User talk:Striver/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello, Striver/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  SWAdair | Talk 07:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Striver.

I looked at your Abu Bakr changes and haven't looked at Umar yet. I'm probably going to copyedit you mercilessly <g>. However, your changes aren't too long this time.

Even if I'm critical of your English, it is very useful to have a Shia going over the Islam articles looking for bias. Thank you. Zora 22:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Based on your e-mail I've unblocked you. Please be careful of Wikipedia policy in the future, including the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Striver/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  SWAdair | Talk 07:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Striver.

I looked at your Abu Bakr changes and haven't looked at Umar yet. I'm probably going to copyedit you mercilessly <g>. However, your changes aren't too long this time.

Even if I'm critical of your English, it is very useful to have a Shia going over the Islam articles looking for bias. Thank you. Zora 22:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Based on your e-mail I've unblocked you. Please be careful of Wikipedia policy in the future, including the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Striver,

I think I've figured out one source of your problems. You are trying to shoehorn history courses into articles intended to be biographies of particular people. You want to write about the Ridda Wars, so you jam it all into Abu Bakr. You want to write about the death of Uthman, and you jam it into Aisha.

Wikipedia is WEAK on Islamic history. You aren't going to fix it this way.

I hesitate to tell you to start articles, because, Striver, you are not a good writer. You know it. Everyone knows it. What you are is knowledgeable, and Shia, which I think makes your input useful -- Sunni opinion to the contrary. But you really have to go about it in a different way, as you seem to upsetting everyone else rather badly. I suggest that you criticize from the talk pages, as opposed to inserting reams of hadith "evidence" into articles already too long.

The one thing I know about Ali that impresses me is that after defeating Aisha in battle, he let her go. He showed compassion and magnanimity. Please try to imitate a little of that in dealing with your Sunni and kafir co-editors, rather than approaching us with a chip on your shoulder.

I will try to start a bunch of articles on Islamic history for the knowledgeable, Sunni and Shia, to fill out. Since I can't write them all, this would be a chance for you to fill them in -- and then show patience as other people edit you. Zora 21:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for you say, i appriate it.

Yes, you are right, i DO suck att writing :P

And ill do as you sugested, ill stop editing all together, ill only post stuff on the talk pages.

with three exeptions: Ill end my text on the "battle of the cammel" and will try to save my two articles that OneGuy wants deleted *annoyed at OneGuy* :(

Whats wrong with "Ali opposed Abu Bark" ? Man, i dont get it, i have text AND lots of proof that it really happend. Whats wrong with OneGuy, cant he stan me citing what he thinks is "the truth" ie Sunni POV?

• sight*...

Anyway, ecpecialy since im worthles in writing stuff in English, ill stop editing articles, only talk pages and discusion pages, exept for the three stuff i mentioned...

--Striver 21:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi there.

Thanx for the comment.

It is an uphill battle. And the way it's going, I will lose, unless I get some support from others.

I think that even if you just leave a comment on the Shi'a talk page supporting me, it will help alot.

Thanx again.--Zereshk 18:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Striver,

For the moment, I'm having a tough time on the Umar ibn al-Khattab page.

I'm also having trouble on Ali ibn Abi Talib, Shi'a, and Succession to Muhammad pages. Zora thinks Hadith are not a relaible source of information to use. AladdinSE thinks they are fabrications. They have not allowed me to put any AHdith on the Shi'a or Ali page at all. Just for your info.--Zereshk 12:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please consider voting at:

Wikipedia:Conspiracy_theory

to rename articles that use the pejorative term "Conspiracy theory" to denigrate the content of the article.

Do the titles of WP articles generally pass partisan judgment on the subject under discussion? Should they? BrandonYusufToropov 02:44, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, while editting Aisha, please post your sources for the information. There have been too many skirmishes over that subject because editors just change things so giving us sources (and note, we are not here to interpret primary sources like hadith) will help to avoid that. gren 15:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Striver, you've been having a field day with the articles re the early caliphs, adding Shi'a material and deleting Sunni material. I've just been too overwhelmed with work on OTHER articles to deal with it, but I will get back to them. Please, try to respect NPOV. Mustafaa once quoted Ali to the effect that any aggression committed out of anger and revenge rather than love of God was a mistake. If God, or Allah, is truth, then striving for scholarly accuracy, in the right spirit, can be a spiritual discipline. Do it in the spirit of Ali, working towards truth rather than just trying to win.

I know it's hard not to let one's own feelings enter into online controversy -- in fact, I think I'm sensitive to the problem because I fail so often. I'm having a particularly hard time being kind to Southern Comfort and Zereshk! Let's try, together, to be kinder to our opponents and to let their POVs get equal play. Zora 00:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some of your uses are rare, so people will never find the articles or link to them properly. Tfine80 29 June 2005 15:36 (UTC)

Man, what's with these attacks against Umar. Can't we Muslims all just live in peace. What's done is done if it ever happened. Just my two cents here, but I hope in the future you will also respect Sunni point of view when you are making Shia contributions (which is quite nice). Thanks. --Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 01:00 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my last edit on Fatima bint Asad. freestylefrappe June 30, 2005 02:21 (UTC)

Feel free to take the song, it was originally composed by Elf. freestylefrappe June 30, 2005 02:25 (UTC)

