User talk:AAA765/Archive 9

I see you're really active. But please keep in mind the WP:3rr. There are users also watching you, who want to see you blocked.Bless sins 03:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I filed an RfC on Martin Gilbert‎. --Aminz 04:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, there seemed to be a consensus that some appropriately-restrained version of the "sincerity" issue can be included in the Muhammad article. If we can keep this brief and non-devotional in character and stick closely to the point, without gratuitous POV quotes ("great religion"), the material will probably stick. There does seem to be broad agreement that Muhammad did believe himself to be receiving messages from the beyond; the question of whether this was true of every revelation can be avoided.Proabivouac 21:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Muhammad is no longer protected, now would be a good time to add the sincerity material. I would suggest, "Contemporary scholars assume Muhammad to have been sincere in his belief that he was receiving divine revelations," followed by your cites to Watt, Lewis, Schimmel and whoever else has said this.Proabivouac 01:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. Arrow740 07:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your frustration you have revert warred and are now threatening to report me. Maybe you should just try to edit in a calm, reasonable manner like I do. Arrow740 07:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are you threatening me, or what? You are the one who never listens to consensus on any page. Arrow740 07:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that Beit Or did what no one else in this space was able or willing to do: ground the discussion in history.Proabivouac 09:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aminz! I hate it when companies try to use WP to sell things. It's nice of you to help. Zora 10:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my question for you on Proabivouac's page? Arrow740 11:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you just want WP to be better but the revert you did was to an older version that several people agreed was not neutral. Zora has beg\haved in a very dishonest, fashion as she hates MLM and has done her best to make that an anti-xango site. Just go through the history and you will see what I mean. She is engaging in POV pushing.Jspugh 05:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you took part in the straw poll. Please visit the talk page to engage in the discussion, so we may build consensus. Vassyana 00:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the section I added on racism. I think anti-Muslim racism has not been properly covered in wikipedia. There is no category for Islamophobes. Sangak 10:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Ben Bot. I am surprised to see such statements comming from Netherlands! Sangak 11:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mukataba, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You voiced your opinion in the original straw poll which has caused some confusion. Please do the same in a new version, Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion_.28untainted.29, which should be clear and allow us to better assess consensus. gren グレン 22:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you aminz.your idea of including the jewish pre-islamic belief doesn't sound like a bad idea at all.the reason why i want to include the gospel of st barnabas is because he is still looked at with respect from christians and he still has followers.i don't see any reason why he shouldn't be included.Wjhonson clarified my point.please help me with any tips on how to include my entry as well as include yours.thank you Grandia01

It really wasn't me. And if you're going to add to that page please read my responses to these spurious claims first. Thank you. Arrow740 23:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Among the candidates, "Arrow740,Beit Or, Hypnosadist, Karl Meier, Merzbow, Proabivouac, Sefringle, Str1977", it is certainly not "Beit Or, Hypnosadist, Merzbow, Proabivouac, Str1977, Sefringle". It is not " Karl Meier" because he is not much active. Further, I can see all the evidences pointing to you. --Aminz 00:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i would be willing to consider this claim of innocence did i not think that it crumbled in the face of the rather obvious postings on FFI, or that your counter-accusation was anything more than a good old fashioned diversionary tactic, or that you simply refused to address the evidences head-on without falling into non-sequitur. ITAQALLAH 00:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign if any of these things applies to your understanding of this issue. Please put you name under all of the options you think would be acceptable. You can sign all or none of these, I'm hoping this will give us a more-fine grained understanding of the issue. [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Futurebird (talk • contribs) 21:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have posted some info, that may be of use to youUser:Bless_sins/notes#Islam_and_slavery.Bless sins 18:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salam alaykum.

I compare the current version of Qur'an article whith the last version I 've edited on November 9. I found that some parts are defected. They become biased, incomplete or weaker. What's the reason.--Sa.vakilian 10:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Beit Or 11:50, 12 February, Beit Or said that Watt believes that Muhammad attacked Khaybar to raise prestige amongst his followers, and quoted the following:

"Perhaps it was on the way back from the pilgrimage manqué that the idea occurred to Muhammad of attacking the rich Jewish oasis of Khaybar. The Muslims were disappointed at the apparent fruitlessness of their expedition to al-Hudaybiyah, and it was only natural for an Arab like Muhammad to feel that virtue should not be allowed to go unrewarded. So when he set out for Khaybar some six weeks after his return from Mecca, he allowed only those who had made the Pledge under the Tree to accompany him."

However, read the next paragraph: "Even if this was one of the points in Muhammad's mind, there were also weighty military reasons for the expedition. The Jews of Khaybar, especially the leaders of the clan an-Nadir exiled from Medina, were still incensed at Muhammad. They made lavish, though no doubt judicious, of thier wealth to induce the neighbouring Arabs to take up arms against the Muslims. This was a straightforawrd reason for attacking Khaybar."

Note Watt's language. He uses the words "perhaps", and "it was only natural" to describe the first reason. And then, Watt uses "weighty military reasons" to describe the second reason and say that "This was a straightforawrd reason for attacking Khaybar". Clearly Watt favors the second reason over the first.Bless sins 20:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? That doesn't make Watt not agree with the one reason, any more than Vaglieri doesn't agree with Watt. In both cases the reasons aren't really contradictory - something you see clearly in one instance, but apparently not here. Even Haykal comes close to stating this, as the Qur'an itself presents the booty of Khaybar as a reward for his loyal followers who got nothing from Hudaybiyah, stating that they should not accept aid from anyone else, lest they have to share the rewards. It's a mere matter of emphasis, a nuance we don't have to capture.Proabivouac 06:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you are Muslim. You input is desire at Jihad article talk page. Thanks. --- SAndT^{Lets Talk} 17:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a template on Hojimachong's talk as to how we should resolve the dispute. Please leave a comment regarding this on my talk page.Bless sins 20:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a full source for this [3], i.e. name of author, publisher, date published etc. Jazak Allah.Bless sins 04:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation was requested a while ago, and Ive responded. None involved in mediation has responded however. I am requesting your presence at the article to resolve any disputes. Thanks. -Ste|vertigo 01:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the problem is. I have read some about the differences between European antisemitism and its important into the Arab world. I'm not fully sure they said only through Christian Arabs... but, I don't know what's going on with that page. gren グレン 11:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think most scholars agree that Jews were treated or ill-treated like Christians in the classical times. Therefore antisemitism(as it is defined) doesn't have a root in the Qur'an. But the section starts with a section on the Qur'an making the impression that most scholars agree that the Qur'an and example of Muhmmad were antisemitic. That's what I percieve as the problem. --Aminz 11:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look what he did to the Jews and what it says in the Quran how can you say he wasn't? I'm not talking about his "justifications" for his views, I'm just talking about his views from Medina on. Arrow740 21:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky call isn't it. I guess this turns on whether we judge anti-semitism by the standards of the time or by our standards? The same question I guess is open about whether the Bible or Qur'an oppress women? Personally (at the risk of upsetting both of you) I would be inclined to include reference to this question in the article? --BozMo talk 09:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism has a narrow definition. Mark Cohen states:"most scholars concede that Arab anti-Semitism in the modern world arose relatively recently, in the nineteenth century, against the backdrop of conflicting Jewish and Arab nationalism, and was imported into the Arab world primarily by nationalistically minded Christian Arabs (and only subsequently was it "Islamized")" --Aminz 10:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's one person's view. Arrow740 16:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wish to say that I really liked it. It is good to hear him in Farshi and I can understand some of it too. He looks very innocient person when talking Farshi. Kudari.. -:) --- ALM 03:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking that out. In the video, he does look innocent but also striking foolish unfortunately. --Aminz 10:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tour with Zakir Naik may be in order.Proabivouac 00:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My question is, does he know this to be false, or has he been misled by an advisor?Proabivouac 07:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no idea. He is probably talking in some obscure mosque in an obscure city to audiences who would believe in these. --Aminz 07:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you removed the picture from the top in the Mohamed article? Please explain. TharkunColl 00:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see that Aminz has removed anything; he has only restored the image which was there before. I agree with you that it is not particularly notable; however this is a minor point in the scheme of the overall debate. It is certainly better than the uncredited clipart that it replaced.Proabivouac 00:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may look into this in the next few days. I still have a backlog of things to do on the NAS page, though. CJCurrie 03:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Aminz, in reference to the dhimmi article I believe that the Tolerence section should go, but that much of the information contained in can be retained in the article. I think that keeping things in context can be importaint, but having a seperate section looks like we are appologizing for what was done in the past. It seemed to me that the original section was saying "Yes, islam did this, but look at what others did." The argument is unnecissary in my mind because we have no need or business appologizing for what people did hundreds of years ago and that a simular case could be made for just about any other historical event.

