User talk:RedCrescent

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:


 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nicely with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! ---

Of God or Of Islam?
Not true. You changed to CltFn's version - Muslims believe that Muhammad is God's final prophet, not the other way around. RedCrescent 03:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I switched them back, but I believe either one will work just fine. And really, the way you said above statement sounds as though you are the authoritative source on Islam, especially on a minor technicality. joturner 03:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad
The Qur'an is the last revelation. Islam (submission to God's will) is the message. Abraham and all the prophets were Muslims. Islam was not a revelation but a message. Quran is a revelation. --Aminz 04:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, my edit reads: " sent to guide all of mankind with the message of Islam, the last revelation of the Qur'an." --Aminz 04:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No, Qur'an contains the message. The message is "Islam" (bowing to God's will, submission). Though Islam is also called the name of religion but its original meaning is bowing to God's will. Qur'an is the revelation that contains the message but is not the message itself. --Aminz 04:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you like your edit better?--Aminz 05:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the christians believe that the message of Jesus is his salvation through Jesus's death on the cross. Injeel literally means "Good News". They think their prophet is "Mobasher" of the news of their forgiveness. The message is not exactly Injeel. Jews have too many books, not only torah. but 10 commandmends are important to them. I am not sure when Qur'an says Injeel or Torah, it exactly means what we have today as (possibly corrupted) texts or the original ones. In any case, if you change the text in a way that Quran does not become equal to the message itself (and not something that contains the message) it will be fine with me. I'll have a look at the link you sent for me. Thanks. --Aminz 05:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The other person is Zora :D She is not a Muslim but quite knowledgeable and much more unbiased than other non-Muslim editors. I agree that Qur'an does not directly talk about medicine, but in the case of wine at least, it says that it has some benefits for men but its disadvantages are more than its benefits. Now, it may be relevant or not. I have also vague memories of some traditions that if someone eats meat everyday, for a period of 40 days, his heart will harden (recommendation of not eating meat a lot.) Muhammad (pbuh) is reported to have been interested in medicine. I remember another tradition saying that knowledge is of two kinds; knowledge of religions and knowledge of bodies. I agree that Qur'an and Hadith do not explicitly talk about medicine.--Aminz 05:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. The Qur'an or Hadiths do not talk about medicine. Oh, by the way, regarding "Honey"; I think Qur'an says something. I am not sure. Does it say that it is a good medicine? I am not sure. --Aminz 06:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"She is not a Muslim but quite knowledgeable and much more unbiased than other non-Muslim editors."

Oh, thanks Guys.

I take Islam, Christianity, Judaism, monotheism and religion generally quite seriously. I am quite aware of why you say Muhammad is not to be called the founder of Islam, and have addressed this in the discussion page.

To wit, it's POV in the sense that Jews or Christians could just as well say, no, Adam/Noah/Abraham etc. was a Jew/Christian (p.s. as a Christian, I say Jesus was a Jew). Asking whether he was a Muslim is pointless as asking whether the first passerine was a finch, a robin or a nightengale. All we can really say about the early prophets is that they were monotheists in the Semitic tradition, and indeed that is all the scriptures say. All three religions acknowledge the chain of authority, but the chain is (at least explicitly) quite silent as to which descendent it prefers. Hence we do not say that Muhammad is the founder of Abrahamic monotheism, which would be absurd, but only that he is the the founder of Islam as distinguished from other forms of said monotheism.

Unless you're prepared to call Judaism and Christianity types of Islam?

This is a serious and informed question you should address. Timothy Usher 08:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I do see your point. But please note that Many Muslims of course think that God is all-wise and when he forbids something, it either should have some (medical or social or …) reasons or it should be a test as to see who will follow it (such as direction of praying, or maybe eating the food on which the name of God has been said at the slaughter). In any case, I think I know why you are concerned about this. You think that some people think that the reason for not eating pork is X, Y, and Z. Now, if we make the pork meat in a way that avoids X, Y and Z, we will be fine. I understand this. --Aminz 10:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR
You have been found to be in violation of the three revert-rule at Zakir Naik, and have been blocked 24 hours. Do not attempt to use anonymous IPs or other accounts to edit during this block, as it will only result in a longer block for this account and indefinite blocks on all spare accounts you use. You are free to resume contributing to Wikipedia when your block expires. Cheers, NSL E (T+C) at 09:30 UTC (2006-03-28)