Striver,

Here is the recipe for dealing with Zora whenever she makes dumb statements like "Western historians are extremely wary of hadith." Just follow them, and she will eventually give up and go seomplace else to show off her ego:

1. Instead of Referencing Hadith directly to sources like Tabari, go to a good college library near you, look up their English Islamic section, and use western written books as your source to reference whatever topic youre working on. And there's plenty.
2. Be sure to use the phrase "shi'as believe that..." when necessary. That way, Zora can't accuse you of rewriting history from a Shi'a view, because youre already giving a third party as the claim's source. A sentence with the "Shi'as believe that..." structure simply can't be disputed, because youre not talking about what Striver is saying, but what "Shia's" are saying. To delete it would be to withhold info and hence unacceptable.
3. The more sources you provide, the better.
4. Once youre sure of the above, make sure youre grammar is right, the passage is relevant, reads well, and isnt copyrighted stuff (i.e. parapharse it).
5. Usually, when faced with an article that has been written properly and with the above guidelines, Zora goes around asking for help from Buddy Admins who will take sides with her. Ive even seen her go around on other forums on other websites and ask for help. They will come in and try to chip away at your article in any unrelated way possible. The best they can do, is take a section out of the article, and turn it into a new page so they can rewrite it, if they find an excuse. In that case, just follow them onto the new page, and repeat the above procedures.
6. Zora is a very stubborn (and unfortunately) condescending person. She never accepts anything from an opposing party, even if presented with undeniable facts. The only time she will accept something is if she reads it somewhere in a book on her own initiative, without your recommendation. As far as she's concerned, anything you reference to her has to be false. The reason I quit going to Berkeley was because I got sick of condescending people like her.
7. If she ever gives you crap like "your source is old" (she uses this to discredit the western source youve found), just ignore it, because it is pure opinion. Unless she provides specific reference refuting your source by name, she's just throwing you a monkey wrench. Sometimes, what I have found very useful, is to ask her for a credible reference that supports her view, and then use that very reference against her. Trust me, it works miracles.
8. Her final bullet, is to find some obscure thesis from some gook who holds a minority view compared to the majority of scholars, and present it to you as fact. Make a section for "opposing views" and throw it in there. That way, you save the article from her malicious "re-writes", and tells everybody that youre looking for balance in the article (the sign of a good editor).

If you follow these rules, you'll be fine. Keep up the good work.--Zereshk 1 July 2005 01:20 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Umm Jamil article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! Jeff Anonymous 1 July 2005 03:53 (UTC)

Hi, i realy liked your 'Sahaba' page, its realy good. --Ya Ali 2 July 2005 11:49 (UTC)

While I applaud your enthusiasm in writing an article on every Sahaba, I think it is important that you remember that most readers will have no idea who they are. For each article, you should have an introductory sentence or two, indicating that this is who the article is about. For example, the entire content of the article Ubaidullah bin Abdullah is "retold the [[event of the pen and paper]] as he heard from [[Ibn Abbas]]." This article stands an excellent chance of losing on a Vote for deletion on the grounds that the subject is non-notable. To avoid that, you should say right at the beginning of the article that this person is a Sahaba, one who knew Mohammed. By providing a little context, you will avoid having your articles deleted. Good luck! Denni☯ 2005 July 4 02:35 (UTC)

A redirect isn't used only because the subject of one article is the same as the subject of another; it's used, as in this case, because one article contains no more content than that contained in another article. If there's anything interesting to be said about the taba tabe'een, the the article can be written, but it just said what the term means — something made clearer in the Sahaba article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 18:15 (UTC)

My pleasure. Collaboration is sometimes hard to reach, but it's always worth it in the end. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)

If you disagree with Zora, please resolve it within Talk, rather than sticking egregiously unprofessional statements like "Both Shia and Sunni agree on that someone was was born inside the Kaba... However, User:Zora dismisses that as folklore, as far as she can tell." If this statement is correct, you should be able to back it up with authoritative sources and then put it in. If it is merely folklore, then it probably doesn't belong here anyway. - Mustafaa 8 July 2005 23:06 (UTC)

By "source" I mean an actual scholar's work. A quote from Sahih Bukhari or Nahjh-ul-Balagha, for example, would do nicely; a couple of websites don't prove anything. - Mustafaa 8 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)

Dear brother: It does not suffice "to show that people bother to write it on their webpages to confirm that they belive it", because they might be writing something that all Sunnis believe, or they might be writing something based on a daeef hadith which scholars argue about, or they might be writing something that they simply misremembered, or heard from their grandmother. It would make life much easier if you could just trust everything you found on a site, but unfortunately, not all sources are equally trustworthy. - Mustafaa 8 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)

Looking at your citations, it does seem clear that this belief is widespread among Shia. It does not seem at all clear what Sunnis have to say about it. I agree that it is worth noting that Shia, at least, believe that Ali was born in the Kaaba; however, it would be much, much better, if possible, to note what major works say this - ie, why Shia (and maybe some Sunnis) believe this. - Mustafaa 8 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)

PS: Do you speak Arabic? If so, alwaraq.com is a good place to look for primary sources. - Mustafaa 8 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)

Hakim's Mustadrak is considered quite unreliable by Sunni scholars ([1][2]). He certainly doesn't represent the Sunni mainstream. As for Ibn Sabbagh al-Maliki, I can find scarcely any mention of him outside of various Shia websites; he lived in the 15th century, so he certainly isn't the original source of this report. - Mustafaa 9 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)