If it is any consolidation, I feel that the information contained in the article is correct. However, I just don't think it fits well in the article.

If one wished to defend the honor if Islam, there are better edits that can be fought over. For instance, I know that in the middle period of the ottoman period, christians would actually bribe officials to take their children to be jannisarries (although I could not cite it.) Also, dhimmi status did not prevent minority religions from competing and even prospering in society. No european nation could say the same. However, if this info is to be added citations must be found.

Thank You.--67.175.242.13 06:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit summary, please don't be dense. My edit summary made my thinking clear. Arrow740 07:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your meatpuppetry, I'll just have to respond in kind. Arrow740 09:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are good scholarly references for the fact that Christian and Jewish communities prospered in the later Ottoman period. Let me know if there is somewhere you think this is relevant and I will give you the titles. Itsmejudith 22:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "I don't know why we can not understand each other." I think I do understand your position, but sorry, I do not consider it valid. "Qur’anic positions often reflect disputes between Jewish groups." - so what, Christianity did exactly the same. Jesus, the apostles, gospel writers etc. all were Jewish and criticized other Jews (it is a national sport). Later on, these polemics were picked up by the Christians and we all know what followed. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all no. What happenened? --BozMo talk 15:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aminz, I wouldn't worry too much about what it included in anti-semitism if I were you: it is only a word. There is a balance between the narrowness/power/usefulness of a "portfolio" concept like this and the extent to which it is diluted and undermined. These days here quite often even Jews are described as "anti-semitic" and the currency is (sadly) steadily being devalued. If all sorts of bits of history are thrown in (a lot more is available) then it turns into a PC concept rather than a really serious matter: a shame but not worth playing King Canute for. --BozMo talk 14:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of antisemitism shows that it is not "only a word" or merely "a PC concept". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proof by Wikipedia :). I guess all words equally are or are not "only a word", and I respect that fact that this word is something that you obviously care about rather more than I do. At the same time, it is obviously possible to understand human history pretty well with or without the interpretative concept of "anti-semitism", as with many interpretative concepts (as for "Acts of God" for example). Whether it is useful in giving some people insight or identity depends on with how much respect the term is treated. These days the term is devaluing every time anyone tries to extract value from it for other ends. Whether it is devaluing from a Swiss Franc from a Zloty depends on for whom but the people who over-use it politically clearly are those for whom its value is very high. --BozMo talk 09:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Just to add I have had a look at History of antisemitism: what strikes me as most extraordinary is not so much that the Jewish people have been persecuted from time to time but that alone amongst 6000 year old ethnic-based religions from the middle east (of which there were many) Judaism has survived. Perhaps celebration of this element of Jewish history should be expressed more? --BozMo talk 10:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit busy now but will continue this soon. --Aminz 09:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem: sorry to continue chatting on your page... --BozMo talk 10:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Jewish history, Jewish culture and Jewish religion are not defined by antisemitism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we agree on that. What I still don't know is how remarkable or surprising (or actually how important) antisemitism is in the context of Jewish history. There are lots of groups of people I can think of who sometimes define themselves in terms of oppression and victimisation and sometimes don't: the scots or welsh or Irish for example. Despite the article you suggested I cannot really see whether the Holocaust was a nasty anomaly (in the context of Jews being treated only as badly as other similar groups) or a quitessence of something more pervasive. Realistically people who were born a decade after WW2 now have grandchildren and defining AS in the context of the future seems increasingly important to me than the past. --BozMo talk 09:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could get the ball rolling by nominating a version to revert to. Or has it been reverted to that already? regards Merbabu 00:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salam alaykum. Please check my editions in this article.--Sa.vakilian 12:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: this edit was made in error --ProtectWomen 06:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aminz, I recommend that you readd those words to Muhammad but in a "quote" style or otherwise provide some sort of an immediately verifiable reference. Cheers. (→Netscott) 14:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aminz, I've just reverted your last edit to Muhammad. The way you introduced that text wasn't neutral. If you reintroduce that text would you kindly do so in a quote style? The way you entered just now wasn't neutral. Thanks. (→Netscott) 05:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, I provided the quote was provided on your talk page. --Aminz 07:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salam (peace), A while ago we were involved in a dispute over Martin Gilbert where Jayjg removed criticism of the author saying that if there were no positive things thus there should be no negative things either. nOw, please take a look at Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais. The article is overwhelmed by the criticism of the man. What do you think should be done with this article?Bless sins 03:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to make of this edit.[5] Aaliyah has a doctorate in philosophy of religion, specializing in Kalam, with emphases also in Arabic and Islamic jurisprudence. That is a very big deal for this space, and I'd like to verify it. I don't understand why Arrow740 popped up and started talking about Taqiyya, and now I don't understand why you're going on about Madhabs and not sharing personal information with Arrow740. It's completely random. I'd just like to verify her credentials without her having to post information on Wikipedia. Arrow740 has nothing to do with this. If she (or you) doesn't trust me, fine, there are other trustworthy people who I'm sure would be willing to help. Unless you, like Arrow740, are determined to assume that there is something fishy about her story (and I don't see why you would,) there's nothing to get frantic about.Proabivouac 04:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to be proven wrong, and more generally I won't post my analysis of her userpage in the future. Arrow740 05:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about what sort of information Aaliyah wants to publish. Also, it is important to note that she was actively asked to provide more information about her (saying she is just a teacher is not a big deal). Anyways, it is none of my business. All I know is that she doesn't have to do it according to the policies, and if I were her, I wouldn't have done it given the special interest Arrow had to know this (which is suspicous to me). Having degrees in any subject is not important in wikipedia. What we need for any claim to be proven is sourced material. --Aminz 09:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"given the special interest Arrow had to know this" what are you talking about? Arrow740 10:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Isaac you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Isaac for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Good work.Proabivouac 01:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Aminz 04:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can do email, instant message, or whatever with which you can come up. I look forward to it. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 06:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please check your gmail. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 05:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it says you're offline. I would like to use gmail chat to speak with you some time. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 05:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi again,i'm still waiting of your would-be entry of the jewish expectation of the coming prophet from their tribes.please let me know how can we work on it.it definitely sounds interesting.hope to see your discussions soon.. Grandia01 18:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aminz. It's a sunny morning here and I have to go and get breakfast now. I think perhaps it's still last night where you are! Itsmejudith 06:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me why you removed the references from FFI and POD here? If you say they're not reliable sources, why not? --Matt57 12:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are writing a scientific encyclopedia. --Aminz 04:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aminz,

There is one week left for final changes to the 2007 Wikipedia CD Selection. I am after a couple of people of different religious views to have a quick look through the relevant pages on Islam, Israel, Palestine etc. I have asked Arrow740 as well. I don't promise to make any changes but I will seriously consider it if you think some of the version adopted are POV.