 * What is this? Why have I been blocked???? What do you mean by this? RedCrescent 09:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why I can only edit this page?????? RedCrescent 09:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:3RR, one of our policies. You have violated that policy (by making four reverts) at the page stated above. The block is for 24 hours, but you are allowed to edit your talk page. NSL E (T+C) at 09:38 UTC (2006-03-28)

What is this revert????? I look and you only block her less than me! This is wrong!

When this is fixed I will file complaint against you for this rude behavior, once I find the right channel.


 * She self-admitted. It is the admin's judgment to hand out blocks. I'd advise you to read this, if you still feel the block is wrong please place unblock on this page and another admin will look at it. Filing a complaint when I've donenothing wrong will just put you in bad light, and I'd not advise it. Still, feel free to contact another admin for help by using the unblock template. NSL E (T+C) at 09:41 UTC (2006-03-28)


 * I temporarily removed the unblock, I am discussing with another admin right now... NSL E (T+C) at 09:47 UTC (2006-03-28)

Alright, since Zora was blocked for 6 hours, I have shortened your block to the same time period. When your block expires, please use the talkpage to discuss whatever problems you have with the article. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

To NSLE: I do not understand much of this but I am reading. I just read on your talk that Zora has said about me that I have a "direct line to Allah"! What is this?! When did I say that? Look at my edits please, I have never claimed that I speak with God or that I speak for God. I find that offensive and that is very rude. RedCrescent 09:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've not accused you of that. I hold no personal opinion of you. NSL E (T+C) at 09:53 UTC (2006-03-28)


 * Please read again Zora's comment on your talk and then see what I am saying. To Sjakkale: thank you though I am not sure why this "block" is, but at least seems fair. RedCrescent 09:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You see this on your talk: "We have a brand-new user named RedCrescent who believes that he has a direct line to Allah" - that is from "Zora". RedCrescent 09:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is on my talk. That sentence is not made by me, I hold no opinion of you, nor it. It is not rude nor incivil to a neutral reading that sentence, mayhaps slightly poorly phrased. I do not have any intention to act on something so trivial. NSL E (T+C) at 09:57 UTC (2006-03-28)


 * This is very rude of "Zora" to say this and why she says it? because I am Muslim?! I have never claimed that I speak with God or that I speak for God. You cannot tell me that this is right way of talking with another human being who is of different religion. RedCrescent 09:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why you not ask someone else what they think of that? Sjakalle, what is your opinion? Is it okay for another person to talk to another person like this, saying that I have a "direct line with Allah"? RedCrescent 09:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, she was wrong to claim that. However, this is a trivial matter. It does not violate any Wikipedia policies and thus is not actionable on. At best it was poorly phrased; at worst a tad bit impolite. NSL E (T+C) at 10:01 UTC (2006-03-28)


 * Well I will not forget it and I will watch and record any other comment that she makes like that, and if there is proper way for complaint here, I will do so. As Muslim I deal with too much of this in person, stereotype and bias like this and that, and I do not wish to deal with this online as well with people I cannot even see. Here on this medium is suppposed to be more neutral, or that is what is said. Thank you. RedCrescent 10:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You were blocked because of excessive reversions. The WP:3RR was made to prevent "edit-warring", where two people disagree about an article and set about reverting each other. Be advised of some other things: if you make another reversion to Zakir Naik article when the block expires, you will be violating the 3RR again, and be subject to a block again. Also, the 3RR does not give you a set "quota" of three reversions per day, users may still be sanctioned for reverting five times in 25 hours for instance. If there is a dispute over the content of an article, you should use the associated talkpage (at Talk:Zakir Naik) instead of just insisting upon your version. Finally, more experienced users than you, even administrators, have run afoul of the 3RR so don't take it too personally. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

can you help me
see whats wrong here [] and correct it