Try http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&as_qdr=all&q=ali+born++kaaba&btnG=S%C3%B6k&meta= ; you get more results. - Mustafaa 9 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)

As regards Shia, I'm convinced; I did a search in Arabic as well, which found many Shia sites (and only Shia sites) making this claim. As regards Sunnis, I am definitely not convinced. Witness-pioneer.org is a broken site, and it's not clear what ideology it reflects or what sources it's based on. Madeena.s5.com is even worse, illiterate and unprofessional. Hakim and Ibn Sabbagh I have already addressed. - Mustafaa 9 July 2005 01:04 (UTC)

A single site isn't enough; it's clear, at the very least, that not all Sunnis believe this, and it's not clear whether any significant number believe it. If it were in some authoritative source, that would be a different matter. - Mustafaa 9 July 2005 17:34 (UTC)

If we don't know something, it is better to be silent on it until we do know. The most important Sunni books are almost all online in Arabic, and many are online in English; if any significant number believe this, it should be easy enough to find it in one of them, rather than some random site. The question of Hakim isn't relevant in the Ali article in any event. - Mustafaa 9 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)

To "describe a dispute fairly", one must first find out:

1. whether there even is a dispute (as opposed to, say, a simple mistake in witness-pioneer);
2. what authoritative sources the dispute is based on;
3. if possible, what position is more widely held.

If you can answer at least the first two questions, then I'd be happy to put it in. So far, I'm not even convinced there is a real dispute among Sunnis about this. - Mustafaa 9 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)

Have I forgotten this subject? Not exactly; I just got tired of restating the same thing. We already know it's going to take a better source than "witness-pioneer" to convince me that there's any notable contingent of Sunnis who believe this, and a better one than that Hakim site to convince me they don't. If most Sunnis cared one way or another where Ali was born, you would have no trouble finding more reliable sources on their belief; as it is, why not check out a good library? - Mustafaa 11:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That Hakim b. Hizam hadith: good find. - Mustafaa 11:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The hadith only says he was born in the Kaaba; it doesn't say whether or not he was really the only person born in the Kaaba, or whether Ali might also have been born in the Kaaba. It should certainly be mentioned, but in an article on Hakim ibn Hazm, not in one on Ali. - Mustafaa 11:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not saying that either. I'm saying that I, and probably most Sunnis, have no idea where Ali was born, and will continue to have no idea until some authority that Sunnis accept is cited as supporting one view or the other. I suspect most Buddhists also have no idea where Ali was born; that doesn't mean we should add a claim that "Buddhists believe he may have been born in the Kaaba" to the article! - Mustafaa 11:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you want to start List of people born in the Kaaba feel free. It doesn't really seem too encyclopedic to me, but it's no worse than many of the other lists here. - Mustafaa 12:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, I looked at that page and it's terrible. Not just the English and the formatting, but the very concept. You seem to be quoting some "re-telling" of the incident which is presented in novelistic fashion, with quoted dialogue. We don't KNOW what they said. None of the material was written down until 150, 200 years later, at which point it had been through several narrators, who were filtering the story through their own histories, assumptions, political allegiances, etc. We cannot present that as FACT.

I think the page should be deleted. It is severely substandard. Zora 23:19, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your addition to the patronymic article. I had earlier requested information on Arabic be added. I edited what you wrote. Can you check it to see if it's correct? Also, what about "bin"? Is that the same as "ibn"? Thanks. SDC 18:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I agree with both Mustafaa and Zora. If you want to include disputed material in an article, it is very important that you have good sources. Websites are not suitable; Mustafaa's suggestion that you use a library is a good one. It is not enough simply to say "Shi'as believe..." or "Sunnis believe...". What they believe may differ from one person's view to another's. You must be able to quote authoritative sources - "According to Sahih Bukhari, Sunnis believe..." Denni☯ 02:24, 2005 July 12 (UTC)

• As far as I am concerned, websites themselves are never authoritative sources, because anyone can say anything on a website and there is often no guarantee of the accuracy of the information. In this case, I would accept a website as a source only if it did exactly what Mustafaa and Zora are asking you to do - source the information themselves. Denni☯ 02:48, 2005 July 12 (UTC)

• • Ok, so it does not even prove that the ones that made the site belive in it?

No, though it may suggest so. However, that's not the point. Just because someone believes something does not make them an authority. What is important here is that you find a scholar who agrees with what you're saying, and that you can quote that scholar's exact words to back you up. That may come from a website, sure, but it's more likely to come from a book. Denni☯ 02:58, 2005 July 12 (UTC)

Assalamu alaykum.

• Moving pages without discussion is the kind of thing that people file arbitration over.

• If I weren't getting ready to hop on an airplane in about 4 hours, I would be filing arbitration against you right now.

• As it stands, I am going on a business trip today inshaAllah and have limited time on WP.

• Whether I file arbitration against you when I get back is an open question.

• Would you please, please, please discuss things like page moves and major edits on the talk pages?

• Shukran.

