User talk:MezzoMezzo/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Agathoclea 18:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thank you very much for the links! I'm brand new to this site and want to help make information more widely available to people on the web. I will definately make sure to read those links tonight so I can get better at editing and maybe throw in some HTML formatting too. MezzoMezzo 20:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

African Muslim Agency
Hi there,

First off, Welcome to Wikipedia. I disagree with your edit to the African Muslim Agency article. Cited criticism is valid for most articles (nearly every well-written article on a controversial group/person has it). As for the reference needed, you should read Mammeur Ameur where it spells out the case. I will be adding the source to it now anyway. Thanks and look forward to working with you more on this article in the future.--Thomas.macmillan 15:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] allegations The allegations Ameur faced during his Tribunal were:
 * Just went into the article and found the exact quote below.

a. Association "The detainee was captured in a suspect al Qaida safehouse. The detainee worked for the African Muslim Agency. The African Muslim Agency is linked to Al-Ittihad al Islami (AIAI). Al-Ittihad al Islami (AIAI) is listed as a terrorist organization on the President's Executive Order 13224. The detainee's computer contained a file from an Islamic website concerning biological weapons in the United States. The detainee was a member of an armed Algerian resistance group. The detainee lived in a guesthouse that sent fighters to Afghanistan. The detainee is associated with an organizer of Islamic fighters." from Mammar Ameur and his procedure at Guantanamo Bay.--Thomas.macmillan 15:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Done and done. See the article now and tell me what you think if you would--Thomas.macmillan 15:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Salams, see discussion of Mawlid
On another note you may want to help in the article Islam and Slavery. Jazak Allahu Khayr Aaliyah Stevens 22:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments let on my talk page
Barak Allaahu feekum for the comments left on my talkpage. I think the best way for you to contact me is my sneding me an email through wikipedia and I can respond to that. I don't want to put too much personal information on Wikipedia. ZaydHammoudeh 19:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Islam in Morocco
Hi there, I took a look at the page and corrected a few things. I moved Islam in morocco (notice the capitalization) to Islam in Morocco, which had formerly been a redirect to the Demographics article as you know. If you want to create a page on a redirect, you should go to the top of the page and find the blue link underneath the name and click on it. Remember to be bold and don't worry if you mess up because there are a lot of people eager to help and nothing you do can not be undone if it is incorrect. It is all about trial and error. If you want to look at a good Islam in X country, I like the article Islam in Mozambique, which I also started. I like it because it is concise. A country like Morocco deserves a long article on Islam in, so I suggest looking at Islam in Egypt. It is also quite good but I have not edited it yet. The CIA and other US government publications can be good (even if biased). I usually include how Islam came to the region, what type of Islam it is (Sunni or Shi'ite, which school they generally follow if you can find it, if there are Muslim political movements, how the government does or does not work with them etc. If you have anymore questions, feel free to let me know, I am happy to be of service. Good luck!--Thomas.macmillan 00:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe you responded to some vandalism regarding Hamza Yusuf
In talk you responded to an edit dated April 9 from 213.42.2.24. I have just updated the user page associated with this IP address to warn editors that this IP address is strongly associated with an ongoing pattern of serious vandalism. I'm leaving the article talk for Hamza Yusuf unchanged, so perhaps you could fix it. No reply necessary and with all respect: Chrisbak 21:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 16:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Salams brother your help!
RE: Scholar Tim Winter's very fair & accurate article

http://masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/plovdiv.htm

there is a Muslim Xenephobe user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TodorBozhinov

& perhaps others

who is continually removing it's inclusion on the page on Plovdiv

I don't quite understand what to do about it but I've relinked it several times & in fact considering a major heading title which it really deserves

User:Faith&reason & others have also tried against this/these people

can you join in struggle against these censors?

fi hifz Allah!

Salams

Mahdi Bin Daoud (Matthew Thistle)

User:Enthogenesis

Tim Winter article link on Plovdiv
Salams brother!

jazzaka Allah khair for your message RE your two points..

>I noticed that some other users have also added the same article, so I suppose that it is well known and that other people would like to see it included. Have you messaged any >of these brothers or sisters?

not yet, I just noticed your patrolling of Sh Tim & Sh Hamza pages & removing vandalism, Alhamdullilah so you seemed to have more knowledge about 'wikiing' than anyone else in the time the I devoted hence my message to you

>There appears to be several editors that have removed the link from the article and have expressed opposition to it on Plovdiv's talk page. Have you considered discussing it >with them there?

No I hadn't although since hearing from you I've learnt that's it's standard wiki protocol which unfortunately I am laregly ignorant of, it's just a few minutes I get distracted here & there to deal with this stuff!

I guess I would like to make a level 2 headline & really address the knowledge conveyed by Sh Tim but I'd expect violent reaction from the Plovdiv anti-Muslim wiki league hence my trepidation until I get more knowledge to defend from that kind of response.. what do you think?

I mean who has the final say if all other avenues have been pursued with a certain user? So easy to get drawn into useless argueing which really nobody needs

Salams brother & taufiq in all your projects, inshallah wa'tala

Wa alaykum as salaam
(re edits to the topic Salafism)

SubhaanAllah, may Allah have mercy on us.. jazakallahu khayr for asking me before making the edits i really appreciate it. I looked at it afterwards with fresh eyes and realized it really may be too long.. you may certainly trim it down as you wish. Feel free to take off our local forum (trinimuslims.com) also if it isn't applicable. I got the structure from www.salaf.com. In any case, i posted the list here also: http://aa.trinimuslims.com/viewtopic.php?t=3222. May we meet some time inshaAllah ta'ala. - `Abdullah (servant@trinimuslims.com). Servant114 21:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As Salaamu alaykum ya akhiy. I signed up for facebook, but i dont actively use it. But i do have a hi5 account at http://trinigeeks.hi5.com/. I also use MSN messenger with the username abdullah_mohammed@msn.com. Was Salaamu alayk.

Belated thank you...
Thanks for your message about the getting Indonesia promoted to FAC. Nice to know that people are taking an interest. Sorry to ask this, but have we come across each other on other articles? Anyway, see you 'round, drop me a message anytime. Merbabu 16:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

proposed deletions of Sufi-related articles
Salaam Aleikum Mezzo!

