User talk:MezzoMezzo/Archive 3

athari
thanks for cleaning up the athari post. Was going to get round to improving it later.

WP, not WK
You left red links at which I've fixed. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments of Zikrullak
mister mezzo mezzo. please tell the reason of including a criticism of hujjatul islam imam gazali by  ibn taymiah  who is an opponent of sufism. the satan worship of these people who pretend to be salafi is evident by their move on wikipedia. These satanic extremist try to put a clear picture of islam but actually they do it by harming the traditional and most basic beliefs. I just want your attention to the article of this so called shaikhul islam ibn taymiyyah which is without a section of criticism. if you think that by editing wikipedia in support of wahhabi ideology and temporary support from USA and saudi govts and violent jihaad these wahhabis can protect their ideas then every wahhabi should realize that he is  going in a very hopeless situation. their frustration will end with their existence. I may not have enough tricky logic and knowledge to continuously edit wikipedia articles but I know that satan is struggling and here on wikipedia are his soldiers who are distorting Islam. SO I AM WATING FOR A GLOBAL PUNISHMENT FOR WAHHABIS FROM ALLAH THE ALMIGHTY WHO WILL ERASE THIS FRUSTRATED ISLAM FROM EARTH WITH IT'S ROOTES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zikrullah (talk • contribs) 18:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care to hear your personal beliefs or opinions; this is an encyclopedia, not a forum for debating. Please refrain from disrespecting the beliefs of others, and remember that Wikipedia is not a soap box for you to promote one's own personal, private beliefs. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be on a Salafi style jihad. You are nominating all Sufi bios for deletions, hoping to get deleted as many bios as possible. Remember this is wikipedia, not your jihad ground. Hassanfarooqi (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop making personal attacks. This is really getting old. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you consider attacking your personal agenda as personal attack, then maybe you should revisit your personal agenda. I invite you to contribute to be positive and contribute to nejdi notables, instead of carrying out a jihad against sufi saints, and please stop posting on my page. It is getting irritating. Hassanfarooqi (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for Mar 2
Hi. When you recently edited Ibn Hazm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yemeni people (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) 11:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11
Hi. When you recently edited Ẓāhirī, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mystic (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) 11:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18
Hi. When you recently edited Dawud al-Zahiri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dates (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Athari
Hi, saw that you've contributed and edited the page Athari, I wonder if you could take a look at the talk page regarding deleting it. --Ddragovic (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 16:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jazakallahu khair
I couldn't believe the ridiculous imbalance of some articles - Please help me out and keep an eye on the Wahhabi page and Hadith of Najd page. Jazakallahu khair! Thanks again for the support but I can't do this all on my own, may Allah safeguard the legacy of our ulema who have passed away and grant them success in the hereafter. Sakimonk (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Have a look at Athari, what do you think of the edits - I can't believe this was almost deleted? Insha Allah the page will beneficial. Sakimonk (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Asalamu`aleikum
Jazakallahu` khair for your kind words. Please keep an eye on the Wahhabi, Salafi, Hadith of Najd and Athari pages - there are so many skewed edits & soapboxing attacks and persistent violations of the WP:NPOV guidelines; I really feel that it's most likely down to sockpuppet accounts gone viral (every tom, dick and harry seems to be able to open three or four random accounts and spread the same nonsense without fear of being banned or control). I've retired due to it becoming a persistent nag on my conscience and distraction from other aspects in my life; I don't want it to become the same for you so insha Allah maybe it's a good idea to notify other intellectual, academic, sound, knowledgeable people you might know to look into it occasionally and aid with clear, referenced, unbiased edits providing verifiable sources and sahih (authentic) narrations and interpretation from qualified scholars etc.

Ma'salama and Insha`Allah you will be successful! Sakimonk  talk  16:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
As salaam alaikum. I just wanted to say thanks for welcoming me. I also completely agree with what you said about the Zahiris. As a Zahiri myself, I find it absurd that even scholars today consider the Zahiri school extinct. I'm glad that there is someone making sure that the information on Wikipedia regarding Islam is accurate and unbiased. Jazakallahu khair and thanks again. Biodepart (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ibn Maḍāʾ Al-Qurṭubī, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andalus (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) 11:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Mundhir bin Sa'īd al-Ballūṭī (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Cordova, Grammarian and Andalus


 * Ibn Dihya al-Kalby (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Envoy and Khorosan


 * Ibn Maḍāʾ (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Grammarian


 * Qadi Ayyad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Al-Muwatta

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Pure oversight on my part, unfortunately. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Ibn Mada'
Thank you very much for your appreciation of my humble contribution. In fact, having seen your substancial expansion to the article, my heart was full with more joy than when I created it. Again thanks a lot. Hakeem.gadi (talk) 04:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Abu Hayyan Al Gharnati (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Albany