Ma-salaam, BrandonYusufToropov 13:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Ibn Taymiya **seeeeeems** to be nothing but wahabbist/Salafi'ist propaganda.. and I don't like these groups (and they don't like me!). I have no idea how to start fixing it thogh, and was looking for help! --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I have placed a request for undeletion on the Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion page. I am fairly sure your article was not a candidate for speedy deletion, and you should be able to get it back. Denni☯ 23:51, 2005 July 13 (UTC)

• By the way, may I suggest you do your work in a word processor and save your pages as you go, only posting when you have a complete article. That way, if something happens (such as this unexpected speedy delete) you still have your original article. Denni☯ 23:59, 2005 July 13 (UTC)

• • As I said on WP:VfU, I'm a bit puzzled by this discussion; Hadith's connected with Mut'ah exists and seems to be doing fine. Perhaps it just needs to be renamed to Hadiths connected with Mut'ah? jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm pretty new and I haven't been around enough to know your stuff, but I found your RfC and I'm just wondering something...I can respect that you want to make sure that your POV is as equally represented as the Sunni POV, but the way you've made your edits often present your POV as fact, and not the opinion of the Shia branch of Islam (as opposed to the Sunni opinion).

Writing the statement about Muhammad having 100,000 companions the way you did is almost like saying "Jesus had blonde hair and blue eyes" or even "Jesus never existed" - some people may believe either one, but their beliefs don't make it fact. If you had simply said something like "Muhammad may have had more than 100,000..." or "It is widely believed by many that Muhammad had over 100,000..." it would have been more accepted, I think.

Again, because I know very little about you I won't be voting one way or the other on this, but as someone who knows little to nothing about Shia vs. Sunni versions of Islam and hasn't been involved in WP for very long, I thought you might be interested to see what it looks like from a different perspective. Good luck and have a good one. StopTheFiling 00:07, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, and I have to admit that I agree with you that Zora may have gone overboard in reverting in that instance. I thought BrandonYurosomethingreallylong made a good compromise edit that made it clear what the situation was in regards to Muslim beliefs. I can understand why Zora still felt the comment was inappropiate, but I think her comment about there being tens of thousands of known, documented sahabas could have co-existed easily and happily with the Muslim view that there were many more, while still being encyclopedic and NPOV. Your revert of Zora's revert escalated things, and maybe that's where the issue lies at this point, but to me it looks like everyone became obsessed with their own POV about the whole thing and didn't see the bigger picture - however, I'm sure in the end calmer heads will prevail. StopTheFiling 17:39, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

BYT is basically correct. His statement is confirmed not only by Ibn Kathir ([3]) but by Sahih Muslim. Muslim gives four variants on that hadith (#5920-5923), and the first one says that they are members of Ahl al-Bayt. - Mustafaa 01:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For Ibn Kathir, just click on the link I provided above (it says [3]). As for Ahl al-Bayt, I think we're saying the same thing: he says that they are Ahl al-Bayt, but are not covered by this particular hadith, not that they aren't Ahl al-Bayt in general. - Mustafaa 02:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to resolve it. The articles of Events with the Sahaba have problems inherent in them... As for now I'll not oppose your reverting it, if you correct the spelling of 'upp' to 'up' and 'befor' to 'before'. I reverted because I didn't think it particularly good (I will talk to Zora and others to see how to clean up / better source the Sahaba articles) and because the words were correctly spelled before and you changed them multiple times misspelling them. I understand that you make mistakes with spelling grammar, however, that was language already there that you changed to be incorrect. It seemed like an uncareful edit and rather than show support for the edit by correcting the spelling I reverted it. If you agree with your changes then fix it with proper spellings and I will try to read the Events with the Sahaba articles to see what I think should be done with them exactly. gren 13:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think "as much detail as possible" is not the way I'd put it. I am rather inclusionist on many events. (Such as, I believe that if Dog poop girl is going to get an article (which it seems that the VfD says keep) then Ali Sina and Edip Yuksel both deserve one. However, I think the events with the Sahaba gets into the touchy issue or interpretting primary (as far as hadith are) sources. What the anti-Islamic editors tend to do is quote Sura 2:190-1 or something out of context and then say Islam = kill people. This is obviously not scholarly and is going to lead to problems. If we don't let uncritical interpretations like that pass for encyclopedic than I have a hard time with you just quoting hadith and making a story out of it. If you can find non-primary sources that analyze the hadith and talk about the events (and I know online is the easiest, but it surely is not the best) then that would be great. I highly recommend print and scholar from google. They will often give you parts of books or scholarly papers that you can reference. If you live by a university go to their library and cite those books as sources. My problem, and that of most editors, is that something is not notable just because it's on a website. This is because someone as insignificant as you or I can create a website with the information. To publish a book (from a relatively notable publisher) it takes a lot more. Therefore, it is credibility of information that is the issue. I think your events with the Sahaba 3 is either quoting hadith (which should be wikisource) or original research. Either way it doesn't belong here. If you find scholarly articles on various hadith find out what the name of the event is called in the articles. I don't think "events with the Sahaba" is a good title at all, it's selective wikisource material. If that is all the article is going to be then you should just reference which hadith the event comes from. I'm rambling at this point... but if you have any questions just ask. gren 16:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'd recommend backing your Events wit the Sahaba pages up. As I said above I will go over them to see what I think, but they are up for deletion and you (and I) might not see them again if you don't save what you have now. gren 21:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get back to you in a bit. I read it and am thinking, but I don't have time to reply in full now. Bye. gren 06:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just for the record, I don't particularly find dog poop girl worthy of entry, but, wikipedia as a whole (through VfD) does. Now, it doesn't exactly seem kosher, but let's compare events with the sahaba # with dog poop girl. Dog poop girl is something strictly documented. There are photos, an apology from the lady, etc. This was all reported in the news and Korean bbs world as dog poop girl, thus giving name to the article. Events with the Sahaba does not have that same clarity. It's some nameless event that doesn't appear to be important enough to be named in the literature. No source outside of striver seems to call it "events with the Sahaba #". So, whereas dog poop girl has a verifiable title that they can source others using, your title was made by you.