I undid some of your deletion recommendations, I think most of those are very valid articles of interest to a lot of people. The ones where you suggested that the topic was already covered in Lataif-e Sitta should actually just only be (and are) briefly described there, and then expanded further in their own articles. While the articles are nowhere near fully hashed out, there's definitely lot's of room to expand them, which hopefully someone will do in the future. Thank you! – cacahuate   talk 06:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, and regarding Yaqeen... one of your reasons for wanting to delete were because the only link provided as a resource doesn't mention this concept at all ... when in fact it mentions it a few times throughout. Did you even read it? Please be more careful, these articles are of interest to some people. Thanks! – cacahuate   talk 06:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Walaikum salam sir, and thanks for your interest in the mentioned articles. While there is no denial that they may be of interest to people - someone spent the time to write them, after all - my issue with many of them wasn't just notability but also that some of them were definitions and as I mentioned, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Would you mind mentioning which nominations for deletion you took issue with? As for the link to the article based on ibn Arabi's work, yes, I did read it, and found that much of the material was copied and pasted directly onto some of the articles I was checking. I did not, however, find "yaqeen" in there. Perhaps you could show me where I missed it. I will check out the articles you take issue with being deleted shortly. MezzoMezzo 14:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently the ibn Arabi article does mention yaqin, seven times I believe. That's incredible that I completely missed that. MezzoMezzo 14:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I figured I should just tak a look at the articles to save us all some time. Here are my issues: Those are the primary issues, I may come with more soon. At the root of it it's just a lack of proof of notability for a lot of these terms - all of the articles are short, written primarily by one or two users, and have little to no discussion which my initial impression was that that is due to a general lack of interest. You figure if these were more well know and notable concepts there would be more people discussing and editing (and probably even arguing). MezzoMezzo 14:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Murid - it isn't one of the 99 names of Allah as far as I know. The article says that it is but I have never heard that before, unless it's a mispronunciation of another word which is possible.
 * Sulook - you removed the tag and said that you feel the article is totally valid, but didn't explain why. As I explained when I nominated, it seems to just be a definition and a stub at most with none of the cited links explaining specifically why that term is notable enough to warrant an article.
 * As for Ruh, Qalb, and Nafs, why must they be expanded? You say that they are but don't explain why.  If one of them already has more information than Lataif-e-Sitta, then why not just merge them?  Again, same issue - I don't see a reason why these concepts are notable enough to warrant space for their own articles.  One random article from a site commenting on ibn Arabi's work doesn't exactly constitute strong interest in readers.


 * You're right about Murid, not one of the 99 names, I removed that line from the article... however it's a very common name for a student of Sufism, there are millions of them in the world, and while the article is a small stub at the moment, I still think it has potential. We've got articles for disciples, sadhus and yogis, so I think this one could be expanded into a decent article as well.


 * For Sulook, I don't know much about it, but a google search turns up several websites that refer to it. I don't feel that strongly about this one, but personally I'd rather see information expanded than just deleted... we aren't really that short on space that we need to start deleting all of the stub articles are we?


 * As for Ruh, Qalb and Nafs, they are a central and incredibly important concept in most Sufi orders. I wouldn't necessarily be against merging them into the Lataif-e-Sitta article for now until it gets unruly, but the tag that was put on the articles made it sound like the articles would be deleted if the pages weren't updated or merged within 5 days, and that's what initially prompted me into action, as I think that's a bit hasty. I think there are lot of people that would be interested in deeper articles about these subjects, including myself... and while I think they're very notable, as with the higher concepts of any religion, there aren't a ton of people out there with intimate first-hand knowledge of the subject who can write about it in depth, so I would expect that they would develop slowly. Again, I have no problem with them all being merged into Lataif-e-Sitta, but I don't want the info that's there to be lost in a hasty delete. I'll add a merge tag to the top of them so we can suggest that it be done. Does that all sound okay? p.s., I copied all of this discussion here since it's easier to read in one place... I watchlisted your talk page so I'll see your response. Thanks! – cacahuate   talk 04:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right, it's not as though Wikipedia is dying for bandwidth. But if there doesn't seem to be much traffic on a page, or much interest in it, I don't see much point in keeping it. Granted, you've stated that you do find Sulook to be relevant so I think it may be good to just add more on to it soon.

As for the other concepts, I think a merge would be best. Like I mentioned before, or maybe I didn't and just meant to and forgot, Ruh, Qalb, and Nafs aren't just Sufi concepts but are also concepts in mainstream Islam as well. "Ruh" is just an Arabic word for soul and "nafs" is similar to desires, when I talk about resisting my nafs i'm talking about not doing something I shouldn't do (hopefully you're already familiar with that stuff). I would either expand each article explaining the general Islamic concept and include a section or sub-section on the specific Sufi view, or just merge with Lataif-e-Sitta (at least for the time being) which would be much easier. Also, I would propose we change "lataif-e-sitta" to "lataif as-sitta". Let me know what you think. Also, what happened to your user and talk pages? MezzoMezzo 05:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, familiar, I have no problem with that. As for the name, I'm not the right person to ask, maybe propose that on the article's talk page? Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Just updated my preferences, talk link should be working now ;) –  cacahuate   talk 03:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for putting my nose in this discussion, but i just edited a part of the article Nafs & found that the article is intended to be merged. I have to express my disagreement with this intended merger as the topic has important information related to concepts Sufism & merging it will make the concept really confusing with loss of clarity. Hence i request your support in maintaining & expanding the article. --Doc sameer 00:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement. My main interest in the article was in the context of Sufism, I am afraid i wont be of much help about its importance towards other Islamic Movements.

Also, I would also like your support in the request for a Tak force on Quran related articles as part of Wikiproject_Islam. Please let me know about what you think of it. --  Đõc §aмέέЯ   04:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for the "tacit" support, although i have to admit that i am slightly disappointed. Still, i understand the reason behind it & appreciate the standards which you have set for yourself. I hope its not unfair to you if i keep hoping for a more verbal support & maybe contributions as well in the future.

One more favour that i wanted to request you is to check this discussion:Talk:Divisions_of_Islam Although i dont agree with Sufism being classified as a "Branch" or "Sect" of Islam, i dont want to engage in an edit war over the issue. If possible, please check it. --  Đõc §aмέέЯ   05:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

wikistalking
و عليكم السلام ... it's funny to be wikistalked :-) thanks for your other comments.  ITAQALLAH   00:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

List of notable converts to Islam
Please dont take out important details as you did here. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Its not an allegation, its a fact. He was accused of it. BlessSins as usual is also taking out information from the article again, which will be restored. Regarding your comment to Arrow740 here on the same issue, if I'm charged with being a serial killer, this is notable information, whether or not it is disputed. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to improve that article, improve the refs so they're not just numbers but real URL's with titles. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The claims you removed are not "unsubstantiated" as you said here. How is this statement "unsubstantiated"? Accused of preaching messages of hate towards non-Muslims and has links to a suspected Al Qaeda operative [[Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri - Did you see the news source? This is exactly what it says. See his main page as well. Thats what this guy is all about. He's famous for preaching hate. Search his name in [Accused of preaching messages of hate towards non-Muslims and has links to a suspected Al Qaeda operative [[Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri Google]. If something makes big headlines like:
 * American Imam Spews Hate In U.K.
 * BRITAIN'S NEW PREACHERS OF HATE
 * Radical cleric praises bin Laden
 * Then that is notable and must be mentioned. Is there anything else notable about this imam? Notable means, something for which he is famously known for, or something that made big headlines everywhere. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

List of notable converts to Islam
You and Matt57 have been edit warring here lately (recent reverts:   ). Please see WP:EW and try dispute resolution to discuss the conflict instead of constantly reverting edits you disagree with. You might want to try WP:RFM if the discussion isn't working. Cheers. Dmcdevit·t 04:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work
Salam alaikum brother, good work on the articles for the Green Lane Masjid and Undercover Mosque. Looks very nice, just thought i'd say keep up the good work. MezzoMezzo 16:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wa'alaikumsalam warahmatulah - thank you, I did nothing really though. I'll fix it better later on though inshallah ... PS>sorry for the late reply, had exams so haven't been checking my page lately. Wikipidian 23:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Yusuf Estes
Bismillah aRahman aRaheem

Brother Salaam walykum a rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,

In the name of truth, I am genuinely confused about your removal of a cited reference to Yusuf Estes emails concerning Sh Hamza Yusuf on AllahuAkbar.net

This publicly available reference is, as far as I understand, what the page was asking for...! Please enlighten me brother.