 * Al-Qastallani (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Albany


 * Niftawayh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Albany


 * Sufi metaphysics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Albany

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikilinking
Hi, thanks for your work on en.WP. Please note that we don't normally link years, dates, or other common terms. It's set out at WP:OVERLINK. Cheers. Tony  (talk)  01:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot man, I actually had no idea. I'll ease up on the linking from now on. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply on Durood
Hi, i too think that the article need a lot of cleaning but unfortunately i am busy with the articles related to the Prophets in Islam. surely would work on this one as soon as i get a little time. If you have a suggestion regarding the title head in the template do let me know or we could use Romanization of Arabic for Transliteration as Durūd. Thanks --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Muhammad bin Dawud al-Zahiri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Hafiz and Mystic


 * List of former Muslims (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Egyptian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Categories in userspace
Hi there MezzoMezzo, this is just to let you know that I commented out the categories and interwiki links in the userspace draft you're writing. See WP:USERNOCAT for the guideline. (Also, sorry for my bad edit summary in that diff - I meant "interwiki links" and not "wikilinks".) Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 11:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sunni Islam Page
I responded over on Talk:Sunni Islam - Johnleeds1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Muqbil bin Hadi al-Wadi'i, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yemeni people (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) 11:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How embarrassing...this happens to me so much now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Al-Ahbash
Please, feel welcome to contribute to Al-Ahbash page after going through the archives of its talk page. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Abu Turab al-Zahiri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Gregorian


 * Ahmad al-Ghumari (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Gregorian


 * Hayat Sindi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to National Geographic


 * Muhammad Abu Khubza (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Gregorian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Diagram of founders and disciples of schools of fiqh
I have done a lot of work to update the Diagram of founders and disciples of schools of fiqh on the fiqh page make sure no one changes it back It is up to date and I did a lot of work to up date it

I added Aisha, Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr and Zayd ibn Ali and other importtant people of that time and put every one in chronological order. Imam Abu Hanifa, Malik ibn Anas, Jafar al-Sadiq, Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr, Muhammad al-Baqir, Zayd ibn Ali were in Masjid an-Nabawi at same time. I checked a lot of books. Aisha lived a long time after Muhammad. Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr also lived a long time. He was the grand father of Jafar al-Sadiq and Imam Abu Hanifa was also his student. Imam Abu Hanifa was also the student of Muhammad al-Baqir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI filing
Just to note, your ANI filing is far too long. Probably about 5-8 times longer than it should be. This will cause delays in action, and may actually result in no action (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm responding here per the request at the top of your own talk page. I'm quite sorry both to those who monitor the noticeboard and those involved in the dispute, as I didn't realize the length would cause any difficulty. Do you have any suggestions as to how I can increase the likelihood of the desired actions being taken? MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have warned the editor who made personal attacks gaianst you. If it happens again, contact me on my talk page. Pass a Method   talk  14:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ibn al-Qaisarani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khorasan (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) 11:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Diagram of founders and disciples of schools of fiqh
Ha ha, yes, everything you've found is true. If you go far back enough, you will ultimately find the leaders of madhhabs having studied with the same chain of teachers going back to Sahaba. It's a startling revelation, especially considering that hundreds of years later, people claiming to follow those madhhabs would later persecute one another. Have you considered putting this diagram in your sandbox and seeing how it would work and where it would be appropriate? MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Answer
I put the diagram on the Fiqh page I was thinking about changing it a little because the user who complained DeCausa said that people may get confused and think Muhammad had 6 children. He has a valid point. It is a very good diagram and just shows that over time Muslims lost the focus from what Islam was all about i.e. improving society and the focus on justice to the Muslims focus on who should rule and went into the Sunni Shia sects when there is no actual foundations for their differences. The diagram is a bit complex for people who do not have any knowledge of islam. How do you suggest we lay out the diagram. There is another diagram on the Islam page called "Some of the major movements in Islam." On the Shia Islam page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Islam There is the diagram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tree_shia_islam_n3_.pdf This kind of a format is OK for showing the splits within Shia Islam as the sects are based of Father to Son. One sect chose one brother and the other the other. But with the Sunnis there is no father to son relationship. It is the best man for the job. Any one could be a jurist. Therefore you look at who was the teacher of that jurist. Its the same with the relationship between the Sunnis and the Shia jurists. I was just trying to show that the founders of 2 sunni fiqh schools of thought worked together with Jafar al-Sadiq who the shia follow in the same mosque, Al-Masjid an-Nabawi. And they had the same teachers. On the Christianity Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity Page there is the diagram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Christianity_Branches.svg That is clearer for showing the denominations in Christianity. But its not suitable for showing the relationship between the early jurist sunnis follow and the early jurist the shia follow. Have a think about it. I am open to suggestions. I could add the references for the diagram and put an explanation or change the diagram. On the talk page of the Islam page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam It says This article has been reviewed by The Denver Post on April 30, 2007. The first thing they said was: "The History section still needs to be shifted a bit more in the direction of religious history away from political history. It also needs to be integrated better internally; some sections do not flow properly" So I was just putting in the religious history --Johnleeds1 (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