I know you are not making anything up in the sense of new material but any time you add report on something you add a degree of POV. I am not sure if you are familiar with the school of thought, but... well, the basic idea is that all history is un-objective. Some facts can maybe be objective in themselves but, in the scheme of things they cannot be because of selective reporting. So, just the fact that you chose that case adds a sense of bias to it. Now, this probably won't convince you, but the fact that it appears like you are arranging the hadith into a story (and people will argue that hadith are not a NPOV source to report on) and therefore it's not exactly original research in the typical sense, but it still counts. Because you are putting together primary sources. If you were Peter Sells and you wrote a book about it then we could quote your book and add it. But you're striver and you are supposed to have no opinion about the primary source material. I was reading the sources you gave (for Event 1) and I'm not sure. They seem to be the kind of source that some have questioned your use of before. They aren't really of encyclopedic standard. So when you combine that without being able to use a real name for the article it creates a problem. Have you found anything in libraries or on google print? Do these events go under any name? I think that will be important. gren 21:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising such interesting questions on my talk page about Shia and Sunni approaches to ahadith. Lots to think about, that's for sure. Ma-salaam, BrandonYusufToropov 17:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding so many extra spaces to the articles you start. I have gone through several of your pages and find this is a recurring issue. thanks. freestylefrappe 21:20, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style freestylefrappe 02:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

My apologies, I went through the entire Manual of Style and I realize now that the single spacing is an unwritten rule, and is therefore not mandatory. freestylefrappe 02:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Please do NOT keep adding the "Visor Consultants" rubbish to 7 July 2005 London bombings and please don't keep reverting the article when this is removed. -- ChrisO 22:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at WP:3RR. You're now on your third revert of the article - another revert will earn a 24 hour block on your editing privileges. -- ChrisO 23:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any expertise you could lend to the Qiyamah page would be much appreciated. Thanks. freestylefrappe 02:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I've responded to the claims of copyvio in Fatima bint Asad, and, as you seemed to be involved with this page, I thought you ought to know. Thanks for your work on Wikipedia! JesseW 00:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:freestylefrappe suggested I let you know about this:

The reason I relisted it was that a copyright notice (at least in Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works signatories) is not required for something to be under copyright, and inelibble for inclusion into Wikipedia. Here are some pages to review in regards to this: Copyright#Copyright_notices, Wikipedia:Copyright#Contributors.27_rights_and_obligations, Public_domain#Expiration. After reading those pages, let me know if you still think the copied text is allowable, or if you have any other questions.

He also suggested I look thorough your contributions list to see if you copied any other material from websites that lacked copyright notices. If you remember, it would help if you would list any websites you've copied from, so we could clean up easier. Thanks for your (non-copied) contributions to Wikipedia! (we do need all the help we can get in Islamic history) JesseW 01:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About events with Muhammad, what happen now, where/what is "transwiki" ?

Peace!

--Striver 13:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Striver! When I closed Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Events with Muhammad: 1, I saw that a number of those who voted delete said that this belonged in Wikibooks. Therefore I closed it as a transwiki, which means that the entire article is moved to one of the sister projects (e.g. Wikitionary, Wikisource, Wikibooks, Wikiquote, etc.). Usually this process is very slow, the time between the debate closing and the transwiki being complete is often in the order of a few weeks. This time however, the process was remarkably quick and was done in a matter of hours. The articles have been moved to Wikibooks, and are currently here, here, and here. The articles at Wikipedia are routinely deleted after the transwiki process is completed. Hope that helps! Best wishes, Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been having VfD difficulty again. A tactical suggestion: maintain one article called Sahaba, with a list of all of them. When you get the individual paragraphs past stub length and notability, then make separate articles. (They can still be linked to each other, like this link to the section above: User talk:Striver#Transwiki. Good luck. Septentrionalis 22:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...my suggestion was not intended to in any way insult you. I was simply trying to address what seems to be one of the biggest problems—in fact, I believe it is the one problem that leads to the perception of other problems. The problem is not only from you, however, it is also a perception of you by those who work diligently to maintain the factual accuracy and encyclopedic form of the articles where you make the majority of your contributions. That said, one of the first English improvements you can work on is to stop saying "grama" and "gramma". Both words have meanings in English: grama is a type of grass, and gramma is a common way of saying the much more literary "grandmother". The word you're looking for is "grammar". You keep saying you have a bad grandmother instead of that your English grammar is bad.  :-p Tomer ^TALK 00:50, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:SIIEG --Zeno of Elea 07:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, I may regret this but ... I would appreciate it if you could go to the Qiyamah article and see if there's anything there that you, as a Shi'a, would reject. We have an anon editor there who says he based his account on the sahih hadith. I pointed out that what is sahih for Sunni is not sahih for Shi'a; he said that Shi'a were just a tiny sect that could be disregarded. Now there may be no problem. The Shi'a may accept exactly the same hadith as the Sunni in regard to the Qiyamah, in which case there's no use fighting about it. But I would appreciate a Shi'a opinion. Zora 09:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried and tried to fight against the vandalism on Qiyamah. I was banned by User:Dmcdevit for my efforts. I really no longer have the patience to deal with this nonsense. You can tell by his edits that Universaliss hates Shia with a passion...not to mention Christians and Jews...I'm not asking for long term commitment...I just want you to revert the last five vandal edits which are atrocious by any standards...Thank you for your help. -Freestylefrappe