The 2006 CD has an estimated circulation of over 50,000 so its worth getting as good as possible. The most recent viewable copy is at : [6]. Changes planned are listed at Wikipedia:2006 Wikipedia CD Selection in terms of (1) articles currently included to exclude (2)articles to add (3) articles to update because the version listed is vandalised (4) sections to exclude (mainly on appropriateness to children) (5) string deletes and spelling corrections (to UK English) (6) redirects of common article names to the main article. Navigation and search pages are being sorted separately. Please let me know of any issues if you see any. Thanks. --BozMo talk 13:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC) See especially: Muhammad, Palestinian territories, West Bank, Israel, Lebanon, Jew, Judaism, Islam and any shocking omissions? --BozMo talk 15:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes...fair point, I am reviewing what we can include. The main problems with references and footnotes are (1) on an offline version we cannot include links (although we could quote the URLs) (2) children don't really understand them and (2) unlinked lists are very boring. I am not sure about whether to put them in or whether to just refer everyone to the online WP as the source. I will update the articles you mention to a more recent version--BozMo talk 20:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear interested editor:
Please visit here: [7] in the next few days and give your vote and your proposals on how the lead may be reworked and reformed to meet GA criteria before next nomination.DavidYork71 04:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Miller_(Abdul-Ahad_Omar)

User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 11:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, I wonder? Arrow740 19:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? You've been the incivil one recently with your vague aspersions. Arrow740 21:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You made an accusation on the Muhammad's talk page and I asked you not to repeat your rude comments. Now, I can see you are posting that on Itaqallah's page. --Aminz 21:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no accusation. I pointed out that you took a quote and reported the second half of it as the whole truth when the first half goes against your POV. That's an unfortunate choice. Arrow740 21:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which part went against my POV? What are you talking about? --Aminz 21:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"when Muhammad encountered contradiction, ridicule and rejection from the Jewish scholars in Medina, he came to adopt a radically more negative view of the people of the Book who had received earlier scriptures." This indicates that the Jews rejected Muhammad because he clearly a fraud, and he got angry at them, and subsequently exterminated them. You only included "he was concerned that they were being stupid." Arrow740 22:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, where did you got the quote:"he was concerned that they were being stupid." Did you just made it up? I don't remember I added such a thing.

If you read further, you can article says: "Many Medinans converted to the faith of the Meccan immigrants, but the Jewish tribes did not. Much to Muhammad's disappointment, they ridiculed and rejected his claim to be a prophet. Their opposition "may well have been for political as well as religious reasons". On religious grounds, the Jews were skeptical of the possibility of a non-Jewish prophet, and also had concerns about possible incompatibilities between the Qur'an and their own scriptures."

You can see all three elements: 1. ridiculed 2. rejection of his claim 3. incompatibilities between the Qur'an and their own scriptures

Please stop your baseless accusations. --Aminz 22:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However is a perfectly valid word to use. However, as I and at least two other editors have noted, you use it too much. It should not be used to connect phrases that not closely related, and it should not be used to produce a run-on sentence. Arrow740 07:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that the source used that to explain the sentence further. I think it is not proper to stop quoting the source at that point. --Aminz 07:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, Lewis quote seems to be word by word. So I think it should be placed between " "s. I am refering to the Lewis's quote "The Qur'an was promulgated in Mecca and Medina in the seventh century, and the background against which Qur'anic legislation must be seen is ancient Arabia. The Arabs practiced a form of slavery, similar to that which existed in other parts of the ancient world. The Qur'an accepts the institution, though it may be noted that the word 'abd (slave) is rarely used, being more commonly replaced by some periphrasis such as ma malakat aymanukum, "that which your right hands own." The Qur'an recognizes the basic inequality between master and slave and the rights of the former over the latter (XVI:71; XXX:28)..."

I don't understand what you're saying. "The Qur'an recognizes..." clearly starts a new idea, the discussion of important verses. Arrow740 07:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nomination, but I'll have to decline. I like just being an ordinary editor. - Merzbow 16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read it where I am, can you tell me what that Arabic word is in the fifth line of the EoI article? Arrow740 03:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be pronounced as raqiq(k with a dot inside it i guess is pronounced as q in quran) but I don't know its Arabic meaning. You might want to use some Arabic dictionary. --Aminz 07:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Arrow740 07:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salam. I want to gather some issues in one section in Islam#Islamic thought and literature . These are teology, philosophy, Erfan nazari(Sufi cosmology), ethics and litrature. All of these issues make Ulum Islami which want to describe the universe and nature. Now what should we do with some other issues comprising historiography, ethics, natural knowledge or science and socio-political thouth. We can make a separate part instead of Islamic thought and literature and call it Ulum Muslemin. It can't translate Ulum correctly because Science and philosophy are more specific and on the other hand knowledge isn't specific. I use Muslemin instead of Islam because they don't necessarily Islamic. What's your idea? Is it correct to gather all of them in Islam article or should have another article (e.g. Culture and civilization of Muslims) . I got confused.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aminz, would you and Itaqallah keep an eye on this article as well? David York appears to be editing with the notion that if something is Arab then it is by default Islamic... Thanks. (→Netscott) 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam was the political system of the Arabs until the 20th century. Arrow740 18:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know that i removed your edits to the 300 article. You added a paragraph to the lead that was unnecessary; the Lead, as per the MOS is supposed to be an overview of the article, and forego specifics. As well, the grammar and flow of your resultant edits regarding the criticism section was a bit shaky, and I thought it could be corrected easily, but I kept running into more issues, so I reverted the section prior to the edits. I know that makes me seem like a jerk, and I wanted you to know that I did not do it to be mean or arbitrary.I know you meant well. I have found that, as an article approaches qualification for GA or FA status, that that process is aided greatly when the editors discuss their changes on the article's discussion page before making them. This helps to cut down on bruised feelings and edit wards while fostering a feeling of concensus and teamwork. If I can answer any questions you might have, please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to hearing frm you in the Discussion page when you propose some changes. Cheers! -Arcayne 05:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue this on the discussion page. I have started a section on the discussion page. Thanks. --Aminz 05:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was one line in there that I thought was particularly memorable, I wonder if you can guess which one? Arrow740 22:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately since I am not familiar with the Buddist literature, I can not connect and appreciate them as one is expected to do. --Aminz 03:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean the movie 300, have you seen it? Arrow740 03:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have neither watched it nor have the plan to watch it in the future. --Aminz 03:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your decision to edit the article was in reaction to the movie. Arrow740 06:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read a couple of reviews of the film. --Aminz 08:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you get the time, can you help fix this article?--Sefringle 02:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wikilinktool is cool isn't it? See you. (→Netscott) 09:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal: see Wikipedia:Administrators#Dealing with grievances. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I made a mistake while performing an admin action, please point it out to me and I'll be happy to reconsider, correct or apologize if I was wrong. If you took it upon yourself to ask some other/all admins to renew their adminship, please be so kind to show the diffs of such requests. Otherwise I will assume that you decided to harass me because of content disputes. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what your grievances have to do with my adminship. Looks like you are trying to get rid of an opponent in content dispute. Please review Wikipedia:Harassment. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and initiate my recall. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that normal editors are no different from admins. As a matter of fact, I agree with those who favor retitling WP admin into WP janitor. In that light, since you have not shown which my admin action you are so "concerned" with, I still do not understand why my adminship bothers you. Frankly, I value my time more than that, but your harassment is duly noted. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other half of this talk: [8] --Aminz 01:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aminz, you're out of line and bordering on harrassment. This is clearly a matter of one editor with personal grievances and has nothing to do with admin functions. If you have a specific dispute, please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for proper avenues of seeking resolution. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but how do you know the view of the majority of the community? And my point wasn't personal grievances. I think Humus sapeins is not sufficiently familiar with the wikipedia policies. He edit wars; and has a strong POV. All these are points of concern.