For safe keeping
The archie is at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive785. Note to self. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

re: Again
I recommend the WP:AN3 thread if he keeps reverting. Pass a Method  talk  09:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Your continous insertion of POV in Barelvi Article
No one is supporting your POV on Barelvi Article and You are consistently inserting your unverifiable allegations in to the Article.You have regularly vandalized that Article.It seems You have certain Wahabi agenda to do so.You must STOP from inserting your Non neutral ,Unverifiable allegations.Moreover there is totally consensus on the previous version since long.Thank.13:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msoamu (talk • contribs)

Stop
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.Msoamu (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Copy pasting, now? This could all be resolved if you would only engage in civil conduct with other editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You have been reported. The civility must be shown by you.On the pretext of civility You will not be allowed to insert your POV. Msoamu (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring.Msoamu (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring on Barelvi
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Msoamu (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring on Ahl al-Hadith
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Msoamu (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Getting in touch
Assalam MezzoMezzo, wha is the best way to get in touch with you? This is regarding a wikii entry I need help documenting properly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.104.113.42 (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The talk page for the entry in question is enough, and allows participation on a wide scale. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

al-albani
how was albani a critic of the latter when he is the face of wahabism? albani has the same beliefs as the wahabis as stated here although it says he disagrees with saudi wahabis on law because according to him they are not "wahabi enough" since they follow some form of hanbalism..albani takes shots at abdulwahab himself but it doesnt matter because the core belief of wahabism comes from ibn taymiyah...salafism and wahabism is one and the same..there's no two movements its only one movement wahabis are those who call themselves salafis.. Baboon43 (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you're asking for clarification, but shouldn't this be on the talk page for whichever article you're talking about? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh...Baboon...did you read the document you just posted here? On the second page, under note #1, the author again repeats that Albani was a Salafist yet a critic of Wahhabism, and the author remarks that the two are not the same thing. Plus, she is also the author of the source I added to the article for the Albani page (which I think is what you're talking about) which mentions that he was a critic of Wahhabism. This actually bolsters the case. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It says at the start that his beliefs with wahabism are in line..as for the 2nd page it says salafism and wahabism are used differently in this article for the following reasons and it says according to the 60's hybridation..all he did was denounce the wahabis for not being wahabi enough for his standards therefore he is still considered wahabi but salafi is put in place to not confuse people in the article some RS


 * "There are principal scholars associated with the global spread of wahhabism: Nasr al-Din al-Albani (d.1999), the former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia".


 * "two well known wahhabi scholars, Muhammad Nasr al-Din al-Albani and And al-Aziz And Allah bin baz" Baboon43 (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The accusation is there, yes, but Lacroix's articles seem to show considerably more nuance. I think the mention of Albani's complicated relationship with both movements explains that. If you know of a clearer way to get his paradox thing across, bring it to the talk page for that article, as more than just you or me might be interested. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
andy (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahbashism_campaign
You are more than welcome to help with Ahbashism_campaign as keep on pushing his Ahbash POVs on all the Ahbash related pages. Thank you. McKhan (talk)
 * I'll try, but I have to admit that I still haven't finished reading all the archives for the Ahbash article yet. Perhaps my ignorance could actually help, as I can just look at the edits and not get involved in the dispute. I also know that Baboon43 can be reasoned with, it took me a while but we actually edit together well now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I would greatly appreciate your input. I have opened an RfC on the talk page of Ahbashism_campaign. We need some Neutral Wikipedia editors who would kindly help with a version of Al-Ahbash page and Ahbashism_campaign page which presents the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents objectively under the light of pertinent academic sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Let's see whether  can be reasoned with (i.e. including the differences between the beliefs of Al-Ahbash and mainstream Sunnis into Al-Ahbash article) on the extremely controversial topic of Al-Ahbash and its pertinent pages. Thank you. McKhan (talk)
 * The artist formerly known as needs to stop pushing POV and perhaps take a wiki break. Baboon43 (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is what needs to be added to the Al-Ahbash page under Doctrinal Aspects to highlight the differences of beliefs between the Al-Ahbash and mainstream Sunnis:


 * "Shaykh Habashi's syncretic teachings draw upon a conflation of different branches of Islamic theology, and thereby elude unambiguous classification. In an adress to his followers, Shaykh Habashi stated that "[w]e are Ash'aris and Shafi'is. The Ash'ariyya is the basis of our belief, and the Shfi'iyya is our daily code." [2]|undefined


 * Shaykh Habashi in his books and lectures blend[16]|undefined [17]|undefined [18]|undefined [19]|undefined [20]|undefined elements of Sunni and Shi'a theological doctrines with Sufi spiritualism by supporting the legitimacy of Imam Ali and his descendents while condeming Mu'awiyya, the caliph and governor of Damascus, and his son Yazid as "seditious" thus adopting Shi'ite tradition whereas setting apart from all other Sunni jurists.[1]|undefined [7]|undefined [21]|undefined [8]|undefined [22]|undefined. Although not explicitly stated, Sufism plays also an important role in al-Ahbash's doctrine as demonstrated by the practice of several Sufi traditions such as the pilgrimage to holy men's tombs (Ziyarat) and the support of three Sufi Tariqas. [1]|undefined The contention that it is a primarily Sufi movement [1]|undefined, however, has been disputed[2]|undefined.


 * Mustafa Kabla and Haggai Erlich identify "moderation" as the key word in al-Ahbash's "necessary science of religion" [1]|undefined and instance the group's twelve-goal platform whose second item calls for "[p]reaching moderation [...] and good behavior as ways of implementing religious principles, while combating extremism and zeal." [2]|undefined. This position is also reflected in the groups's decided opposition to the Salafist movement and radical Islamist thinkers, namely Sayyid Qutb, Muhammed ibn 'Abd-al-Wahhab, and Ibn Taymiyyah. [2]|undefined [1]|undefined Al-Ahbash's rather progressive views on education, the role of women, and science contradict many of the above named writers' opinions. One further critical cleavage is al-Ahbash's strict rejection of any form of anthropomorphism of God which they accuse Wahhabism of [2]|undefined . Consequently, Shaykh Habashi holds that "it does not befit God to speak like that, and his word is not a voice or letters"[23]|undefined and that therefore, the Qu'ran contains the word of God but could be written only after "Gabriel listened to His word, understood it, and passed it on to the prophets and the angels"[19]|undefined [20]|undefined [2]|undefined - a highly controversial point of view within Islam which is not fully compatible with the consensus of Sunnis. [2]|undefined The arguably most important split, however, is the question of the relation between religion, politics, and the state. Departing from most Islamic writings on this topic, al-Ahbash advocates a separation of religion and state and thereby rejects the idea of an Islamic state. Consequently, the group repeatedly emphasized the need for Muslim-Christian co-existence and tolerance towards other religious groups in Lebanon. [2]|undefined


 * Yet, this tolerant stance in Al-Ahbash's public rhetoric is doubted by some Muslim groups, orthodox Sunni in particular. They accuse the group of an excessive use of Takfir - the act of declaring another Muslim an unbeliever - and thereby of the provocation of inner-islamic tensions. According to Tariq Ramadan, Al-Ahbash "adherents carry on a permanent double discourse: to Western questioners, they claim to support the emancipation of women and laicism to oppose the "fundamentalists" (all the issues they know are sensitive and useful for getting them recognized). However, within Muslim communities, they carry on an extremely intransigent and closed discourse, usually treating most of the principal Muslim ulama as kuffar *by which they mean "unbeliever,' "impious people"). They base their teachings on interpretations recognized as deviant by all other schools of thought and all other scholars of note (for example, their singular understanding of the meaning of the name of God, or their assertion that the Qur'anic Text was interpreted by the angel Gabriel, or the practice of praying to the dead). Their approach on very specific points of doctrine (such as those we have referred to) is hostile and usually violent."[2]|undefined [4]|undefined


 * Thank you. McKhan (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't just fair, it almost seems overly positive. For what reason are people accusing your edits of being against Ahbashism? MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for kind understanding and precious input. Indeed, I appreciate that very much. Please, feel welcome to vote for the Merger proposal put forth by that Al-Ahbash and Ahbashism_campaign be merged for easier editing. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Salafi Template

 * It is an attempt to categorize entire Salafi movement into a Template.The Articles in the template subscribe to the Salafi ideology and there is no point to Portray this movement as violent.Some of the groups may be doing this not all Salafis are involved in violence.Salafis traces their history to first generation of Islam.The nomenclature Sunni was developed and came to be known in later stages and was accepted by Muslims who started following four school of thought.