I noticed you added a large chunk to this article recently. Could you post your sources (webpages, books, etc.)? It would be really helpful. Thanks. freestylefrappe 23:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Striver, please don't copy previously published material into Wikipedia without proper license. If the material is public domain or otherwise appropriately licensed you need to document it on the articles talk page.

Posting copyrighted material without the express permission of the copyright holder is a violation of applicable law and of our policy. Those who repeatedly post copyrighted material may be blocked from further editing. --Duk 00:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

The pages you wanted to have deleted where not Wikipedia article, they where project pages. They are Guild aimed to assemble editors and direct their efforts, and therefore not subjugated to "no original research".

Take a look att Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG.

If those guilds are to be delete, so should Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG.

--Striver 00:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Conspiracies are fun and the discussion perhaps goes forever. But please understand certain wikipedia policies confine us to certain rules.

Wikipedia strives on verifiable facts. Therefore, no original research should prevail on wikipedia.

Wikipedia is neither a forum or a free webhost. Wikipedia is not a soapbox either.

Wiki projects exist to improve quality of multiple wikipedia articles.

You are welcome to create a wikipedia project to improve the quality of all conspiracy articles.

--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO Striver. I'm wondering if you know what the Shiah view is on the explanation of the Surah 66. The Sunni sources say that it refers to Aisha and Hafsa, but Shiahs don't accept this because Aisha was an enemy of Ali's and Hafsa was Umar ibn al-Khatab's daughter (who Shiahs also don't like, as evidenced by your categorizing him with Adolf Hitler on your user page). But I don't know what the exact Shiah explanation is, so I'm wondering if you know or can find out. I've also heard that Shiahs don't consider Surah 66 to be part of the real Qur'an, what do you think? --Zeno of Elea 13:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assalamu Alalikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh

I have a 16 year old daughter. She is beautiful, faithful, obedient and subservient, religious, very modest, knows all household duties very well.

I kindly request you to take her in the name of Allah. Nikah Mut'ah will also be gracefully accepted. Insh'Allah you will accept the request. Please let me know. Allah Haafiz Farhan Ansari

Wa Aleikom as salam wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh!

Oh, is it so? What is the dowry? You Munafiq, stay out of my sight. May you accompany Umar and Muwiya in the afterlife.

--Striver 04:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek

Davenbelle 04:59, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I love your user page. I hope you get a humour barnstar. You really do make wikipedia more lighthearted. Thank you for a very amusing and creative user page. My congratulations to you.

Hi there. I have moved the discussion about Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The London bombing Conspiracy Guild to this VfD as this is really an article, not a category. -Splash 17:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Striver, I'm afraid I didn't hear about that site being a CIA front. Can you please tell me more and how you know that? Also, can you recommend any site similar that's critical of the West's war on Islam? Also, I figured your your user name, clever and subtle. Mr100percent 23:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Striver,

I was just examining your recent VfD for the SIIEG wikipedia project. Deleting Wikipedia projects is hardest at the best of times and my suspicion is that it will survive.

So, if the VfD fails, I would argue that you instead use a more cooperative approach: that is, rather than working against SIIEG we should be co-opting it. After all, many of the (current) policies and codes are in-line with how most editors should regard Wikipedia, with a few ammendents.

So far membership seems to have been mostly advertised to those with an POV that is perhaps hostile to Islam. However, these individuals cannot own a Wikipedia page and I would suggest you send invites to everyone interested in Islam-related articles asking them to join with SIIEG and moderate it's influence. Certainly, we should be look to cooperate not only with "liberal Muslims" and "apologists" but also with islamophobes and right-wing, anti-Islam editors. Axon (talk|contribs) 10:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't advise such methods: that could be construed as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (WP:POINT). The SIIEG people have done a lot of back-tracking to ammend the SIIEG page and make it more moderate and less likely to be deleted which is good so your VfD wasn't a waste. I think we should take this further and, rather than resorting to such tactics, constructively work to make SIIEG open for all as suggested above. Axon (talk|contribs) 14:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just merge it with Abu Sufyan? The article is way too specific.Heraclius 04:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, I don't think you understand me here. That article is way too specific and not encyclopedic. Merge it into one of the relative articles.Heraclius 16:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have signed the RFC against yourself in the section for people essentially stating "I, the undersigned, agree that the above is true and therefore Striver's behaviour is inappropriate" - are you sure you intended to sign there? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 18:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am from Iran. – Kaveh ^(talk) 22:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a third party's opinion on the revert war at Al Andalus, wondering if you could drop on by? --Irishpunktom\^talk 19:07, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Striver, it may -- or may not -- be a good idea, but for one thing, the template is too wide. For another, it's going to be inherently contentious choosing scholars to put on the template. You need a list, and you need to break the list up by field of scholarship (fiqh, kalam, sira, whatever-the-history-of-conquest stuff is called, geography, medicine) and in most cases, by sects and schools. The template could be applied to people on the list. It should link, not to names, but to fields, sects, madhabs, etc.