Perceptions are a funny thing & it seems what this is about.

Shouldn't people know? & Why did you accuse me of vandalism? I was providing a verifiable reference according to Wiki guidelines!

Why is it that you're removing of it, is not considered vandalism in turn?

& Who is the final arbiter?

RE: AllahuAkbar.net

Have you read the material from that website? & have you seen where it's coming from? Have you lived in Saudi Arabia?

I have my brother for almost 3 years, in the provinces. I have never seen such lack of khusho'ur & inward concentration & understanding of this deen with exceptions & there are many good & righteous people there.

Actually I'm not surprised the site is based in India & not in the KSA they'd be banned as extremists, from what I saw living there.

It's called, in the set of definitions as I understand them, 'literalism', some say salafism others say wahhibism: it needs to be defined & discussed in the light of the majority of scholar's opinions.

As you know balanced ikhtilaf is welcome. But it too is considered a sect & in fact an aspect of human psychology that you can observe anywhere in the world in any religion.

The point is:

Why did you remove it (ie the writings of Yusuf Estes himself) from Yusuf Estes page but include it on Sh Hamza's? Can you not see that?

That's a clear imbalanced & prejudiced decision, that according to the terms you accused me of vandalism you just committed yourself!

I haven't gone & reported you in turn, but I'm writing to you instead.

Brother, are you unable to perceive the hateful, xenophobic, imbalanced accusative nature of the material? It lacks credibility & is clearly defined.

OK Put it up & let people decide themselves & but don't remove it from the very links from the author's page it self! ( ie Yusuf Estes)

Go & take it to well-respected scholar with recognizable education from a traditional, acceptable, well known institution & get a fatwa if you're uncertain.

But how much have you studied the works of Sh Hamza in comparison? How many scholars of the inward sciences, not just the outward have you met & studied with?

The majority opinion is the balanced & middle view, hence why all the 4 imams (of the madhahib) studied Tassawuf, (as originally referred to, is an inward 'science' of Islam) & in absence of the Prophet ( salalahu 'alyhi wa salam) the sahaba & taba'in (RA) &  understood deeply it's purpose & recommended it to develop ihsan.

Remember we are brothers in this deen, I respect your opinion! & welcome it with respect, but brother don't commit the very thing you accuse others with! It but reveals your own un-objectiveness.

As such I don't understand your actions & the nebulous interpretation of terms used to define it, as I see it it equally applies to your own decisions to defend hateful slander in turn as represented on that divisive site. I understand you're a student, perhaps that explains it.

I welcome your comments.

fi hifz Allah! Wa salams

Enthogenesis 17:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

comment
Here you said that "the work for this user is done by two and sometimes three people". I just want to clarify that there's actually one person doing the editing for this account, because if multiple people are doing the editing then it becomes a role account, which isn't allowed in Wikipedia. If you have other people available to help with research tasks like translation, then that's fine, as long as only one person actually uses the account. I have no problem with your editing myself, the reason I'm posting is to give you a heads-up in case an admin sees your post and decides to block first and ask questions later. - Merzbow 02:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Islam
Not the right change in family section. You have not added deleted paragraph. --- A. L. M. 16:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Opps. It is correct. Sorry. --- A. L. M. 16:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments
salamun 'alaykum warahmatuLlah || 23:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, let's acknowledge we have a conflict of interpretations, and that expressing our views is going to lead to problems. Now back to reality, I am person who did the "trashing" of al-Albanee. I stand by what I wrote.

My points in summary are: (...) I am the translator of ‘Umdat al-salik [Reliance of the traveller] in Shafi‘i fiqh, that we have known each other for some time, and he approves of my way. The scholarly value of such ijazas is merely to establish that we have met. (...)"
 * Sufis are not the only people who "have a negative view of his contributions" -- though if necessary let me be the first to stand by this concept... (that not all contributions are expressly positive.)
 * There are non-sufi groups who share the above view. Yet as stated above, I'll take all the blame, (if I could).
 * It is a fact, that's undeniable, al-Albanee did spend a lot of time in the Dhahiriyya Library.
 * A hadith scholar from Aleppo, Sheikh Raghib al-Tabbakh, visited the Dhahiriyya Library in Damascus, and authorized him "in all the chains of transmission that I have been authorized to relate."
 * They did meet and speak, and the sheikh authorized him with a general ijaza.
 * THUS, the sufis do not deny this ijaza, (that of tabarruk) (d)(e).
 * These, (and the above,) points are referenced to :
 * As for the other considerations related to the ijazas, of al-Albanee, (I quote the same source as before,): (...) it could only be (according to Sheikh Shu‘ayb) from someone with far less knowledge than himself. (...)"

As for the final points provided about him not writing properly, or other things, I do not comment...

He has also been criticized for the influence he had by articles in 'al-Manaar' magazine, which was edited by Muhammad Rashid Ridah (d.1935 CE).

In addition, the first Volume of the original contains 250 ahadith, in which al-Albani had said 'Sahih' (an authentic Hadith) in one of his books and then contradicted himself by saying 'Daeef' (a weak Hadith) in another of his books.


 * I generally don't respond to comments from anonymous users. You're just an IP address and I can't verify your identity.  Someone else could come in and claim to be you, or some other issue like that.  It's nothing personal against you, but understand that it's an identity issue that prevents any serious discussion.


 * As for the article, Nuh Keller is a very knowledgeable man when it comes to modern day Sufism and his tariqa. Regardless, he is also extremely biased and is known to promote historical inaccuracies in some of his work.  He writes from the pulpit and not as a historian, and thus his criticism of someone he was ideologically opposed into is neither objective nor reliable.  As an external link it is fine, because it is a valid opposing viewpoint.  But as a reference for the article, it doesn't cut it as it's just opinion (and a historically disputed one at that).