Where as Salafi movement opposes this tradition of Taqlid and focused on relying directly on the basic sources of Islam.Sunnibarelvi (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion actually seems interesting. I'm sorry for selling you short. Let's work on this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah,I would be glad to share information with you.Sure we can work on this.Sunnibarelvi (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Ghaliyya
No promises, but I'll see what I can do. Asarelah (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

http://du0d0kztgplnu.cloudfront.net/9-8.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.246.26.169 (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

question
what kind of sunni are you?? you dont have to answer..im shafi Baboon43 (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I converted to Islam with Sufis and was fascinated with the Naqshbandi order. Then I fell in with Qur'anists. Then in college I liked the Salafis. Then I went through a phase where I was burned out and I disliked every kind of Muslim. Now I got over it and I respect any person who wants peace in the world, any Muslim who believes in the path of the prophet Muhammad (saws), and I have no problem with other Sunnis belonging to different movements so long as we all respect one another. As for kind, then I am Sunni. On a personal level, I'm so tired of movements. I just want to be my own person and focus on my job and family...religion for me is personal and not for any sheikh or leader.
 * That's about as much detail as I'm comfortable giving on the internet. In case you're worried, no, I'm not some rabid Salafi or Pakistani Ahle Hadith (I've been insulted by members of both groups, in addition by Barelvis, Deobandis, Shi'ites, etc.) who just wants to defame other articles. I'm just an editor with way too much free time who spends more time on Wikipedia than is healthy. I hope my answer makes sense. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting..i use to be a semi salafi & i despised sufis but now im a traditionalist(ahlul-sunna-waljama) & i dont have any problems with sufis now.i agree with you that everyone should respect each other but unfortunately thats not the case especially on the salafi front but thats just my opinion..i disagree with your statement on not following some type of leader or sheikh as everyone needs some type of teacher to guide them Baboon43 (talk) 07:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, let's put it this way...if you want to be a student of knowledge and seek to be a talib al-ilm in Islam, then yes, a sheikh or some other kind of leader is absolutely required. There is no other way. As for me, then I'm a layman like most other Muslims...I edit some religion articles on Wikipedia, but I don't aspire to be an expert or anything. As for respect...unfortunately, many Salafists have made their movement known for intolerance. I found that out the hard way when I left them. I've seen it with other movements too, though they may not be as well-known. Just pray that God brings some solace to the sincere in a world full of conflict. Wish you the best. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hassan al-Kattani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hasan (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) 11:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Non constructive and Biased editing with an agenda
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Msoamu (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that you suffer such strident editing opposition, MezzoMezzo. Keep your chin up. Best regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not the first time, and it probably won't be the last. Enjoy the rides on which life takes you, as I say. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the nicely-spirited and friendly way you took my comments at AfD. I'm afraid I'm a little weary of popping in there and seeing editors who haven't checked for Ukrainian/Italian/whatever sources/variant spellings wanting to delete bios counter to WP:WORLDVIEW. I do see however in your case reasonable frustration with these very badly sourced Chishti bios. The current state of sourcing is definitely not good enough, it's a shame in many ways that AfD can't be used a stick, but there we go. If you want an extra voice to speak up for you at ANI let me know, but I think you're clear there now.
 * As regards the Sufi-Salafist article I am not competent to input. I can see there's a problem but don't have any idea how/what policy to apply. In fact I'd like to ask your help to have a quick look over the Yuzasaf sources I added to what should be a Islam-first Georgian-second article. Second to that there's also Yuz Asaf (the same legend but the Ahmadi version) where your skills would be helpful. My Arabic is a user box two or three notch lower than yours evidently. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I received an invite from Msoamu to comment at ANI, but had to politely tell him on further investigation - outside AfD issues - it appeared to be 70% down to him.
 * Second issue. Yes, basically there are two areas where really would appreciate the help of someone with better Arabic. (1) in the Yuzasaf article the Arabic sources are weak, making the article overweight to Georgian tradition. (2) in the Roza Bal article there are 3x Arabic text jpgs attributed to Mulla Nadri on http://www.arifkhan.co.uk/TOJ/core/historical_sources/docs/tahrik_kashmir.html . I suspect they are 19th Century and nothing to do with Mullah Nadri, nor Haidar Malik, but it would be nice to identify what they are. Maybe Googling in Arabic will pull up the 3x sources? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I crudely searched for any mention of Budasaf/Yudasaf/Yuzasaf on both ar. and fa.wp (the second being more difficult as I can't read Farsi at all) and found nothing, not even under Ibn Babuya who appears to be the main source. I'd be surprised however if there's no Arabic or Farsi treatment of Budasaf/Yudasaf since, even if there's no awareness that it is Siddhartha Gautama in Muslim-Christian clothes, it's still a substantial tradition that Orientalists were able to source and document. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Re:Articles
Hi there the article that i asked for was durood. Although i am currently working on Prophets in Islam and you can help me with the articles like Abraham in Islam, Moses in Islam etc too if you can. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 07:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your intention to help. Would definitely ask for help if there is a discussion. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Your comments about the diagram
Sorry for being so late. Anyway, the Shi'a diagram which you showed me actually is a bit difficult on the eyes. I happen to know the order in which son inhereted from father, but for someone who doesn't then that diagram might be difficult to understand. The Christianity diagram of sects, however, is great and looks professionally done. Now, you mentioned DeCause had some issues with the diagram you designed. Where did he state this? It would be better to include him in any discussions in order to hammer this out; that way, we could build a consensus. The talk pages of the relevant articles would also allow other people to add their input. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