If you are certain that the dominant majority of the editors support his adminship, then why are you showing this re-action to my request? Isn't it true that admins are no different from normal editors except that they have the community support? --Aminz 08:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to recall the adminship of your opponent is not the way to deal with a content dispute, particularly when it has nothing to do with admin functions. It appears you're making this personal with him, instead of handling it in a reasonable way. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object your usage of the word "opponent"? opponent in what sense? I have come to understand, yes through a content dispute, that he is not sufficiently familiar with the policies (or alternatively ignores them). This would affect the dicisions he is going to make in the future. My concern is not about that specific content dispute. --Aminz 09:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opponent...you are on opposite sides of a content dispute. I think you've been asked and as yet have not provided specific examples of where you believe he has misused admin functions in the dispute. Can you demonstrate where exactly he, as an admin, has enforced policy that you believe shows lack of familiarity? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reviewed his past admin actions but I "personally" believe that he does not pass the usuall standards applied in the process of "request for adminship".

As to our dispute, I think Humus sapiens is not aware of the usage of primary sources in wikipedia. In this diff [9], he is restoring something which is backed up by primary sources. I posted a comment about this on the talk page to the effect that the quotes attributed to Muhammad and the very early literature of Islam are primary sources. Further, it would be original research to take some quotes from primary sources and draw conclusions from it. In any case, he hasn't joined the discussion. He has done 3 reverts so far in a day and I can show you many other examples of this (no comments on the talk page; 3 reverts in a day). I tried to neutralize the original research [10] ...--Aminz 10:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aminz -- I think you may be more qualified than me to discuss the creation of this article. Best, Mackan79 22:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aminz, I would have no problem to perform any consensual edit while the article is protected for editwarring. If you can point me to where all parties have clearly endorsed a proposed edit, I'll be glad to help. Crum375 12:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the various parties are making progress on reaching some compromise version. Can you just join their thread and ask about your proposal? I would prefer to have a clear cut mandate from all the editors letting me know what they agreed on. Also, if there is total agreement now among the regular editors to collaborate constructively, I'll be glad to unprotect the page. Crum375 22:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, please do. I didn't realize there were more than two sides involved, but however many sides there may be, they should all be accommodated. Clearly we can only have a single version in the article, so please try to find an acceptable common ground with all sides. Thanks, Crum375 00:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the suggestion. Arrow740 02:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Officer1.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make changes to the article ntil it has achieved a concensus within the Discussion page. this means that other editors get to weigh in on the merits and disadvantages of your proposed change. This is why there are notes in the edit page of each section to discuss the topic first. Discuss, not notify. I realize that might seem a fine distinction, but the article has achieved GA status based on its current state. It is in everyone's best interest to make changes that everyone is going to agree with. I will not immediately revert your edits, but I am guessing someone else will for precisely the reason I have stated above. In the future, please bring your proposed edits to the group before making them. Arcayne 07:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think I only applied those changes I considered to be least controversial. But we can discuss those as well on the talk page (I have already made mentioned them on the talk page). sorry anyways. --Aminz 07:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. I really do appreciate you understanding. The article has seen wave after wave of POV edits, from blanking the page to adding so much cruft about historical accuracy that the film just bloats. I know you are thinking clearly about your changes,and I welcome them. Just find out what the concensus was, like you did before, with the Farokhe discussion. I look forward to talking this stuff out on the Discussion Page Arcayne 10:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Despite what you may have been told, I like to help out. :) Cheers! Arcayne 08:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While restoring the archive, you inveterately deleted a bunch of comments by me and others. Please restore them. --Mardavich 00:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'll restore them soon. --Aminz 01:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo, I just wanted to thank you for your civil tone and willingness to discuss on 300, and to apologize if I was a bit sharp with you at the start. I'm confident that we'll be able to work together to develop a text that accurately represents the response to film. --Javits2000 08:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be better if we both did it this time, but show the process. Involved. Since Nader has indicated that I am the Big Bad Wolf who is disrupting all the pov editing (insert wild laughter at the absurdity of that), my archiving is goiing to be challenged. You select the topics to archive, and I will put them into the archive. Arcayne 05:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I am learning, the little possé is currently under the microscope by ArbCom. To get their attention, you have to screwing the system rather big time. Sounds like karma is bringing home the bacon.

Your plan to archive seems good. When you pulled the old stuff from archive, did you remove it from there, or was it just copied back to the main page? I ask, bc we don't need to duplicate the posts. Arcayne 06:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You archived the Farrokhe 2 before i could respond to your statement that westereners wouldn't react well to making fun of their religious icons. I wrote the following in response:

I would submit that Dogma, The Prophecy and innumerable comedy skits and comics that make fun of Jesus and Christianity or paint it in quite a dark light, up to and including equating the resurrection with the reanimation of a vampire (no kidding) - all of it with nary a bleat of anguish. the reason why is simple - they are recognized as not being real, and therefore not attacks on current ideas. The Herodotus account makes the persians look bad, and Miller went a step further and made them look bad. the film is widely complimented and acclaimed for its faithful reproduction of the comic. I would further submit that people need to grow a thicker skin:

Peter: As we all know, Christmas is that mystical time of year when the ghost of Jesus rises from the grave to feast on the flesh of the living! So we all sing Christmas Carols to lull him back to sleep.

Bob: Outrageous, How dare he say such blasphemy. I've got to do something.

Man #1: Bob, there's nothing you can do.

Bob: Well, I guess I'll just have to develop a sense of humor. -A Very Special Family Guy Freakin' Christmas (1)

Maybe you could also archive the Lead stuff as well. :) Arcayne 06:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More bits:

• Accurate historical Images: Summary of the content: inclusion of the following pictures in the article should read Summary of the content: inclusion or exclusion of the following pictures in the article Arcayne 07:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Not semi-historical, fictional per producers of the movie: Summary: Should the lead says: the move is a "semi-historical", a "semi-fictional", "according to X it is 90% historical and according to Y it is fictional" or other variants. Should instead read: Summary: Should the lead says: the move is a "semi-historical", a "semi-fictional", "according to X it is 90% historical and according to Y it is fictional" or that the such evaluation is immaterial Arcayne 07:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