 * As for the method in which you basically trashed the article, it wasn't because of the opinions you have. It's because you're an anonymous user whose identity can't be verified and you completely rewrote part of an article on a controversial person.  That's not cool.  This matter is closed for the time being. MezzoMezzo 02:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

WRT Maqaam
enerally when a page or parts of a page are "lifted directl from a source", it's best to hit it with copyvio and/or db-copyvio. The exceptions are ederal publications and really old stuff which are KNOWN to be PD, but even then there're reasons to not do that... 68.39.174.238 11:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, thanks for the info on that. MezzoMezzo 14:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ali
Should a Salafi Nasibi be allowed to edit an article about Ali? Maybe You should back off and refrain from vandalizing the article and edit Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Wahhab articles instead. Take that as a vandalism warning not as a request. KlakSonnTalk 22:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wahhabi
I've replied on my talk page. -- R OGER  TALK 11:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ali
Refrain from reverting every edit that goes against Salafi teachings. This monopoly on the article is getting very upsetting. KlakSonnTalk 21:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think both of us know you are monopolizing the article and acting like an innocent boy scout doesn't convince anyone that your edits are anything close to good faith. KlakSonnTalk 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

re:
و عليكم السلام, sure... i'll take a look.  ITAQALLAH  02:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Chubeat8
I'll try and watch for our Canadiene friend in the limited time available. --Leroy65X 15:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * MezzoMezzo, i am quite certain that Chubeat8 has been using multiple accounts on the article/talk pages of Bin Baaz, that includes User:Swapant and that IP; all have exceedingly similar writing styles.  ITAQALLAH   01:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * if the disruption is extensive (such as using the accounts to bypass 3RR vios) it may warrant a checkuser. however, as the link is quite obvious it may be easier to just request admin intervention on WP:AN/I (another alternative would be to make the case for sockpuppetry on WP:SSP). i'd opt to wait and see how things pan out i.e. if we get any more simultaneous contributions from Chubeat8 and his sock puppets.  ITAQALLAH   03:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * glad to help ^_^  ITAQALLAH   15:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reported Chubeat8/anon.Proabivouac 05:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Fatimah
Please see Talk:Fatimah. You mentioned you had some good sources for this article. Could you add them to the references section here and we'll take it from there. Thanks. → AA (talk) — 10:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, The updated article is ready for review in the sandbox. Please leave comments at Talk:Fatimah. Thanks. → AA (talk) — 15:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Also, be sure to add your opinion on the main talk page about the move to mainspace. → AA (talk) — 14:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Succession of Ali
There are some facts on this page which are not accurate and they need to be corrected and you cannot keep undoing them. The successor of Ali was his son Hassan from whom Mauwiyah took the caliphat through a treaty. There are many other missing or incorrect facts and I would appreciate if you stop undoing the corrections. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saazoawaz (talk • contribs).


 * Hi Saazoawaz, The successor to Ali was Muawiyah I (please read this article). The details of how Muawiyah became the caliph can be discussed in the articles but the entry for the infobox should be Muawiyah I. → AA (talk) — 20:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

vandal
i know i have prior vandal but i say sorry i am trying to be good user okay. please dont be mean. i just try to be good. i sory if made bad edit but i am in suficloob. i am sufi as well. i reform vandal and i am talking with adminstartors to find out rules of wikpedia. 69.115.13.5 00:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletionof Salat o salam Page
You deleted that without giving me a Chance to Defend. Is this WIKI Policy? or You are vandalizing Pages which doesnot Suits to you? Msoamu 17:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

as salamaulaykum
As salamualaykum brother, the Barbahaaree page was important to develop as it still needs work. There is another page, Debbie Almontaser, the needs attention since it has been flagged for deletion. How do you feel about it? If you can, go and visit the article to vote on whether to keep or remove it. Thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Debbie_Almontaser

Scythian1 13:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

re:
wa iyakum. it's always important to remember WP:NEWBIES and not be too hard on newcomers, especially if they don't fully understand the process or why their edits have been challenged.  ITAQALLAH  20:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * it's also important to use template messages which start from level 1 (if there have been no recent previous warnings) as these are the most polite/introductory. also make sure any template messages are signed, so they can contact you about it if need be.  ITAQALLAH   20:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As salamualaykum
As salamualaykum akhee,

I'll try to give it my best effort, although I have been heavily time-constrained of late.Scythian1 16:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Tahir ul-Qadri
Assalamu Alaikum (May Gods Peace and Blessings be upon you)

What is wrong with you and what is your problem. You and Itaqallah edit every page linked with Tahir ul-Qadri's or his books and works and you change or say it is not notable or say that it is not genuine or it is biased no matter how many references I provide.

Do you not know that he is one of the greatest scholars of this time and you can even phone up the head of al-Azhar and ask him. Even one of the famous Deobandi Ulema (I have forgotten his name) respects him.

I will not let you edit these pages in a negative manner just because he and his efforts challenges your point of view or school of thought about Islam.

You need to be more open-minded when editing here. Hasseniqbal192 17:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, Nice to hear that you do not intend to defame him on Wikipedia.
 * When you say that he has not received as much coverage and other scholars are more popular than him then you should know that he is ::the most popular scholar in Pakistan, He was elected as an MP/MNA there.
 * He also appeared on Pakistani TV everyday on the official Pakistani channel (Ptv).
 * Even now his lectures appear everyday on QTV for 2 hours everyday and his lectures also appear on Islam Channel every Monday and ::Tuesday. He has appeared on the Pakistani news many times and even the Australian news when he visited there. Benazir Bhutto also ::worked beneath him in the Pakistani Awami Ittehad alliance at one point. I have never seen a scholar who has received more ::international coverage as him. However, you do not research about the coverage he gets.
 * Ma'Sallaama Hasseniqbal192 16:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

by the way it wasn't me who made the article on him and before it was quite biased and made him look like the greatest scholar and a "thunder among the forces of evil" and it was me who made it much more neutral.... Hasseniqbal192 20:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

hadith
I recognize the problems in the lengthy duplicative articles on the hadith concerning the origin of the conflict between the Sunni and the Shi'a, and the ones on the doctrine of "temporary marriage." I personally think it would be quite possible to have an article on each individual hadith, since they all have a substantial later literature--but they should obviously be written not as a long quotation, but as an encyclopedic discussion giving various views--there is surely enough later secondary literature to discuss in the thirteen centuries of Islamic scholarship. But it might be practical to combine them by topic, and this should be decided in the appropriate workgroup, or if necessary through dispute resolution.

Prod in any case is for uncontroversial deletions, and it is clear that these will not be ones. You are of course welcome to pursue these deletions though AfD, but I strongly urge all those involved to find a better way of dealing with them, one which will improve the encyclopedia by providing an informative set of articles. DGG (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC) further discussion on my talk page.DGG (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Deobandi
I've watched you revert about five attempts by anon editors to provide links to last Friday's Times Online articles on the Deobandi in Britain. I honestly think you should give it a rest. The articles created quite a stir, and I think a lot of folks would like to introduce the links--this is not a sockpuppet case, but a case of general public interest (which will probably fade very soon). --Anthon.Eff 01:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for setting me straight. The Salafism article is quite good. It does mention that some consider Deobandi as Salafists, so this is all above my head. Also in the Deobandi article it says: "Deobandis claim these practices were never practised by the Sahaba and are considered to be bid'ah." which sounds very Salafist to me (the emphasis on the first generation and purging of innovation). In addition, the Sufism article fails to mention the Deobandi, but then again it makes a big point that Sufism is a purely Sunni movement, and my first thought when I think of the Sufi is of the Bektashi, which are really very much like the Alevi. Very confusing! Maybe you could tell me more. Sounds like you have some clear ideas on this. Ramazan Mubarak.--Anthon.Eff 16:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You can contact me via email by clicking on one of the userboxes on my userpage. --Anthon.Eff 18:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your request at my talk page
Dear Mezzo, first of all, allow me to put your mind at rest regarding your "rambling" and any possible chance of you "boring me to death" - being Miss Verbosity myself, in fact maybe you should be careful that you don't end up falling asleep amidst reading my messages! :) So now that we've satisfactorily cleared that up, let's get serious and discuss about your concerns. As you accurately point out, this issue is complex, and not one I can easily reach a conclusion without proper investigation and delving deeper into its long history. I can readily observe it's indeed unpleasant, and much bitterness has been spilled here; so at any rate, I promise you a quick reply. Just give me a few hours, until tomorrow, and I'll share my preliminary conclusions with you and let you know about the proper actions that should be taken. Meanwhile, please try and relax, and take a distance; more often than not, a short break from the heat of the problem can do wonders. Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 18:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