JohnLeeds answer

This is what DeCause said when I added it in last time on the Islam page "Misleading WP:OR. Explain what the lines mean and get it sourced." "Unsourced and there's no indication what the connecting lines represent. some readers will think it's a genealogical connection"

Now I am thinking about using solid lines where there is a father/mother to child relationship In other cases where a teacher teaches a student just say this teacher taught that student But make it simple so that it only have

Muhammad, Fitima, Ali, Umar, Abu Bakr, Aisha, Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr, Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr and Muhammad al-Baqir, Zayd ibn Ali, Jafar al-Sadiq, Abu Hanifa, and Malik ibn Anas, Al-Shafi‘i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Muhammad al-Bukhari travelled every where collecting hadith and his father Ismail ibn Ibrahim.

--Johnleeds1 (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply
You left me a message after I left for a holiday in early February. Does it still require my input?  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Authority control response
Please see: Authority control; this should give you a good start.

--FeanorStar7 12:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

"بيلاوهار وبوداساف"
I couldn't load ANI, and couldn't (till just now) give you link on روضة بل Talk:Roza Bal. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I did finally post on ANI, apologies for delay. I also located spelling of "بيلاوهار وبوداساف" In ictu oculi (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please have a look at the talk page on the Islam page
The user Sodicadl keeps on deleting most of the history section on the Islam page. So I have added a comment for him at the bottom of the Islam talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam). Do you want to have a look and give me your feedback. Its as if he wants to hide the facts. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Siddiq Hasan Khan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman (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) 13:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Why are you misguiding people.
AslamoAlikum! oye wahabi uncle.i edited the page of sunni islam.you reverted page of sunni islam.why are you misguiding people by adding deobandi and wahabi in sunni catagory.see your page of sunni islam again.deobandies and salafis dont even fallow any school of LAW.lanat ullah hi alhi kaazibeen.

you seems to be a salafi (wahabi) in my openion.

dont misguide people and go to some scholar for further knowledge.even wahabi doesnt like to call themself sunni.

so just Take off Your Frock of Sunni.and wear you own dress. salam.May ALLAH Guide You.
 * The user who posted this was indeffed as a sock of someone. Ignore it Mezzo. Luke no 94  (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Formal warning
Per the WP:ANI discussion, you are hereby formally warned that any personal attacks or incivility on your part will be met with blocks of escalating duration. Furthermore, be sure to work collaboratively with other editors. I'm not saying you can't disagree with them, of course, but be sure to have appropriate discussions on article talk pages when necessary, and don't engage in edit warring. If you are in doubt about how to proceed (about whether a particular action would be considered uncivil or edit warring or whatever), ask someone for advice first. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Dougweller (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello
Hello MezzoMezzo. I noticed your message recently. I am here to respond regarding your question about Quad charts.

Regarding quad charts I am not familiar with this tool and I can't say anything per se. I suggest looking other editors help. I can only provide some info about musical and literature articles around historical fiction and fantasy fiction. For the technical literature, I am affraid my connaissance is limited. Nevertheless I wish you luck.


 * Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk)