by the way, aside from what I said above, I appreciate you stepping up to archive. Have a good day! :) Arcayne 07:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and thanks for your kind words during my enforced little sabbatical. This is what I get for expecting admins to get the point about article stabilizing. Clearly, admin is not synonymous for smart. Just a little bitter, but I'll get over it, and protect myself a little better in the future. Again, thanks for being able to debate a point politely. :) Arcayne 15:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the culture in which you were raised the same culture as Saudi Arabia Zanzibar or Indonesia? Of course not. It never was. The Umma which is a single "Islamic culture" is an aspiration of political Islamists, not a historical fact.Proabivouac 21:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to that on the Islam's talk page. I hope that clarifies it. --Aminz 21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This works for me.[11] Thank you.Proabivouac 01:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Merzbow suggested, I would also like to add a short summary of that to the section. Please see my last comment on the talk page. Thanks. --Aminz 01:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You miscounted. Maybe you should get some rest. Arrow740 08:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salam, please see my comments on Talk:Criticism of Islam. Compare Criticism of Islam with Antisemitism and Criticism of Judaism. Major double standards and patronising attitude from other editors who reject any objections from anyone opposing their anti-Islam POV. They are promoting people like Pat Robertson and Bat Ye'or - vicious anti-Muslim bigots - as "legitimate critics" of Islam! Why aren't Muslim editors doing something about this???? Khorshid 11:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salam, well he called me a troll and then pasted something sarcastic about "being easily offended" all over the place, so that is not right. For this edits, I posted them here on admins page [12]. The problem with people like Bat Ye'or is that they are promoting a conspiracy theory not a criticism, and same with Pat Robertson. I raise such concerns and then they tell me I am easily offended and that my opinion is garbage. Wikipedia is not here to satisfy anti-Muslim fervour in the name of "criticism". I try to avoid these topics because I get very angry when I come across prejudice. Their attitude is very patronising - by their logic, Wikipedia should entertain Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites as being "critics"! Its insane. Khorshid 05:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter, Aminz.Proabivouac 08:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Happy Easter to you too, Proabivouac. I wish you have a nice following year. --Aminz 08:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Aminz, thanks for your message. I don't really think that David is gaming the system because he has demonstrated that he has absolutely no regard whatsoever for the fact the system even exists! As far as his block goes, I agree he should be indefinitely blocked, but I feel it should be done by way of a community ban. I currently regard his month block to be reset each time he creates a new sockpuppet and so I guess if he continues creating sockpuppets, he will be effectively indefinitely blocked. However, I think a community ban proposal would succeeed and I think that is the step we should take. A community ban on the person operating the DavidYork account would be of much more help than a single admin indefinitely blocking his account. If we have a community ban in place, it will be much easier to obtain checkusers on any future sockpuppets since "evasion of community-based bans or blocks" is one of the criteria for a RFCU. Thanks for your work keeping on top of the sockpuppets and for letting me know when you need sock blocks. Cheers, Sarah 10:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FayssalF,

User:DavidYork is gaming the system by creating sockpuppets and violating his block. During his block, he has so far created at least 10 socks(7 users + 3 IPs) blocked one after another by a couple of admins; has also further used these accounts to votestack for the Hitler article to be chosen for the GA article drive. Please see my suggestion here: [13] . Thanks --Aminz 09:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aminz. Has any of the socks been created after my last warning at his talk page? Please provide me w/ facts. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Aminz, thanks for letting me know. For a number of reasons, I don't agree with extending the block without any RFCU evidence but I agree with exclusion so I guess it doesn't matter. I have to do a couple of things irl, but then I'm going to try to come back and have a look at David's account and possibly propose a community ban. If you have any particular diffs or anything else that you feel should be included in a proposal, please let me know. That's an open invitation to anyone who may happen to read this. Thanks, Aminz. Sarah 23:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you changing modern to contemporary everywhere? Arrow740 03:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it a positive change, as "modern" includes connotations which "contemporary" does not.Proabivouac 05:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can then change references to Esposito et al from "modern" to "contemporary." Arrow740 05:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern times started from around french revolution, I think. It is a historical era. Contemporary was a more precise word there. --Aminz 06:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aminz, I notice you keep leaving messages for Tom Harrison. Unless it is something particularly specific Tom is not going to be able to assist you. You'll do better to compile your issues into an WP:RFC. (→Netscott) 08:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Scott. I think one day I would eventually compile an RfC. Unforunately it is very time-consuming. --Aminz 08:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Islamic Hell of Imam Khamenei is probably User:Patchouli. (→Netscott) 11:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fayssal,

Since David has access to a floating ip address and creates new accounts, would you please sprotect the articles he has been active in for some time. It discourages him of making new accounts. Thanks. Here are the list of some articles: Terrorism in Australia,Homosexuality , Islam and slavery, Women in Islam, 1926 Slavery Convention, United Nations 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, Child servitude, 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Thanks --Aminz 20:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do so, as this the only practical way to stop him from violating his block.Proabivouac 21:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure guys if that would be the appropriate action to take. I suggest you just revert his socks on the spot for now. If it gets worse then we can sprotect them. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You put a tag in the Islam and Women article. Can I ask why? I didnt see you open up a discussion. Tags should not be inserted into articles, unless you have opened up a discussion and pointed out the issues you want to address. If you didnt open up a discussion on it, please remove the tag and any other tags which you might have put in articles. --Matt57 16:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you did not respond to my query. In future please dont insert tags into articles without opening up a discussion on the talk page explaining clearly why you inserted the tag. Unnecessary tags make the article look ugly. --Matt57_{(Talk•Contribs)} 23:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've missed it. [14] --Aminz 00:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok sorry. You did put in the explanation about 10 hours after you put inthe tag, so I missed it. I've replied there now. Thats the only line you could find? Please discuss more on the article's page if there are more so we can improve them. --Matt57^{(talk•contribs)} 01:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aghajan, please understand that so-called "critics" like Bat Ye'or are not really critics, but promoters of conspiracy theories. Have you read her despicably racist anti-Arab, anti-Muslim book? She actually believes Arabs and Muslims are taking over Europe and are trying to rule the world - how is that different from say, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion??? Or have you ever heard Pat Robertson and other evangelists talk about how Mohammad was a "pedophile" and a mass murderer? This is no different than antisemitism, but the difference is that these days, it is no longer considered civil to attack and bait Jews, but it is considered proper and civil to attack and bait Muslims (and anyone who is perceived to be Muslim or who "look" Muslim, whatever the hell that means).

I can accept people like Ibn Warraq (though he is not a scholar and far from an educaated expert on Islam) and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (again not a scholar) as critics, despite their often extreme viewpoints, but when someone like Ye'or promotes racist conspiracy theories and Robertson indulges in Muslim-baiting, it becomes impossible to take them seriously. Their views should not be part of any legitimate article on "criticism of Islam". Its one to compromise with people who harbour anti-Muslim sentiments, but its another thing to let them get away with whatever they want. This is Wikipedia, not a forum for Islamophobia. So far I've been attacked several times by the likes of Merzbow and yet admins have done nothing. That says alot about the attitude of WP to Muslims and people who want to promote balance of Islam articles. Khorshid 22:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am wishing you the same: Happy Easter. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, gimme a couple. Rewriting the Abraha article atm.--Tigeroo 09:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So nice to hear from you, how are you doing? Itsmejudith 04:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine really, but should not be up in the middle of the night editing. I'm going to make some suggestions for the Islam page and then go back to sleep. If you have a minute, email me, tell me how your studies are going. Itsmejudith 04:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been revising the template Islam here in a temporary location: [15]. I hope you can add some topics of interest too. If we look at the other religion templates, they are much bigger than Islam's template, so we need a lot of expansion. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide evidence for your statement that americanThinker.com is a propaganda website? Please cite Wikipedia policies so you can explain which policies are being violated here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why should one consider "americanthinker" to be a reliable source? please see the key principles of WP:ATT, WP:RS and WP:REDFLAG, as well as WP:NPOV - in particular: WP:NPOV#A vital component: good research. ITAQALLAH 18:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a well written article. Can you tell me why its not a reliable source? And remember, RS doesnt apply to EL. We're talking about the text inside the article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that it is apparently a 'well written article' is a subjective judgement. WP:EL is irrelevant to this topic, the webpage is being used as a citation, so the relevant content policies and guidelines apply. policy does not take into consideration how 'well written' a piece is, it takes into consider the reliability and authoritativeness of the author and the publisher. the pages linked to specify what we look for in sources. ITAQALLAH 19:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ma_malakat_aymanukum#AmericanThinker.com_-_James - --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the cold medicine is kicking in and I can't stay awake. Mnagi85 (talk • contribs) is 'new' and has immediately started deleting text from articles. I asked them to discuss, but being new the first thing they said was "I know what I'm doing!" (paraphrased). Anyway, I've got to go to sleep and couldn't post intelligent text anyway. Yours was the first name I thought of (I hope it was for a 'good' reason.   ;-)   ) and I saw you were editting. Thanks. Shenme 03:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salam. I want to give a branster to whom tried to meke this article NPOV. Who do you propose?--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are numerous(at least 20) POV articles in Wikiproject Islam, I intend to give NPOV branster to whoever work and make them NPOV. I'll make a departmant for this work in the wikiproject. Please help me with it.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph concludes, "It is these very tensions, one might argue, that allows for the fluid status of the slave in many Muslim societies." Arrow740 05:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aminz

