User talk:Nickbee

Block
Nickbee, I've unblocked you as a gesture of good faith, as you insist you're not a sockpuppet. However, if I see any further sign of this, or if you cause trouble around any of the Islam articles, I will consider reinstating the block. We've had a lot of disruptive editing on these pages lately, and it isn't fair to the other editors. While it's important to add criticism of Islam, it must be reasonable criticism, we have to use reputable, and preferably scholarly sources, and the writing must be disinterested and encyclopedic. If you stick to those rules, you'll be fine. You may also want to look at our two core editorial policies Neutral point of view and No original research. If you do run into problems with your edits being reverted, drop me a note on my talk page rather than getting involved in a revert war. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

SIIEG invitation
please see SIIEG --Zeno of Elea 04:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Existentializer
Just for your information: Existentializer banned for "suspicion" based on someone's vandalizing his user page. This is way out of line. Ni-ju-Ichi 05:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions for the Islam page
I first want to start with a little bit about the old editors here and then the new ones. We and especially those whom have been here longer than me came to pretty bad pages and have expanded them and tried to give them references and a somewhat scholarly edge. We recognize they are not perfect and that some sects are under represented and there is often POV (especially Sunni POV). Then all at once a bunch of editors came changing the pages a lot with minimal discussion and saying it was completely apologist and wanting to add FFI links. Now, I don't know if you agree yet but FFI is not the scholarly sources we were trying to have and represent in our articles... (I know you only wanted an external link but still). Then threads on the FFI forum were pointed out and they were disturbing... no one wants a concerted effort to add a POV to this encyclopedia. One of the main problems was that users like Germen and Zeno who wanted the link's behavior. Germen made lists on his talk page of "Muslims" and added me to "probably Muslims" list. I'm not a Muslim and calling me Muslim in an uslting way it is not exactly the way to work together. Zeno tries to talk about neutrality and then adds a crescent moon to the Allah page and later tries to say it was a joke... Your first edits were getting embroiled in an edit war about the FFI link and so far that's all you've done. It was hard to see why your only interest here was FFI and for a new user to only get into an edit war over an article he hadn't really editted before and didn't show any expertise on is not a good start. So, I would recommend you distance yourself from all of that and do some helpful edits, adding more information to articles that need it and suggesting edits to controversial articles on talk pages so we can hammer out an agreement first. Through this you will gain credibility and hopefully you will get your plan below (which although vagues definitely seems on the right track) through.

Sorry about the above but I really think that has been a big impediment so far but I will be happy to work with you in the future. I agree that there is a certain sense on these articles that they have been crafted through arguments and that doesn't help the flow... Modern Muslims concerns are important (as they are a diverse group) and understanding of their theology is probably the most important and in the context of its historical roots. Secular Muslims is a stickier situation and I would like to know how you think they should be represented and what they are. Are they Muslim apostates -- which calling them Muslim almost seems oxymoronic -- do many of them even have that self-identification? I thought the identification was ex-Muslim? Or are they Muslims who live in a secular world and religion just isn't important to them? Instead of Sunday morning Catholics, they're Friday afternoon Muslims. That will need to be clarified and we will need to see that they identify themselves as Muslims and not just critics of Islam. At least in the case of Ali Sina if he identifies as they thing he wants to destroy that would be odd. And of course, the sources for this should be more notable/scholarly. As for adding what Christians think I don't really have a problem (as long as it doesn't generalize) but -- you talked about how we weren't concise in our articles now and I'm having a hard time seeing how adding the Christianity bit on the Allah page isn't just adding more words needlessly... I would like to see how you planned to add it because the word choice will be more important to me than the concept itself (and it should be discussed since I know dab was against it). You are right about intenselt anti-polytheistic... I think even the most liberal groups (some Qur'an alone might be moreso than anyone else believing that the second half of the shahadah with Muhammad is shirk) insist on that... it should also be mentioned that even traditional scholars think that things like money can be shirk. Then it should be mentioned that liberals (I think it's only liberals) will sometimes be less strict and not call hinduism polytheistic in a pejorative manner. As for repetition I am not sure repetition across articles is too bad to a limited extent as long as it is coherent. Inside articles it is worthless. We do need better organization I have created User:Grenavitar/Islam outline in hopes that we (anyone) can create and organize and outline some. So, that will be a good place to experiment with an outline... as I said I'm not sure they will let it be on a normal page. Anyways your goals sound worthwhile... but they are vague and we could be envisioning them differently. gren グレン 01:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand. Unfortunately your view and stand will come under increasing strain in the future.  Here is an ordinary blogger from Denmark.  These views were not aired in the recent past, and used to be considered beyond the pale by most but, unfotunately, they are now becoming respectable. The sign of the times: "Hope has died...