Start with a list, not a template. Zora 01:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There have been the usual people involved in a determined attempt to POV this article. Could you please keep an eye out on these articles and perhaps provide your input? I have made my best attempt to make them unbiased/readable but I have a feeling they will keep reverting.Heraclius 04:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as I suspected, same people are POVing Apostasy in Islam. Here is my version [4] that is more concise and accurate than Nickbee's.Heraclius 17:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created the Asra Nomani page as the main page because that name configuration gets more hits on the internet and users will be searching for Asra Nomani rather than Asra Q. Nomani --CltFn 00:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I added the Sunni article to that VfD and notified the people that voted. So, if that matters to your vote please take it into account... and, I do hope you will stop being silly enough to imply this is because the article is about Shi'ism. gren グレン 16:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Had to add that Hadee, sorry! --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:51, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Nickbee's back at it again, can you please take a look?Heraclius 17:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nikah Urfi

A variation of Nikah, "Az-Zawaj ul-urfi", "Nikah urfi", "unregistred/hidden marriage" is a marriage that fills the Islamic Juridical aspects of marriage, but without filling a registration to the state. (ref)

Technically this is a phenomena of modern Muslim societies, not of Islamic law. In Islamic law, a valid marriage does not need to be registered by the state. Many governments now copy European practices and require marriages to be registered, but this is the result of secular law. It has been alleged that this practice allows some Muslims in the West to practice polygamy even where it is illegal.

a "Secret marriage" (ref)

urfi (not registered) (ref 1, 2)

Above I pasted you the Nikah urfi section for your convenience. I have trimmed down Islamic view of marriage sections on Mut'ah and Sunni views because of their lesser importance. Plain Nikah should be discussed in much more depth (and Nikah needs to be expanded). Mut'ah could have more expansion in paragraph for but not an oversimplfied list. The Sunni types deserve what they have or less. I pasted Urfi so if you'd like to create an article you can... but, it does not deserve much if any discussion on the Islamic view of marriage page. Having a page were Mut'ah is shown to be as important as Nikah and Misyar is shown to be as important as Mut'ah is ludicrous... they must be pushed off onto sub-pages because they are not as common. Please don't start your traditional accussations of anti-Shia because you know that even for Shia typical Nikah is much more important. gren グレン 02:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While the roles assigned to the Genders does warrant an article of its own, nothing like that is mentioned in that article, why the hell would you want to keep it? --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:30, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Can you check This out and tell me what you think. I did it all my self, but still don't like it. It's ugly and does not seem to read well. I'm sure i left out loads too. --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:30, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Your points

Thanks for your input man.Regarding wherer I put in "There were some instances where women held high positions of power and authority." it's because I had actually read once of a Woman leading a group of soldiers in the arab desert, but, I just can't remember where I did read it. I might remove it.

Regarding the killing of girls, if you know other reasons for the practice, go ahead and add them.. that was all I know of.

Regarding family, I just wanted to explain just how fundamental the role of family was, before then breaking down the differences between the roles off mother and Father! Do you think I went on too long?

Yeah, i did phrase the Obligation for children thing poorly.. the point i was trying to make is that the point of maraige is to have .. I didn't want to go on about the differing beliefs in the reason for this, Just that marraige is for kids, for families.. Can you come up with a better way of explaining this?

Whats this you say of a "married life in quran and Sunnah" article, i don't know it!

Err.. Do you mean I should link to cunnilingus (this link contains explicit images.. for some reason)? The point behind thats inclusion is more to do with the breakdown of gender roles on religious grounds. I should include Sistanis opinion there. Does Khamenei differ?.. or maybe I should ditch it, it kinda comes across as a bit .. puerile

yeah, I will quote Ibn Abbas, thats a good idea.

Yeah, I will further the explainaton there, it is lacking.

Regarding the men in charge the qur'an thing, I don't have a source for it, because i didn't think it was needed.. thats how it works in every muslim house i know... Maybe It's an Indian Sub-Continental thingy.. do you know where this varies?

yeah, the point regarding the womens clothing thing was to show how, when given the choice, more and more women choose to wear Hijab, whereas where women are forced to wearing it, inevitably, women will look for ways around it.

Thanks again for the input, I will go over these points when Brandon is finished his revision and let you know! --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:02, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

... at this? Many thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 10:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at this; The Brain added the TotalyDisputed tag. freestylefrappe 17:04, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Striver,

Im not familiar with the procedure in rfc or anything like that. If there is anything you need me to do, let me know.--Zereshk 03:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you expand on this stub ( Imamat Day ) because it's Shia.. and I'm not..and thats all I know! --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How would you feel about merging Prophets of Islam into Nubuwwah? Seems to me the content is all good. The content from Prophets should just be placed under the content of Nubuwwah. freestylefrappe 22:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, when you have to lie about facts to try and convince people, don't you think that's a good sign that there's something wrong with your viewpoint? Just a question. --ArmadniGeneral 19:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot Somalia. freestylefrappe 02:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx 4 encouraging me for the work on Nahj al Balagha. Its gona be a long time b4 i finsih it all, the book has: 245 Sermons, 79 letters adn 206 sayings.