I just noticed your change to do the date of the Levy text. My understanding is that there are two editions. Ie, second addition was 1969 and I actually have that here on my desk. I haven't checked all, but after a spot check the references seem to be to the 1969 edition. I could be wrong, and it is probably something that needs to be confirmed. Maybe we need to list both editions if citations are being taken from both. kind regards, --Merbabu 06:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm - OK. Sounds like something that needs clarifying on the talk page. more 'worms'. he he :( Merbabu 06:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i have access to the 1957 version, which is also the second edition. ITAQALLAH 02:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aminz,

As you can see the conclusion of Peters is that:"we must think then that his action was essentially political, that it was prompted by behavior that he read as treasonous and not some transgressions of the law of God."

Sure, I never opposed this point.

The point of those Muslims basically is that it was transgressions of the law of God but not God's law in the Qur'an. To show that I added the following arguments:

1. Muhammad called the ruling of Sa'd similar to God's judgment

2. Muhammad often ruled according to the Christian and Jewish scripture when he had received no specific revelation

How do you think is the best to present these information? I agree that it might have not been clear.

How to best present them?

Point 1 is already included as the narration of Muhammad's reaction. We don't need to include it twice.

Point 2 is not to be included at all as far as it does not concern this particular case. The article is about the BQ, not about Muhammad's rulings in general. Quite apart from the questionable nature of the argument: if it's not in the Quran - fine. But that doesn't mean it is included somewhere else. Sure, we cover these scholars' POV. Present but not endorse. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO such repitions constitute undue weight, especially when the repeated fact is not elemental to the argument. We needn't repeat the whole argument of these scholars (which in the end would mean reporting five arguments ... we merely report the point. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this: [16] - it is okay to quote religious texts directly. Infact you and other people do it all the time. This is with regards to the article for Quran and sex with female captives.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. Please see [17] --Aminz 15:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have given you the link to a discussion I made specifically for this topic, on the policy's talk page. Did you see it? They said its ok to quote sources, infact they said its perfectly ok to quote from primary sources. This is something which Itaqallah started, supported by you and now kirbytime as well. This will not continue anywhere, as I have clarified it on the policy's talk page.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, where? I can see other people have addressed my points here [18] and [19]. --Aminz 15:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other admin Grenvitar (spelling) also said we can quote the Quran directly. I am now aware of this effort of some editors to stop people from quoting the Quran and other religious sources and so I'll make sure that this prevention is not practiced anymore. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Qur'an is fine as long as you don't conclude anything from. It is very tricky. Sometimes one verse explains the other etc etc. We usually find secondary sources that quote primary sources and then add those quotes to our articles. --Aminz 16:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what I've been saying. We can quote it directly. If you think there's something that can be dealt with a certain Quran where we quoted only "part" of the issue as you're saying, then you're welcome to add to it and quote more to explain the issue. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the advice again Matt. It may be OK to cite a primary source directly but it is not OK to draw any conclusion from it. Pulling out one sentence that seems to make a point is exactly what cannot be done. Itsmejudith 16:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This is something which Itaqallah started" - please substantiate this statement, or retract it. else, it will be considered a false allegation. ITAQALLAH 02:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judith, yes thats what I mean - we can quote religious texts directly. Thats all I have meant and these people have opposed it for some time. Good that this will end now. If anyone takes out direct quotes from religious sources again, I will pursue this matter more seriously. Ofcourse I agree no one can make conclusions, everyone knows that thats OR.

Itaq, what you "started" was saying that we cannot quote primary sources. Ask me for the various diffs and I can provide.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please show me where i stated that we can under no circumstance quote primary sources. ITAQALLAH 15:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aminz. I wonder if you could comment in this dispute:

Talk:Criticism_of_Islam#General_Context_to_Criticism

It looks long, but mostly the same things are being said back and forth. Thanks. - Merzbow 17:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fayssal,

This user doesn't join talk pages and makes sweeping edits to the pages (please see his recent edits to Muhammad or Banu Qurayza). It seems disruptive to me. --Aminz 09:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amin, he left a note (question) at Muhammad's talk page. As for Banu Qurayza, you can do the same, both of you. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aminz,

Unbelievable! You take your idea-du-jour - never mind that this completely contradicts the other thing we were discussing (if the event didn't occur, that Sa'ad didn't make any judgment based upon the Torah) - and put it at the very top, biased and argumentative ("nevertheless", "though") writing plainly intended to spin the entire article.[20] That is exactly what I saw on the antisemitism articles, complete with aggressive tagging to ensure that articles are forever marred until they meet with your satisfaction. As you'd convinced me with the Torah fabrication, to include this marginal view is one thing; these recent edits are quite another.

As you are well aware, Karl Meir's "sweeping edits" were only modifications of your own sweeping edits. Your complaint to an administrator you had reason to believe was friendly (but turned out to be fairer than you'd imagined!) was cheap and unchivalrous.Proabivouac 10:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proabivouac, I have not placed Torah point at the top. And please stay civil. Thanks.

If you are refering to the "source" section, then it is natural to talk about our sources of the matter at the beginning (as Welch does in his article on Muhammad - first talks about our sources ; or as we do in article Muhammad) --Aminz 10:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then let us begin Muhammad thusly: "Stories about Muhammad are found only in the Muslim biographical traditions and are not corroborated by any other traditions. Nevertheless, Islamic scholars accept…"Proabivouac 10:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. Muhammad article starts with "An overview", "Etymology" and then "Sources for Muhammad's life".

It may even make sense to put "Sources for Muhammad's life" above "Etymology".

Karl was basically putting the source section at the end of the article. That doesn't make any sense. --Aminz 10:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And "Stories about Muhammad are found only in the Muslim biographical traditions and are not corroborated by any other traditions. Nevertheless, Islamic scholars accept…"

This is incorrect. Non-Muslim sources exists as well.

The basis of my edit was the following:

"This story is found only in the Muslim biographical tradition of the Prophet; the Arabian Jews are unknown to the surviving Jewish tradition."

Hugh Goddard, a Professor of Christian-Muslim Relations says: There has been a considerable amount of recent scholarly discussion concerning Muhammad's treatment of the Jews, and especially concerning the historicity or otherwise of the massacre of Banu Qurayza. See W.N. Arafat "New light on the story of Banu..."