Summary: These are the facts that i've been reading over the last few days of July. And they only lead to one conclusion..". This is hate for muslims, a people.  FFI is an attack on Islam by an ex-muslim who has not advocated hate for any people.  Unfortunately you are unable to tell the difference.  FFI is the voice of ex and secular muslims.  FazlurRahman was rejected by the muslims back in the 60's and 70's and is now held in esteem by a very small minority of muslims in the west, especailly those exposed to the curriculum at Gorge Mason.  Wiki is not static nor stationary.  It is merely a matter of time before another set of editors gain control of the page and I hope they will listen to your POV more than the current ones.  I will try to contribute constructively. Nickbee 15:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee


 * It may very well be a sign of the times but that does not mean it is scholarly discourse. Japanese internment was a sign of its time.  I can tell the difference... an attack on a person is justifiable because of differences with the person's views.  An attack on a religion as broad as Islam is idiocy and comes down to mass generalization.  A billion Muslims are not going to give up and die and in the future it will come down to accepted versions of Islam and unnacceptable ones... This happened with Christianity... but this defines Opposition to Islam moreso than it will ever define Islam.  Even if Islam's public image digresses to to the state of Nazism I would surely hope that editors can add some neutrality.  We are not a sign of the times here, we are attempting to portray the various facets of Islam so, there are surely places to put the opposition (which has been around for over a millenia) but that does not mean we don't have room for the theology nor does it mean that people opposed to Islam define what a Muslim is. gren グレン 18:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The ex and secular muslims are trying to do something about their "religion". Voltaire was attacked viciously for attacking christianity but his criticism has played a large role in what christianity has become. Islam does ordain murder of apostates and muslims do kill their apostates and blasphemers. I doubt Ali Sina will ever attain the status of Voltaire of islam, but his site is an important voice of ex and secular muslims. He was able to find just about as many supporters as "your" side and that is without any politicking. You are not a muslim and yet you have decided what is right and wrong for the muslims who are fighting to reform their faith from within. Instead of being a reporter, you and your group has elected to be participants and start judging what is "idiocy" and what is feasible. By your standards, the entire french revolution and the subsequent separation of church and state enshrined in the US constitution would be "idiocies" becasue they did spring from a direct and virulent attack on an even larger religion than Islam!! Christian atheists have been attacking christianity for a long time. But criticising Islam to date has resulted in being beheaded and hence very little criticism. And you have elected to suppress the voice of the reformers and criticisers because you either do not like the message or the style. Instead you prefer to peddle the voice of a minor figure like Fazl ur Rehman who the overwhelming majority of muslims had rejected as not truly "Islamic". And you do not have a biased POV? Nickbee 22:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee


 * Voltaire was a deist, not a Christian. I didn't say ex-Muslims didn't have views on Islam and couldn't make a dent into it, I said since when are they Muslim.  Fazlur Rahman is a far more major figure than either Ali Sina or Ibn Warraq.  You asked me to create an outline and I started, this is completely unproductive and you don't seem to want to do any of the work to help make the articles better.  If you have any questions feel free to ask but as of now this discussion is a pointless rehashing of FFI link arguments.  gren グレン 02:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion is over. Honesty requires intellectual integerity. "An attack on a religion as broad as Islam is idiocy and comes down to mass generalization. A billion Muslims are not going to give up and die" is what you said, and I gave you an example of where a frontal attack on christianity was effective. Conveniently ignoring secular muslims and the religious and cultral Islamic background of the ex-muslim so they can be ignored is the standard Islamic taqqiya of the muslims. Voltaire was a deist and hence his affect on christianity does not count, and no analogy may be drawn between the reformers of christianity in christian lands and the muslim reformers in Islam? Fazl ur Rahman is big in your opinion, not the muslims. You are not interested in reporting where and what is Islam. You are bent upon imposing your views, even though you claim not to be a muslim. I will make the articles better in my small way, and I will try to find editors that might be more compatible and not as Islamically activist as you obviously are. I will probably be banned fairly quickly given the history and the techniques at wikipedia that I have been reading. So be it. Nickbee 06:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

Din (Arabic term)
I'll take a look at that article. Also, you might want to visit Apostasy in Islam if you are editing right now. Heraclius, has started another one of his revert wars these and refuse to explain his changes properly. -- Karl Meier 17:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Apostasy in Islam
Nickbee, I just read the whole article and think that the following might be controversial, and maybe not entirely NPoV:

They cite verses 2:256, 3:72, 3:90, 4:48, 4:137,and 5:54 which deals with apostasy directly and which do not prescribe any earthly punishment or death

Recently I read this response in the islam Q&A site:, which says that several scholars reject the idea that 2:256 deals with apostacy, but only with Dhimmis that is paying their jizya. Also, I think it would benefit the article if you could add a source that show us who "they" are. Overall, it should be said that I really liked the article though! -- Karl Meier 17:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Deen
Hi Nickbee. I'm sorry I was unable to particpate very much in the Deen article debate, I've been very busy IRL lately. I tried reading over it and understanding what the source of controversy is, but after a while I get weary of trying to reason with unreasonable revert warrior zealots. AS far as I can tell, the main complaint against your edits on Din (Arabic term) is that you have included lengthy quotes. I would recommend that you avoid using direct quotes as much as possible. Summarize the contents of the quote in your own words, and then link to the quotes as references. This way they will not be able to accuse you of essay writing. --Zeno of Elea 12:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, Zeno and I agree on something? Who would've thunk?Heraclius 14:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Apology
I owe you an apology. It turns out this is Nick the Socialist. Sorry for mislabeling you, but I was sure that you were him.Heraclius 02:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Please vote and ask others to vote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ramallite Zeq 23:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The son that Abraham was going to sacrifice was Isaac
and not Ishmael as given. That conflicts with the info given under Abraham. I will change it to Isaac but I doubt it will stay unchanged. Another example of Wikipedia famous credibility. Nickbee 03:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Nickbee


 * That is because you are referring to the Biblical story rather than the Qur'anic story. In the Bible it says it was Issac. In the Qur'an, it says it was Ishmael. Since this is an Islamic holiday, it should be Ishmael, in accordance with the Qur'anic story. joturner 03:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)