AfD
Mezzo, sorry but I think you need to pause from any further AfDs. Sayyid Alavi Thangal and the other Kerala Sunni are evidently notable and submitting them is inappropriate. You must check half-a-dozen variant spellings, and use creativity with "hints" "clues" with these Arabic/Urdu/Malayali names before nominating. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just been through the entire lot - mainly to save you further embarassment, and that was before I saw Qwyrxian's comment below. Basically you need to pre-emptively withdraw half of them, the half I marked. I recognise it isn't easy, and in your favour you did spot several absolute turkeys - particularly BLPs - those should be deleted. But AfD isn't there to bump article creators into adding sources. Best wishes. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking me by the way. I hope this is the response you wanted. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well this time I wasn't trying to bump people into sourcing, I really thought they weren't notable. Man I thought I was on fire this morning! I got excited thinking I had figured it out. I'll stop for now...do you think simply observing and occasionally commenting on other AfDs would help me learn the ropes of how to know when to nominate and when not to do so? MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A couple of them did look a bit bumpy, but no harm done if you withdraw them. In answer, yes I think participating in some non-Islam AfDs for a couple of weeks would give a more rounded view of the process, and ideally you should find yourself agreeing with 2/3 of outcomes, and supporting keeps for as many as delete. I'm not a regular there myself. Off and on. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, you and qweryzian. I think this experience indicates that perhaps I should find myself only participating in such AfDs, and not really initiating any - I could always ask someone else if they think it's deserving, and if so let other editors handle it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Afd on Universities
Please look at my comment on Articles for deletion/Darul Huda Islamic University, and seriously consider withdrawing that AfD and any others that are similarly a problem. One thing to remember before you run an AfD is that WP:BEFORE requires you, the nominator, to search for sources to establish notability before nomination. That is, you can't nominate solely based on the state of the article itself, but based upon whether or not it could be repaired—deletion is only appropriate when the subject is fundamentally unsuited for the encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And to be honest, after seeing iio's comment above, and the recent final warning you've received, it probably is best if you stop making any more AfD nominations on Islam related topics. It may well be that many of the one's you're proposing for deletion should be deleted (some of what you raise on Dougweller's page is potentially a problem), but I'm not so sure that you're the best person to be doing so right now. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I know. I was excited this morning because I thought I finally knew what I was doing, and I guess I got a bit carried away. And yes, perhaps it's best to merely discuss matters on talk pages and leave the nominating to other people. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:ADVERT
Hey there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed you have nominated a lot of articles at WP:AFD and claimed they were in violation of WP:ADVERT. I suggest you consider taking another look at that policy. I have looked over many of the articles you said were spam, and I don't think any of them are. In specific, I noticed that you called Darul Huda Islamic University an advert because the sources led to its own website. Please note that those not as understanding of Wikipedia's policies may consider the website to be a reliable source, which...you're right, it isn't. Have a great day. – TC N7  JM  13:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Informal lmediation response
I have sent a message to user talk:Hassanfarooqi, and am awaiting a response from him. I am not a regular, but I'll do my best. Sincerely,--75* 17:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Meat puppets
I'm sorry, I've found some article work involving a lot of detective work that's a lot more interesting at the moment (although I wish I wasn't spending so much time on it) - Si-Te-Cah which is just terrible. It can either wait for a few days or you can take it to ANI. Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
75* 17:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Almohad reforms, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cordoba (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) 12:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

 * RFC-I was requesting a good faith comment from some editors regarding POV on some of the articles.It was an fair attempt to build consensus.This was my bonafide understanding of RFC.Regarding edit,I express my apology ,it was done in total mistake.It just clicked wrongly.I think together we can build wikipedian pages.I am ready to cooperate on all matters.Thank you. Shabiha  (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's possible, Shabiha. You reverted eighteen edits to this version by VIAFbot from before I performed any of them. The ONLY way this could have been done was by intentionally blanking the page and then copy-pasting the version prior to my eighteen edits. I don't know of any other way it can work out. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but I have slightly refactored your comment
I am sorry but I have slightly refactored your comment of 04:22 10 March 2013 at Talk:Salafi. The formatting of your comment confused me. You wrote four paragraphs. The first and last had one indentation, and the middle two had two indentations. I thought initially that they were comments by separate people - some unsigned. Once I realised that they were all done by you at the same time, I put bullet points in the middle two comments, as that made it clearer how the comment hug together. I hope that you do not mind this slight refactoring by me. Sorry.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

holy sites in sufi Islam
Trying to clean up the Holiest sites in Sufi Islam article. Starting with the first paragraph in this lede:
 * Islamic communities have developed a rich tradition of shrine culture. Most Islamic shrines are dedicated to various Sufi Saints - spiritually elevated ascetics from various mystical orders within Islam, and are widely scattered throughout the Islamic world. It is a tradition to commemorate the death of the Saint, his so-called "Marriage to God," by holding festivals at his tomb to commemorate his life. In several countries, the local shrine is a focal point of the community, with several localities named specifically for the local saint.

and it prompted me to wonder are there any holy sites in sufi Islam that are not shrine/tombs? (besides the mosques of course). No reply to my question so far.

