Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/MiscArchive 1

Thomas Cleary
Has any body seen thomas cleary's translation of Quran. Some friends in U.K. told me that it is the best translation available. Judging from his previous works ( I have read his books on Taoism ), he seems to be a very nice *not very sceptical* orientalist , a brand that is very difficult to find. F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 21:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have it. It's not very scholarly and it's not complete. He speaks no Arabic (he's a Buddhist scholar, expert in classical Chinese) and he's just "poeticized" other translations. Of all the translations I've seen, the Arberry seems the soundest and also the most impressive in English. Since I don't read Arabic (yet), I can't vouch for its fidelity, but it appears to convey something of the poetic flavor of the original. Zora


 * I have it, and it's known for its poetics... I haven't gone through it all, but it's interesting... I enjoyed what little I read of it... however, if your goal is to get close to the true word of God I'm not sure it's the best... although, the best might be to read it, a literal, and a semantic reading together to get different aspects. Since I'm not sure how perfectly versed anyone is in classical Arabic it doesn't seem like a bad way... but, personally I'm not so concerned about accuracy. gren グレン 09:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

 * Eid Mubarak everyone! --Striver 12:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * To all: Eid Mubarak. May your prayers be mustajab. (Sorry for my delay. I have the flu, and cant commute to my office frequently anymore).--Zereshk 23:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Eid Mubarak and best wishes from me too. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 00:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Merry eid to all. -- 1Muslim 17:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's just turned Eid here.. Ireland.. we've always marched to a different beat! Eid Mubarak! --Irishpunktom\talk 18:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Major clean up
I have done a major clean up of this talk page because it was getting hard to find out what is new and old. I have archived old discussions including member intros. If you have any concerns then tell me. Thanks -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 21:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Good initiative and job! --Striver 22:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I like the changes, too. -- Juan Muslim 06:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Nice work, thank you anon. BrandonYusufToropov 18:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone. :) -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 22:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Permanent personal attack on the project page
Is it appropriate to have a permanent personal attack on the WikiProject page? - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  21:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Did'nt contemplate on that, it now fixed, thanks! --Striver 00:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It may not belong on the project page, but I'm not entirely sure it's a personal attack. I believe it is a thoroughly credible statement of fact regarding this user. If the fact is unflattering, that's not Xed's fault. The message is worth reading, but I agree it does not belong on the project page. BrandonYusufToropov 13:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it is germane to mention that Ed Poor (Uncle Ed) has written before that he thinks "All terrorists are Islamic", and has even created articles to support this contention. So when he says he would like to see "Muslim thought described accurately and fairly," this may not mean what it says. Indeed, his attitude is completely opposite to the views laid out in "Mission", above. - Xed 11:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I can see that as an appropriate talk page discussion or even, at extreme, a reason to exclude someone from membership. However, as part of the project page without a medium for response and discussion it is just an attack.  (That is assuming that you are allowing users to describe themselves - or even describe how they wish to act in this project.  If so, you must allow an individual that benefit of the doubt and allow them freedom of self-expression.  If they do not live up to it proceed as I said above.  Discuss it here or remove them from the membership.) -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  15:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Cool project page image
Nicely done! BrandonYusufToropov 13:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, really nice! Now, one cant resist having it on the Userpage:P --Striver 13:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

JuanMuslim already knows I like his graphics. ;) -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 18:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! So, I've created two images. - For The Muslim Guild as well as - For anyone interested in adding it to their user or talk page.--Juan Muslim 04:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Moving messages
'The following is copied from respective talk page after striver moved a message to his comment section, and BrandonYusufToropov reverted part of that, keeping his comment on the Ali article section.


 * ''I figured that the discusion was not about the Ali article in particular, but about me, so i moved it to where it was appropiate. I let Zora have the final word and gave a link to the follow up. What is the problem? --Striver 17:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * ''The problem is that I want you to leave my content on the page where I placed it. BrandonYusufToropov 17:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * ''If want to make sure nobody misses it, then by all means, place a "Important: Ongoing talk with Striver on his comment page" on the "Misc and recent (not relating to articles)" part of the guild, but the talk, as it is going now is not related to the Ali article. Im i not correct? --Striver 17:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * ''See the clarification on the original talk page. Please do not move my remarks to pages where I didn't put them unless we talk about it first. BrandonYusufToropov 17:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Statement: I regard BrandonYusufToropov insitance on having a a comment that concerns me to be put on a article that is not directly relevant to the comment a gesture of bad faith. I did sugest to him that he could take steps to ensure nobody would miss the comment, but Brandon insist on having it where it is not directly relevant.


 * Question 1: Is it ok to move a missplaced text to the appropriate section without asking permisin first?


 * Question 2: Is it ok to insist on having a text message missplaced without proper motivation? --Striver 17:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's my idea -- don't take on the pseudo-editorial role of moving or archiving conversations in which you are personally involved. It will look like you're not being objective. BrandonYusufToropov 18:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, to be practical, how should i have moved that text to the appropriate section whithout lookin biased?


 * Also, i suppose the answers to my questions are (1) Yes (2) No. Or? Peace! --Striver 18:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Salam brother. I suppose i can take this as a silent consent? Im going to move your text to my page, unless you give a good reason for it to remain on the section about the Ali article. Peace. --Striver 21:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I take your repeated silence as a consent and are therefore proceeding to move the text in question to my comment section. Peace! --Striver 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)