About Times online News
As it is wriiten just a Paragraph above in this page You didnot want times link there but Why? It is not ur Property. if there is some thing in Barelwi /Deobandi Page it must be with references, i always added them. You may have Problems with Truth but it will PrevailiNshaAllah. If Deobandis are Hardliners and barelwis are moderatethen it Must be on their respective Pages. it is not ur Blog Don't teach me WIKI policy u need to apply them on urself.Msoamu 17:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Thanks for the compliment. Turn on your email and we can write back and forth. If you need anything from the NY Times, let me know I have a subscription. I also have a subscription to ancestry.com for census data, and finding missing birth and death dates, and sometimes a missing middle name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

ANI case
I'm giving User:Uss-cool a warning. Tough case, but try to ignore him. He'll in all likelihood shoot himself in the foot. Add what you can to the arb case you filed.Rlevse 19:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hassen
Thanks for your addition on the comments page and Insh'allah we will try to work together. I am sorry if I have been rude with you so please forgive me.

There are quite a few seconday sources regarding Tahir ul-Qadri and where do you want me to add them....

Assalamu Alaikum,

Good work with the Muslim Scholars template! when do you think we should start using it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasseniqbal192 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Your request on my discussion page
hey, the comment is on talk now. thank you--Uss-cool 18:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes
I saw the incident report, which is why I reverted. I do hope the sockpuppetry thing turns up something helpful. Hornplease 20:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

on Ibn Baz
Hi MezzoMezzo, I removed the tags from Ibn Baz article and hope we join hands to help each other developing a better wikipedia. Please be assured of the good faith in my last edit. --Chubeat8 22:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sheikh Hamza is Not a Sufi
Asalamualaikum MezzoMezzo, Sheikh Hamza has many times stated that he isn't a Sufi. If I can find a statement by him on this, will you please remove the "Sufi" link from his Wiki Entry? -Munawar (Munawarali 17:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC))

Al Azhar
Appreciate your support. Thanks. JollyRogerz 08:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ali the Warrior
Salam Alaikum. Let we discuss in the talk page of that article.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 23:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Review
Thanks for your review - much appreciated. → AA (talk) — 15:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Arawiki
Your nemisis is apparently

212.12.160.47 Email link to resultsGenerated by www.DNSstuff.com

Location: Saudi Arabia [City: ]" May be one of the many unemployed Islamic Studies majors with too much time on their hands! :-)

P.S. I think we should leave the Roy quote in the Qutbism article. --Leroy65X 20:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

google salaman news ....
first google salman news what i do is Blatant POV nd u o is all correct and either remove abdul mannan's news or other wise don't delete  times online news about moderate majority

Shabiha 22:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sunni Islam
The problem with short and concise is you really don't get the feeling going home after reading it what makes it special from Shiasm or what exactly is unique about it. It needs alot of changes.

I work alot on the Shi'ah articles, and let me show you the two templates I've made. Check Alevism and Ismailism, and you'll notice those templates right away. Look at how specific they are. No, not perfect, but right off the bat you can see what makes these groups unique and special. --Enzuru 23:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words, I would love to work on the Sunni template. (I forgot to mention... I made the Sunni template too, with its ugly picture, I'm addicted to templates bro), but here's the problem. How can we specifically include Sunni beliefs enough to contrast them with the smaller branch, Shi'ah, while still mantaining that we're just talking facts, not trying to compare? Let me show you an old version I did that was changed (and rightfully so): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Sunni_Islam&diff=135335163&oldid=135335015 Look at the beliefs, they were taken out for being too Shi'ah vs Sunni oriented. How can we write about Sunnism without this comparing and contrasting? Let's figure this out. I'm taking this to the talk page. --Enzuru 05:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ali
Salam Alaykum, Don't bother yourself. Imam Reza gave me a prize(صلة).-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Sa.vakilian
I saw your comment. You don't need any skills at all, just check out Barnstars. It's all done with templates. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fatima
Salam Alaykum. AA had nominated this article as a good one. I review it and found several problems. Therefor I put on hold tag on it and added my viewpoints in the talk page. Please help us with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sa.vakilian (talk • contribs) 09:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sunnism Sandbox
I did some organizing. Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islam/Sandbox --Enzuru 02:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated personal note, I do kickboxing and submission wrestling. I'll take you on, bud. :P -- Enzuru 20:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We're martial arts based, however extremely untraditional (UFC fans and aspirers). It's a place in California. Right now because of commitments of college and work, I haven't been able to train much. -- Enzuru 05:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Ibn Warraq
This man receives death threats often. Wikilinking in edit summaries does not provide justification for publicizing his image. Please respond to my post on the talk page. Arrow740 05:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Tahzeerunas by Nanotwi
Nanotwi’s book Tahzeerunas is a reliable source for Nanotwi’s beliefs. He has very clearly mentioned his beliefs re: Khatam a Nabuwat. Don't waste precious time trying to change reality.

Eid Mubarak
Your friendly neighborhood Muslim.

If you object to the above message, please remove it, accept my apologies and notify me on my talk page.

How about using the Mediation Cabal?
... To sort out your disagreements with Arawiki? I don't know much about it but it could be worth a try. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEDCAB --Leroy65X 15:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Qutbism"

Mawlid
I hope you don't mind me assisting on this article. I have started a discussion and hope everyone will contribute and hold off from edit warring. One thing I'd like to point out is that references are acceptable in non-English languages if they are relevant, although English is preferred. → AA (talk) — 09:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Can I request a 0RR approach on this article please. It helps if we veterans can lead by example a bit. If you disagree with something, please take it to the talk page first and give Shabiha a chance to respond. I will ask her to do likewise. TIA. → AA (talk) — 15:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Tim Winter Article
I noticed that you deleted quite a bit of the article on Tim Winter. The article may not have been well-referenced, but I do not think that justifies the deletion of entire sections. No one disputed the accuracy of the page.

Neither is the fact that the article talks more about his work than his personal life an excuse to delete most of it. His writings are among the more interesting things about him; they should receive extensive coverage.

I request that most of your changes to the article be undone.