Do you know? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi MezzoMezzo
During the last few months, I had some time off, so I looked at the pages relating to Islam on wikipedia. Over the last few years, a lot of incorrect material against Islam has built up on Wikipedia. I went through thousands of books in the London School of Oriental and African Studies library and on the internet. Looked through Sunni, Shia and the Roman books from that period. There is a lot of material on Wikipedia about Islam that is totally incorrect. One just has to look at the pages "Islamic views on slavery", "Muhammad and slavery" and "Ma malakat aymanukum". Even people Muhammad cared for deeply and provided for through the Bait Al Mall charity have been presented as slaves on wikipedia. Unfortunately the Muslims on Wikipedia spend more time fighting each other and discrediting people from the early history of Islam like Ali and Abu Bakr than they do actually going through wikipedia and correcting the incorrect material on Wikipedia that is in many cases totally incorrect and against Islam. In the process, unfortunately these arguments, give Muhammad and Islam a very bad name. I looked into Ali's family and Abu Bakrs family and realised that many early Scholars like Jafar al Sadiq and Qasim his grandfather from his mother side are as much related to Ali as they are to Abu Bakr. Ali even raised Abu Bakrs son Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr. Muslims are best off showing Ali's knowledge on the Ali's page and his scholarly achievements and his character. Fights between the Shias and the Sunnis give a very bad impression of Ali, Muhammad and Islam. The same is true on all the other Islam pages. Pushing sectarian views just gives a bad impression of Islam. Many of these views are based on history books written hundreds of years after the events and are exaggerated. Even Al Tabri and Nahj al-Balagha were history book written 300 years later. People ignore the Quran but concentrate on history books that were written 300 years later. Many of the conflicts on wikipedia are over the land at Fadak. Considering the level of resistance Muhammad was having at the time, I am sure many people at the time of Muhammad would have been saying Muhammad invented a religion to enrich his family. He took away the land from the Jews in Madina and gave it to his family members. Many people these days would then have said the same. You only get a complete picture once you read through the Sunni, Shia and the Roman books from the period. It was a tragic story of the Arabs going into Syria and Iraq that had just gone through the Byzantine-Sassanid Wars. Many people in Syria and Iraq hated each other. After going in, the Arabs from the desert started getting tempted by money and wealth in Syria and Iraq. What started as a small thing of Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr showing the Egyptians the house of Authman ended with Marwan and the Kawarij manipulating every one and a huge loss of life. Cousins fighting one another. Ali had a very difficult situation on his hand. Just image what was going through the minds of Hassan and Husein. Its a very tragic story, a lesson to all of us, a choice between Money and children or God. Aisha later realised she had been manipulated. When Marwan became the governor of Madina you could see the tensions between Aisha and Marwan. Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr and Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr were both killed by the umayyads. Later there were very close links between Abu Bakrs family and Alis family. Jafar al sadiq is a result of that. Its better to make the effort and find the truth, even if it hurts ones views and is contrary to ones views. If you have some time please look at the pages "Islamic views on slavery", "Muhammad and slavery" and "Ma malakat aymanukum". Try to be more constructive. We could change the future but not the past. Send me a message on my talk page if you want to assist in improving the image of Islam on Wikipedia. Thanks --Johnleeds1 (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Assume Good faith
I am in discussion mode ,you just pushed your POV.You must STOP MezzoMezzo.Wikipedia is not battleground.You are welcome to discussion.Msoamu (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Re:You're still here!
Salam, not really. I've participated in few cases. But if it makes others so happy, I try to come more. Of course, if my kid let me.-- Seyyed(t-c) 10:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Know anything about Bahraini music?
Hi, how are you? Recovered from recent drama I hope. -- Question: Know anything about Bahraini music? I ask because an editor from Lebanon just left some redlinks on Poul Rovsing Olsen. Though the singer is Lebanese. I had a go guessing searching the correct Arabic, but got nothing. Would you mind? Just in case they have ar.wp articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Jesus in Islam
Aslm wa Rahmatullah. On the 'Jesus in Islam' page [|Jesus in Islam], the idea of 'Ruhullah' being a title or having any validity to that meaning is erroneous. I have not used Wikipedia before and thus have no idea how to address this. Please assist :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unsecluded (talk • contribs) 07:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Women in the Arab Spring article
Hello! I've created the Women in the Arab Spring article, although I have not posted the "After the protests" section yet. I would really appreciate any suggestions you could give me about the content I've posted thus far or things you think I should add. I've had some trouble finding information specific to women in the Syrian civil war, so if you know any sources or have recommendations about where to look that would be fantastic. Thanks for your help! Nadhika99 (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello
Salaamu Alaykum, Thanks for the message on my talk page. I still edit Wikipedia, although not nearly as much as I used to. Trying to cut down on internet use. Hope you're well, and keep up the good work. Jaw101ie (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Islamism
This person keeps on making edits based on wishful thinking, rather than facts backed by multiple sources. He's now trying to portray secularists and even proponents of secularism as Islamists which is ridiculous.--123.231.86.31 (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh, where have you made any effort to discuss this with Ahmed 313-326? I can't see anything on their talk page. In addition, would you like to provide some diffs to prove your point? I can't really see much immediately wrong in their contributions from a quick look. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what this is about. What is being done, where is it being done, and what discussion has taken place? MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)