Modern historians such as I.Goldziher, J.Schacht, and J. Wansbrough have rejected the majority of early Islamic traditions as unreliable: They suggest that there are the prejudiced creation of a later generation of believers. More recently, Marsden Jones has exposed the numerious chronological discrepancies that exist in Sira-Maghazi, while P.Crone opines that many of these narratives are the result of a desire to explain Qur'anic verses. As obvious are the paralels to the New Testament stories of miracles performed by Jesus. Nevertheless, scholars such as Montgomery Watt, Alford T. Welch, and H. Motzky continue to insist that these material may be used to extract a basic biography of Muhammad. On the other hand, significant Muslim scholars, such as W. N. Arafat, have objected to the notorious tales concerning the expulsion and execution of the Jews of Medina that form an integral part of the Maghazi as "unislamic".

From historian S.A.Nagosian:

The earliest surviving biographies are the two recensions of Ibn Ishaq's (d. 768) "Life of the Apostle of God", by Ibn Hisham (d. 834) and Yunus b. Bukayr(d.814-815). [6] According to Ibn Hisham, Ibn Ishaq wrote his biography some 120 to 130 years after Muhammad's death. Many, but not all, scholars accept the accuracy of these biographies, though their accuracy is unascertainable.

--Aminz 10:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest guys you discuss all this and that at the articles' talk pages so everyone would be informed and anyone can participate. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FayssalF, all these quotes were already on the talk page of the article. --Aminz 10:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aminz, it is not polite to threaten other editors with negative consequences in the afterlife for editing your talk page.[21]Proabivouac 11:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post on my talk page. --Aminz 00:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title you just added to Muhammad, "Stricker's Karl der Gro b e" - should that instead be "Stricker's Karl der Große"? The thing that looks like a 'b' is an eszet, a single character that represents two 'ss' together. So it would be equivalent to 'Grosse' but looks different, like the Germans would do it. Does that sound correct? Shenme 02:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to include a couple of examples of how it looks: [22] and Charlemagne. Shenme 02:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salam Alaykum.

Please join us and write your idea in Template talk:Twelvers#Dispute resolution--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please translate this and put a bilingual template in Wikipedia:Iranian Wikipedians' notice board. Thnks--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This looks COOL :) --Aminz 10:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer to my mail.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 12:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merbabu got so worried that I had taken out the Christian category on your userpage that he decided to jump in and help his brother two times, so I let him be happy for now instead of engaging in silly revert wars over your user page. May I ask you why you have the Christian Wikipedian category on your userpage? Are you aware that that category is for people who profess their faith in Christianity and are Christians? One can obviously not be a Christian and Muslim at the same time. Its not a Christian belief that Muhammed was a prophet of God. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Merbabu for doing that. I don't want to get into any details about that issue since I am here only to write an encyclopedia. --Aminz 05:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Although I agree it is a bit odd, i can't see that it's is nothing but perfectly harmless, and in my opinion, it is not something that you need to explain if you don't want to. And I've got no idea why Matt57 refers to me as your 'brother'. it is up to Matt to explain that one if he so choses. Merbabu 05:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merbabu, I know it is odd. But please exempt me from further details. --Aminz 06:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thats good, thanks aminz. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aminz, if you have a problem with me, you should come talk to me directly. I just noticed some very bad faith comments on your part regarding a wildly false claim about me being a sockpuppet of Karl Meier. I am not a sock, and most certainly not some alter-ego of Karl Meier- we are not even on the same continent. What I am good at is using the copy and paste function and looking at the edit screen to see what other people did, effectively gaining experience by riding the backs of other experienced users.

I would like to remain on civil terms with you (I have no personal beef with you)- so please do not continue to attack me behind my back. --ProtectWomen 19:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ProtectWomen, I apologize. I honestly couldn't guess that your first sophisticated edit was becuase "What I am good at is using the copy and paste function". I do sometimes make mistakes and I requested for checkuser to know about that. All checkusers are conjectural. But the bitter reactions and further accusations of users Proabivouac and Karl Meier was notable. --Aminz 22:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I really appreciate this. Hopefully you found that when I revealed my IP address, this was an act of good faith. The whois would quickly remove all doubt in your minds between Karl and myself.

Now that we're on the subject of sophisticated editing, I make mistakes too. Do you know how to make a reversion edit like the others do where there's a left arrow: [24] or even this one: [25]? Are they using tools? I copied and pasted the html (which I understand a little) for that once but it didn't behave the same way in the edit summaries as in an article page edit. It just looked like a mess. Thanks for your wiki-help if you happen to know :) If not, I could stop being lazy and just ask the users who made those edits huh? :p --ProtectWomen 05:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty good. I made a few edits and will follow the discussion. Cheers, Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This will be a great article on Islam. See you at the RfC.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I see one more revert from you on this article, I'll go for the RfC because you are failing to tell us according to which policy its wrong to quote primary sources. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please go for RfC. I am firmly holding my position. We can not directly quote primary sources due to violation of WP:OR. I fixed the references in the Islam article by pointing out to the secondary sources. --Aminz 20:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR doesnt prohibit quoting primary sources. It prohibits INTERPRETING them. You know the difference right? And every article uses quotes. Are you saying we can quote anything? I will definitely do an RfC if you revert again. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said "Further, the topic of criticism of the Qur'an in Media has the potential to be expanded." - do you know of any other criticism of Quran in the media? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it is a possibility since some Muslim complain about how Media portrays them, so, there should be something there. One such complain from a Non-Muslim, Edward Said is the following:

The media have become obsessed with something called "Islam," which in their voguish lexicon has acquired only two meanings, both of them unacceptable and impoverishing. On the one hand, "Islam" represents the threat of a resurgent atavism, which suggests not only the menace of a return to the Middle Ages but the destruction of what Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan calls the democratic order in the Western world. On the other hand, "Islam" is made to stand for a defensive counterresponse to this first image of Islam as threat, especially when, for geopolitical reasons, "good" Moslems like the Saudi Arabians or the Afghan Moslem "freedom fighters" against the Soviet Union are in question. Anything said in defense of Islam is more or less forced into the apologetic form of a plea for Islam's humanism, its contributions to civilization, development and perhaps even to democratic niceness.
Along with that kind of counterresponse there is the occasional foolishness of trying to equate Islam with the immediate situation of one or another Islamic country, which in the case of Iran during the Shah's actual removal was perhaps a reasonable tactic. But after that exuberant period and during the hostage crisis, the tactic has become a somewhat trickier business. What is the Islamic apologist to say when confronted with the daily count of people executed by the Islamic komitehs, or when--as was reported on September 19, 1979, by Reuters--Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini announces that enemies of the Islamic revolution would be destroyed? The point is that both media meanings of "Islam" depend on each other, and are equally to be rejected for perpetuating the double bind.

--Aminz 20:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you had something to add, but so this is criticism of the citicism. You'll have to decide on your own how to use this quote. What is your method of retreiving quotes like these? I want to do that too.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I were to start an article on Islam in the Media or so, I would have included a section on "Edward Said" and included his view. I would have summerized how Said percieves the relation of media and Islam, and how it rejects it. --Aminz 20:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but what I meant was: how are you getting these quotes? By google scholar or Jstor, or what? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one was available on google. JSTOR is also a good search engine. I also use a library nearby. --Aminz 20:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the stuff was unsourced, and the rest irrelevant. You also reverted improper use of titles. Please desist from blind reverts. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's your view. I think you are doing blind revert. --Aminz 00:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. My initial edit was very specific, and neither "blind" nor a "revert". Can you explain, for example, why you keep reverting in a sentence referring to "Dr Edward Said" when he is already mentioned in the previous section, and when he should be referred to a "Said"? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is making the following quote from him more comprehensible. That's hardly a point of dispute. But what I find most troublesome is that you remove sourced material and then ask others to prove to you that they were right. Seems like a violation of WP:OWN.