--Rsidique 22:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As suggested, I added this topic to the article's talk page. Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks, --Rsidique 06:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

CopyNight Orlando
Hi ! I see you're from Florida. If you're in the Orlando area, please check out this brief survey. I'm looking to start a meet-up of CopyNight, a monthly social discussion of copyright and related issues (like Wikipedia, Creative Commons, and open source). If that sounds neat, please answer this short survey to help with scheduling the event. Thanks! --Gavin Baker 05:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)--Gavin Baker 10:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Barelwi
It seems that today You will broke all ur past record of pasting ur Own Views of NON NEUTRAL and Biasedness in nature.then let it be .I think You need some Psychologist to assist ur Biased Mind because You can't Change the Truth so ur Playing with WIKI articles. which don't Suits to Your Fasicist Ideology Borrowed and taken from  Saudi Kings  Petro Dollars to Spread Extremism and terrorism all Over the World. As Your Pupils, Tablighis and Deo-bandis taken forcibly some Mosques from More Moderate Majority Sufi group Barelwi in U.K and Times online wrote about it in its Survey then You Could not Digest it .You dont want to  see that Report on wikipedia Article so You have Vandalized and disrupted this Article by Your Useless Editing.I will see it Very soon .Shabiha (t • c) 20:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have warned Shabiha and would like to remind you also to be mindful of WP:3RR on Barelwi. → AA (talk) — 21:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder, i'll watch my reverts more closely. MezzoMezzo 00:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
MezzoMezzo, as posted on Arawiki's talk page, i have proposed to act as an informal mediator between you two so that we can take constructive steps towards resolving the ongoing disputes spanning multiple articles. i'm sure you would like to concentrate your wiki-time more towards more productive editing as opposed to continued reverts. of course, your acceptance of my role as mediator is essential for any such mediation to proceed.  ITAQALLAH  20:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * the mediation page may be viewed here. there is also an oppurtunity for you to give an overview of the dispute from your perspective.  ITAQALLAH   13:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Banu Khalid
Dear MezzoMezzo, please don't reinsert the "Shi'ite" description in the article until we can settle this on the talk page. Remember, it wasn't there before you inserted it, and it's still not sourced (don't bother looking for a reliable source that will confirm that they're Shi'ites because there aren't any :) ). Thanks. -- Slacker (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk:Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab. Regards. -- Slacker (talk) 07:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Baz
Since this is not directly related to the Wahhabi article, I'm asking you here. I would like more info on the Bin Baz book. Do you happen to know if it' still in print, for example? Are the words re:Bani Khalid attributed to Ibn Baz himself or are they the words of an editor? Thank you very much. -- Slacker (talk) 07:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the original Arabic text from Ibn Baz's official website :

"وبلغ أمير الأحساء وتوابعها من بني خالد سليمان ابن عريعر الخالدي أمر الشيخ، وأنه يدعو إلى الله، وأنه يهدم القباب، وأنه يقيم الحدود، فعظم على هذا البدوي أمر الشيخ، لأن من عادة البادية -إلا من هدى الله- الإقدام على الظلم، وسفك الدماء، ونهب الأموال، وانتهاك الحرمات، فخاف أن هذا الشيخ يعظم أمره، ويزيل سلطان الأمير البدوي، فكتب إلى عثمان يتوعده، ويأمره أن يقتل هذا المطوع الذي عنده في العيينة، وقال: إن المطوع الذي عندكم بلغنا عنه كذا، وكذا!! فإما أن تقتله، وإما أن نقطع عنك خراجك الذي عندنا.!! وكان عنده للأمير عثمان خراج من الذهب، فعظم على عثمان أمر هذا الأمير، وخاف إن عصاه أن يقطع عنه خراجه أو يحاربه"

And this is how it translates (punch it into an automatated translator or show it to a friend if you don't believe it):

"And news of the Shaikh reached the emir of al-Ahsa and its dependencies from Bani Khalid, Sulaiman ibn 'Uray;ir al-Khaldi, and it came to his knowledge that he called to God, and that he brought down the domes, and that he instituted the hudud [punishments], and so the matter of the Shaikh disturbed this bedouin, for it is the habit of the bedouin - except those whom God has guided - to rush to commit injustice, bloodshed, expropriation, and violation of prohibitions, so he feared that the power of this Shaikh may increase and do away with the power of the bedouin prince. And so he wrote to Uthman, threatening him, and ordered him that he must kill this mutawwa that is with him at 'Uyayna, and said: 'this mutawwa that is with you, such and such has come to our knowledge about him!!  Either you kill him, or we cut off the dividend that you have with us', for the emir Uthman had [an annual] dividend of gold in the custody of [al-Khaldi]."

No comment.

Now, I haven't been able to find a trace of the English version of this book online, but I would really appreciate it if you could confirm that it actually introduces the word "Shi'ite" in there. If it does, then I would love to find out where I may find a copy, or at least what government ministry is in charge of printing it, because I would like to post the info on the Bani Khalid's official website so that they could file a complaint and have this error rectified. Regards. -- Slacker (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to bother you again, but I was able to find an electronic copy of the Al-Butami's book here (and also ).  Here's the Arabic text:


 * فاشتهر أمر الشيخ ، وذاع صيته في البلدان.

فبلغ خبره ( سليمان بن محمد بن عريعر ) حاكم الإحساء وبني خالد. فبعث هذا الجاهل الظالم إلى عثمان بن معمر كتاباً جاء فيه : إن المطوع الذي عندك ، قد فعل ما فعل ، وقال ما قال ، فإذا وصلك كتابي فاقتله ، فإن لم تقتله ، قطعنا خراجك الذي عندنا في ((الإحساء )). فعظم على عثمان الأمر ، وكبر عليه مخالفة ابن عريعر ، وغاب عن ذهنه عظمة رب العالمين. وكانت النتيجة من جراء ذلك الكتاب وضعف إيمان ابن معمر أن أمر بإخراج الشيخ من بلده


 * Translation:


 * "And so the matter of the Shaikh became famous, and his news spread across the land, and so news of him reached Sulaiman ibn Muhammad ibn 'Uray'ir [of course, because he's not a historian, he gets the name wrong, but that's another issue], the ruler of al-Ahsa and the Bani Khalid, and so this ignorant tyrant sent to Uthman ibn Mu'ammar a letter that contained the following: 'the mutawwa that is with you has done what he has done, and said what he has said, so if my letter reaches you, kill him, and if you do not kill him, we will cut off your dividend that is in our custody in al-Ahsa. And so the matter became too great for Uthman, and it was too much in his view to disobey Ibn Ura'ir, and he forgot the greatness of the Lord of the Universe, and so the result of that letter and Ibn Mu'ammar's weakness of faith was that Ibn Mu'ammar ordered the expulsion of the Shaikh from his town"

Hmmmmm ... -- Slacker (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would indeed appreciate it if you let the translator know. You could refer him to http://www.bnikhalid.com, or to the Bani Khalid page here where I put 6 references. I should have looked for those books earlier; I guess I couldn't recognize al-Butami's name until I looked at it more closely, and I also forgot that it's much easier to find Arabic and Islamic texts online. As for Gurney, there's a very simple explanation for his error: he's not a specialist in this field, and so automatically assumed that anyone who lives in the eastern province is a Shi'ite. What I can't fathom, however, is how a translator would simply add information like that to a translation! Regards. -- Slacker (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ali article
Salam Alaykum,

As I know you were active when I was working on Ali article. But know you've changed it without any attention to the references such as Madelung and without any discussion in the talk page. I reverted your editions bur I'd like to discuss with you in the talk page. Fi Aman Allah-- Seyyed(t-c) 04:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal Question, hope you dont mind.
Were you born muslim?

