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines


 * The information you added under "Religious beliefs", it is already there substantiated with academic sources.


 * The current version of Al-Ahbash page does not state "that AICP is mainly in USA" instead it states "It also promotes its beliefs internationally through a major internet presence and regional offices, notably in the United States."[11] And if you notice under the "External Links", there is a direct link to the AICP web-site where the readers can get further information from about its presence and other regional offices.


 * Regarding your comment "it's not appropriate to talk about "takfir" without citing article", here is the article which has been cited http://www.academia.edu/352111/_al-A_bash_Ahbash_ and there are plenty more out there.


 * As per the Welcome Note which I left on your Talk Page, "Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes; this will automatically insert your username and the date."


 * Thank you. McKhan (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pashtun tribes, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Alizai, Sagi and Shinwari (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) 11:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

AN
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)