Further, your removal of the whole sentence can be hardly justified by a mere usage of the title "Dr". --Aminz 00:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Dr Edward Said" is not even punctuated properly, and the WP:MOS says he should just be referred to as "Said". As for the sentence, it is about "Orientalists like Lewis", not Lewis himself. It's just a broad smear, and the next sentence is specifically about Lewis. As for "removing sourced material", that's meaningless. There's a lot more to material belonging in an article than it being "sourced". What are the quality of the sources? Is the material presented accurately and fairly? Is the material relevant? Keep in mind at all times that this is a biography of a living person; negative material must come from top-notch sources, and the article must be balanced. As it is, the article leans heavily to criticism of Lewis, yet includes virtually no praise of "the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East." This is telling. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Dr", please do not use straw man argument, I only objected to your outright removal of the sentence (I myself removed "Professor" here [26]). Yes, it is about "Orientalists like Lewis" which is very accurately what Said did and all of us know that on this point he got into dispute with lewis and other orientalists.

Jayjg, the article does praise Lewis as "the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East" and certainly he is. But yes he has been criticized on many points because he involves himself in a lot of things. --Aminz 00:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're carrying on a conversation with me, then carry it on with me. Don't go running off to mommy El C to complain that "Jayjg is being a meaney". I've responded there. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that you deny reliability of a work published in a well-known academic journal, as you believed that the journalist Johnson is more reliable than Lewis. --Aminz 01:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that not only did you fail the GA nomination, but you added an tag stating that the article was not verrifiable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't I already have a list of cited or relevant print sources as well as a list of citations? What's so unverifiable about what I wrote? jackturner3 13:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that every sentence in the first paragraph needs to be cited. For one thing, the information concerning the timing of the festival of Easter is quite clearly explained and cited elswehere in wikipedia, and in my opinion would be overkill to reference it here again, particuarly since my reference for writing that section was the wikipedia article on the date of easter. The comment that all events on the calendar are either Commemorations, Festivals or Lesser Festivals is clearly demonstrated in the article itself since nothing on the calendar is referenced as anything else. The only two things that I could possibly see as necessitating a reference in the above are the comment that the two hinge events are Easter and Christmas and that the calendar starts on the first Sunday of Advent in the Western Church. However, the latter item can also be found on wikipedia in the article on advent (including, if I'm not mistaken, the comment concerning St. Andrew's Day).

Citing every sentence is, in my opionion, well beyond overkill. If I recieved a student paper with every single sentence cited, I would had it back to the student and tell them to find a way to write it for themselves rather than by cobbling it together through quoting or paraphrasing thier sources. I would most humbly seek to remind you that the criteria for GA status in regards to references include:

. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

(a) provides references to sources used;

(b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles and

(c) contains no original research.

I think the article clearly meets the criteria. I have provided my references at the end of the text and have even included inline citations for material, despite the fact that nothing in the article itself should raise any objection in matters of content. Furthermore, it contains no original reserach. Based on the above criteria, taken directly from the GA criteria page, I fail to see why this article does not meet GA status on these grounds. I would therefore request a reevaluation of the article for you not to fail it based solely for the reason that every single sentence is not cited.

If what is desired is for every single sentence to have a citation, I will be more than happy to oblige by simply directly quoting every word of the article from various sources rather than actually composing it based on references. But I would think that this would violate both the sprit and intent of wikipedia, so hopefully that will not be what is necessary to raise this article to GA status. Please give me your further thoughts on this matter.

jackturner3 03:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that should be amicable. Sorry if I came off as a little abrasive. I've already been through the processes once and had my artcile rejected becuase it didn't mean the reviewer's "more stringent than required" standards. Since I've composed this article in large part by myself, I feel a little...touchey about it sometimes, for better or ill. And I'm in the middle of grading finals, so it's a busy time right now. I will await whatever further comments you have to make.

jackturner3 15:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done. Mothra 13:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 21:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry to much about this AfD. You can't move too fast on wikipedia. I recommend that you first create an article on the topic of general Jewish-Arab relations, something like "History of Arab-Jewish relations" of which this can be a subsection. That article will be less susceptible to claims of POV pushing and it also brings in a lot more context. Best of luck. --64.230.121.213 23:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"There are many weird things in the world which in fact are true. I have many examples in math." Like what? Arrow740 07:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many example. For example see Banach–Tarski paradox --Aminz 08:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So do you believe it? Arrow740 03:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Math is not a matter of belief. Once something is proved, it is proved. --Aminz 08:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except in this case the Axiom of Choice is invoked which is pretty contentious. Have you read Godel Escher Bach? --BozMo talk 12:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. the Axiom of Choice is invoked. No, I have not read Godel Escher Bach but I will :) Cheers, --Aminz 09:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is this, The Quran and science? This just looks insane. Also, I am sick of mainspace being used as a sandbox. This language is difficult to understand, and does not belong in a published article. Please bring this to talk so that we can collaborate in determining what is appropriately topical and how best to phrase it.Proabivouac 08:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assalamulaikum!

I saw the article you recently created. First of all, I myself have been recently reading material on this topic. Infact, I read Lasker's "Review of Under Crescent and Cross. The Jews in the Middle Ages" by Mark R. Cohen, in the The Jewish Quarterly Review a couple of days ago.

From what I see it is unfortunate that this article will soon be deleted, but, as the French say, C'est la vie [that's life]. In any case, I encourage you to save this article somewhere in your user space. Also, you should consider merging the content of this article to History of Jews under Muslim rule.Bless sins 22:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the AfD and put a copy of the content here for you out of courtesy: User_talk:Aminz/text --BozMo talk 07:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much BozMo. --Aminz 07:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aminz... Just to let you know...I'm not saddened to see the article deleted, since I believe that the objections to it were valid. The concept is sufficiently worthy to warrant mention w/in the Cohen article, and/or perhaps deserves mention per the suggestion of Bless_sins (with whom I've never agreed before on anything) above, but far too insignificant (with the name you chose) to warrant an independent article. The name was horribly chosen, both because it was far too narrow in scope to have withstood any but the most indescriminate commentary in a discussion of its unencyclopædia-worthiness, and because, while the article in which it was coined was referenced by several authors, none of those authors adopted the term for use in their commentaries. That accepts that it fills the definition of a "term"...as I said in my comment on the article talkpage, however, Cohen didn't use it as a term, he used it as a descriptive phrase. So, if/when you include mention of the concept in the Mark Cohen article, it should definitely be described as "Cohen describes ____ as the neo-lachrymose..." without trying to portray the phrase itself as though it were something Cohen were proposing as a standalone noun instead of a simple description playing off the earlier "lachrymose ...". Anyways, enough pontification from me. Cheers, Tomer^talk 08:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss it in "greater" detail, if you like, but in "great" detail I don't have sufficient time for. ;-) Tomer^talk 09:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aminz. If you could make sure that some detail of Cohen and the "neo-lachrymose conception" is added to History of antisemitism, 20th and/or 21st centuries, it would be much appreciated. Itsmejudith 12:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the text looked mostly good, it just needs a home. - Merzbow 06:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation. At this point in time, I think I disagree with the sentence you are trying to add, and I hope I have made my arguments (in the forensic sense) clearly. I'd be glad to continue the discussion there, time permitting, but I wanted to thank you for inviting me to the discusion . -- Avi 05:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]