Zad el Ma3ad
Sure, what are you looking for? -- Slacker (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I found both references (one of them is almost three pages long). The gist of it is:

وأما نِكاحُ المُتعة، فثبت عنه أنه أحلَّها عامَ الفتح، وثبت عنه أنَّه نهى عنها عَامَ الفتح واختُلِفَ هل نهى عنها يومَ خيبر؟ على قولين، والصحيح: أن النهى إنما كان عامَ الفتح، وأن النهى يومَ خيبر إنما كان عن الحُمُرِ الأهلية

He says there are differences in opinion over when Mut'a was prohibited (was it the year of the Conquest of Mecca, the year of Khaybar, or some other date?), and outlines four different points of view with their arguments, then says "and the correct view is that the prohibition was in the year of al-Fath [conquest of Mecca]." We had a discussion over this on Talk:Hadith of Sabra reporting on the prohibition of Mut'ah, and the full text of what IAQ said is posted over there. Do you need some translation? -- Slacker (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm
Yes, I do need to get back on that. I'm going to get the Shi'ah Islam task force to coordinate a revision of both the Sunni and Shi'ah articles, so we have consistency as well. -- Enzuru 18:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with Dawoodi Bohra
Hello Mezzo, I noticed that you are an expert with Islam-related articles and was wondering if you could take a look at this edit on the Dawoodi Bohra page? The new info completely lacks citations, and while all viewpoints should be included, I don't know if there are any point of view problems with the claim that the 46th Dai ended the Dai-ul-mutlaq chain. It may be completely legitimate, but I don't feel qualified to render a judgment since there are no references. I've been one of the few editors who regularly attempts to maintain a neutral point of view on the page, so any input would help. Kindest regards, AlphaEta  06:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am anything but an expert, but i'll take a look. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the advice and insightful comments! Your suggestion regarding the citations sounds like a excellent strategy.  Kindest regards,  AlphaEta  15:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your question. I responded on my talk page.

I wish there was a clearer way to indicate those page numbers.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dawat-e-Islami
I am unclear as to why the edits Shabiha made on Dawat-e-Islami are vandalism. Can you help me understand? Thanks :) Kingturtle (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Muslim View of Jesus-Needing you opinion.
This line is in the "Jesus" article. As a Muslim, I was interested in your opinion of it.

"In Islam, Jesus (Arabic: عيسى‎, commonly transliterated as Isa) is considered one of God's most beloved and important prophets, a bringer of divine scripture, a worker of miracles, and the Messiah."

I know that Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam, but would you say that he is "one of God's most beloved and important"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor2020 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I understand that Jesus is the 'messiah' in Islam, but what does that mean. In Christianity, I would take it to mean "the Savior", i.e., the one who provides forgiveness for your sins, but that meaning is incompatible with my (limited) understanding of Islam. Am I wrong, or does "messiah" mean something else in Islam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor2020 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Shabiha's request for mediation
Shabiha has requested that I mediate between you on the Barelwi and Deobandi pages. Here is my reply to him:

I am honored that you would ask me to mediate between you and MezzoMezzo. I'll do my best, but I am still a relatively new Wikipedia user with much to learn about their policies and rules.

First I will suggest that both you and MezzoMezzo read "What Wikipedia is not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_wikipedia_is_not

and the Wikipedia Manual of Style for Islamic pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOSISLAM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor2020 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation on Deobandi and Barelwi articles
(This is a copy of the message I sent to Shabiha, but the suggestions apply to you as well.)

I have decided to accept your invitation to mediate between you and MezzoMezzo on the Deobandi and Barelwi pages. I have contacted him and he also agrees.

Here are my suggestions:

First you should read and comply with Wiki etiquette. The page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette. Please pay special attention to the concepts ‘good faith’, ‘labeling’, ‘name calling’ and ‘personal attacks’

Second, read the Wikiproject: Islam Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam. Pay special attention to the section: ‘Guidelines for editing Islam articles’.

I would suggest that both of you take an editing break. Do not edit or revert either page for a period of five days. While you are waiting for this period to elapse, work on the following—

Keeping in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox (WP:Soap), and Wikipedia in not a battleground (WP:Battle) and its goal is to present a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), for each article (separately) write down:
 * What would you like to change in the article?
 * What would you like to add to the article?
 * What would you like to remove from the article?

After five days post we’ll post the ideas on the Talk page and work on a consensus version to update the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor2020 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What's with the aggresive reverting?
As-salamu alaikum, Mezzomezzo I entered wikipedia with the intention of improving the articles on Islamic sciences. I corrected the INCORRECT information on al-Muwatta, and added more information from Muslim sources on Sunan ibn Maja, and corrected somewhere where a hanbali scholar was listed as salafi in contradiction to the actual article text!!!! Can you stop reverting so aggresively PLEASE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn al Hakim (talk • contribs) 09:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Salam MezzoMezzo, i just saw your message on my talk page. I have references for what I wrote, but unfortunately haven't yet figured out how to add them. Could you possibly take care of this one? From the same book, "The Hadith for Beginners", Dr. Muhammad Zubayr Siddiqi, 1961 (2006 reprint), Goodword Books, Noida, India. The muwatta references for the first paragraph are on page 38, and for the divisions of ahadith into categories, p39. The Sunan Ibn Maja references are on page 137. It's really important that people respect the Muwatta for what it is - a statement of law, not a collection of hadith... Jazak Allah kheir! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn al Hakim (talk • contribs) 08:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hadith
Replied at Talk:Noble Qur'an (Hilali-Khan). Evercat (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Conference in Deoband
There might be something here that could be mentioned in the Deobandi article: Times of India story. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I made a new short section entitled "Condemnation of terrorism." If it doesn't look right to you, do what you like. I just think that--given the current climate--readers should be clear that the Deobandi are opposed to terrorism.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sufism
I would like to point out that no matter what the source is there really is no justification for asserting that Sikhism was one of the influences of Sufism when sufism's roots go back nine hundred years prior. To say so would be patent nonsense. It's as ridiculous as saying John F. Kennedy influenced John Locke. I ask that you revert it yourself, as I have no interest in having an edit war with you. Peter Deer (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes a bit more sense. In that case, it needs to be reworded to reflect that as opposed to giving a contradictory and anachronistic impression (nonsense). If you would prefer to do that yourself that is fine by me, but if necessary I can rewrite it. Peter Deer (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ali
Hi MezzoMezzo. Some of the content restored on Ali was sourced to nahjulbalagha.com which is not likely to be a reliable source. In reality, there's a few areas where the article employs unreliable sources or focuses too heavily on specific perspectives or incidents... probably making the article larger than it should be. If you're up to the task of improving the article then I'll be happy to help out too.  ITAQALLAH  18:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. The first step towards improving the article would be to get an idea as to how the article should be structured, so as to ensure that we cover the central aspects and balance them according to their respective significance.  ITAQALLAH   23:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

ASI
I need your help to make this article one of the best on Wikipedia, can you please help me?--Falconkhe (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Islamic texts
Howdy! I noticed you merged List of Islamic texts with List of Sunni books, making the former a redirect to the latter. I was curious why, since (at least in my unexpert view), they seem like different topics; I would think that Shi'a literature (see List of Shia books) would be as easily classified as Islamic texts as Sunni, no? (And of course, there are certainly texts which both claim.) But being a lay-person on this one, I thought I'd check your views before restoring the List of Islamic texts article. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Undoing Islamic music article.
Dear MezzoMezzo, I saw your notice on my message board. I am sorry not posting to your talk page directly. But there are some points that should be indicated:


 * 1) You said that my references are not historically true.Are you saying that Bukhary and Muslim's Ahadith are not historically true? If so, why have you used a hadith from Bukhary there?
 * 2) The site you have used as a reference, islam-qa.com, is a website ruled from Saudi Arabia and as everyone knows, Saudi Arabian people are Wahhabies and Wahhabies are not accepted among MOST of the Muslims.And I know that some older scholars(Non-Wahaby)stated that Music is not permissible. So, in my modification below, there is not such a word Wahaby.
 * 3) I did not delete your additions.I have just added another Muslim's point of view there because I believe that everyone's view should be considered.

However, hopefully we can modify the section to become a bit more neutral. Because the Mufties who stated that music is permissible are also Muslims and their view should be considered in Islamic music article Do you accept this? Some Muslim scholars believe that music is forbidden both by the Qur'an and by the hadith, as well as by tradition and believe that Muhammad stated that musical instruments are haraam when he said: "There will be among my ummah people who will regard as permissible adultery, silk, alcohol and musical instruments." believing many of the greatest Islamic scholars of the past, including the four Imams, agreed upon this.

But some scholars allow music and singing under certain conditions if it doesn't guide through committing sinful acts. Dany (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear MezzoMezzo, I am glad to hear that there is no animosity and now I know that you are an open-minded person.I am very sorry to post to the Admins Notice Board.

I agree with you that Most scholars did not consider music as permissible traditionally in the past. So the word 'traditionally' is appropriate.But i think that there should be still some modifications.

About wahabism, the wahabies exist but they call themselves salafi.However, This is not the case here.The website you mentioned as reference, has an external link to Abdullah Ibn Baz which is a salafi scholar.From there, i found out that the website has salafi views. By the way, about the salafis existence, I've been to Saudi Arabia for a couple of weeks and saw their odd traditions by my eyes.Traditions that are completely unacceptable among other Muslims.However, as i mentioned above, this is not the case.

About your second condition, we both watch this page and prevent others to edit this page inappropriately.

Look at my slight modifications on the article and tell me what you think.In my opinion,this is almost resolved. :) Dany (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am glad that we managed to resolve this case quickly. In the future, we can start a new article on islam and music and expand this section. Regards, Dany (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Hey there. I enabled my email function recently. Let me know if it doesn't work. -- Slacker (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

prods
When you place a prod, it is required that the edit summary say so, saying "proposed deletion" is sufficient. It is also considered highly advisable that you notify the author of the article and any other major editors.DGG (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The link is in the "toolbox" on the left-hand side of my user page and my talk page, right below the search box, where it says "What links here - Related changes - User contributions - Logs - Email this user - Upload file - Special pages." Every user has it. -- Slacker (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Need your help
Salam-o-Alaikum, I need your help, I am of the view that |this article should remain on wikipedia, rather to be deleted or redirected to any other page. I would appreciate, if you kindly help and give your thoughts, whether you agree with me or not.--Falconkhe (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
for the pointers to the good faith edits section. Msml (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Adherence to school of thought
I have researched the link given as a reference to Imam Dhahabi adhering to the Salafi school of thought. I found no mention of his name there hence I previously deleted it. However, I noticed that you added it, hence, I'm writing to you in order to obtain information indicating that he may adhere to the Salafi school of thought.

From my own previous knowledge and further investigation and research that I have recently done on this scholar I was unable to find such information. Rather I found from several reliable sources that he was a scholar adhering to the Shafi'i school of thought.

Hope to hear from you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talibul Ilm (talk • contribs) 22:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Adherence
Thank you for the reply.

Firstly, I do apologize for not having noticed the name of the scholar at the link given. The term Salafi is generally understood in two ways. One being more common as an interpretation than the other in modern-day world. I think that you may have been referring to one meaning, whilst I was referring to the other.

1. The first meaning is its literal meaning. This is to follow the Salaf which is vaguely translated as the righteous predecessors. (In which case, all scholars and schools of thought within islam will technically be classed as Salafi, as all claim to follow the Salaf)

2. The second meaning which is more common is, referring to a specific school of thought, known as Salafi, which disagrees with ascribing oneself to a school of thought, by which is means one of four other specific schools of thought of which one is the Shafi'i school of thoght. (According to this meaning, it is not possible to be both a Salafi and a Shafi'i)

I assume that you had in mind the first meaning when editing, whereas, I had in mind the second meaning. I hope my assumptions of your reasoning were correct and also that this may explain my reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talibul Ilm (talk • contribs) 21:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wahhabism
Hi MezzoMezzo. Yes, I see your point. I'll try my best, although I am fairly tied up for the next week or so. Hopefully we can maintain a quality page. Twalls (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Three-revert rule
You appear to have made some reverts lately. Please be aware that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reverts on a single page within a 24 hour period. If you continue reverting, you risk being blocked from editing. Rather than reverting edits, please consider using the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. The dispute resolution processes may also help. Stifle (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
... for the barnstar. It's appreciated. rudra (talk) 10:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oneness of God (Islam)
Hi MezzoMezzo,

Thank you for your kind words. The reason I mentioned Sufism in the lead was that they have a "more or less" unique approach to the concept, and also per WP:LEAD requiring us to summarizing the main points of the article in it. But if you think it is not appropriate, please feel free to remove it; I don't have a strong opinion on this. Thanks, --Be happy!! (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I didn't disappear ? --Be happy!! (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh. Yes. I am still busy in real life but try to contribute to Wikipedia as much as I can. Peace! --Be happy!! (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I nominated the article for GA. If you have time, I would appreciate if you could go over the article and see if I have made any grammatical mistakes there; or if some part of the article is written in a boring way. If you are busy, please ignore this. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 06:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputes
Salam. Coming from the AN/I. You remove criticism sections from some articles while you add others to other articles. Shabiha is doing the same though the other way around. Please stop it and review your edits and see what you have done wrong. And if this won't stop i'll be obliged to use some administrative actions. Thanks. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  16:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Shabiha and User:MezzoMezzo
I see you have already warned both parties appropriately, but you should know that MezzoMezzo also brought it to AN/I  DGG (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: your comments on my page, I understand. I'll alter my editing as advised.  And thank you for the advice as well, constructive criticism is always appreciated. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I will act accordingly and will Improve my editng pattern.Is there any Option to Stop someone from Continuous Compalining and annoying?thanks Shabiha (t) 01:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Shabiha, not to point fingers to you specifically, but to just emphasize that you acted the same way. To both of you, criticism sections have to exist (except I'd guess for articles like [Sun] or [Moon] and similar or to specific instances as per WP:BLP). It shoudl not be any criticism though as per WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V. I am glad that you both are promissing to improve your editing ways. Happy editing.
 * By the way, you can just ignore what I've just said and get some insight from WP:AGF. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  01:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)