Do you use shiachat.com? if yes what is ur username--Khalid! 15:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hope u had a fulfilling Qadr night and ihya sessions.--Zereshk 20:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that since there are very few Muslims on Wikipedia perhaps there should be only The Muslim Guild for all Muslims - Sunnis and Shias. --JuanMuslim 04:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the correct way to go about it is if both the Shia and Sunni Guilds state that they belong to The Muslims Guild. I can see instances in which the Shia and Sunni Guilds will want to remain independent.--JuanMuslim 09:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you added this:
Some Sunni countries have debated whether the triple talaq can be performed with the help of modern technology such as by text message.
to the Talaq_(Nikah) article. Can you provide background info or sources on that subject? --tickle me 22:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw on Qiyamah you added: This is among the five Shia Roots of Religion. Instead of saying "this" I think it would make more sense to just state the name for all of the Roots. You might want to check out the introduction to Islamic eschatology. It only mentions three of the roots, but claims they are the principal beliefs. freestylefrappe 23:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, why are you going to all the Islam series articles and replacing them with another template???? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver it is a very good template, but the others are going to be really angry when they get here. :) Please start a discussion on Template talk: Islam or somewhere first. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, wait till the other's comment before replacing the original template. Otherwise I'm afraid it will be reverted. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. :) Well, it is a controversial replacement for the original template, but I am amazed at your hard work. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good to see some hard work being done here. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ck this out pls [5]

Have a wonderful Eid. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EID MUBARRAK --Khalid! 13:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes of the season to you and yours. BrandonYusufToropov 16:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eid Mubarak and best wishes from my side . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 18:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salam,

Are the definitions on Usooli and Shaikhi correct? The name Akhbari seems misplaced. Am I wrong? Thanx.--Zereshk 00:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Striver/Nayla bint Farasa has the article. Please expand it thoroughly before bringing it back to the main article space. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, if you honestly believe that the majority Sunni position on Nikah Mut'ah is that Ayat: 4.24 Allows it but that somehow the Prophet later disallowed it, you are wrong. The Sunni position is that 4.24 does not relate to Nikah Mut'ah specificly, but Nikah is a general sense. It is agreed that the practice existed at the time, but Sunnis will say that the Prophet forbade it after Khaybar, and I can throw a lot of hadees your way if you want me to prove it. (I'm not trying to do a "We're right and you're wrong thing here, just letting you know the positions) Eid Mubarrak, Assalaamo Aleikum. --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've discussed this ad naseum with Mufti Hussein... Whats the Tafsir you are reading this from ?--Irishpunktom\^talk 18:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These see alsos don't seem to be really directly related... under the pretext of relating to his fatwas, I somewhat understand... but, that doesn't merit a see also really because it has no specificity, it's like linking Einstein's see also with physics, jus too vague to be of any worth. So, could you not do it please? gren グレン 00:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, the Muslim guild (and not everyone there has said they agree) does not create wikipedia policy. Zora can disagree without having to state their disagreements with the Muslim guild. The fatwas of these men are for broad concepts. If there was something like Principle of double effect which Aquinas did then by all means that should be linked to. However the scholars are only a small part of those concepts, and it should be written about how they dealt with it, but not linked to in see also. It's not merely aesthetic concerns, it's also usefulness and pejorative linking. Did Hanifa directly talk about misyar in any fatwa, were his juristic rulings all fatwas? Philosophical discourse is not usually covered by fatwa and they tend to be addresses of direct concern on questions, not legalistic theory which is what Hanifa mostly dealt with, so it's also misleading. You will have to make a convincing article for their inclusion. If it wasn't so vague, and dealt with concepts specifically pioneered by the scholars then it wouldn't be such an issue, however they are vague concepts that most every scholar has dealt with in some sense, and not always in the form of a pronouncement. gren グレン 08:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See my response here [6]. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver please do not create any new articles. There are too many already and just remember that they will have to be watched for vandalism.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your Support! I really appreciate it. As for speedy deletes, I know that having just recently gotten into this process it's not something I'm going to instantly start doing. I am instead going to focus on learning the trade and focus more on closing AfDs where there is a voting process. I will still participate in speedies, but only if it's obvious nonsense... and I will still place tags rather than deleting until I have a better understanding of the process. Thanks again for you vote! PRueda29 17:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, you need to source all of your new articles, good sources. As it stands many of your articles show no encyclopedic use and are very borderline meeting the CSD. I don't want to have to start making sweeping deletions but you've been here long enough to understand the policies here. You must use proper syntax, bolding the title, adding proper categories, and proper stubs, etc. Cite sources when you make your atciles with special emphasis on reliable sources. If you have access to scholarly articles or books that would be the best, please cite them, and not just websites which are little better than hearsay for the most part. Also, cite context on the talk page from the books, so that other can check where, why you took the quotes / paraphrases you did. You've created so many articles and they are mostly in really bad shape now. Please start fixing them up so that we can be sure they have a use here. Obscure articles are great, but they need context and reliability. Help us in this endeavor. Thanks. gren グレン 21:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when you add an request for expansion it goes on the talk page and must be added to Wikipedia:Requests for expansion. If you are going to make the requests add it there, otherwise the requests will be removed from the article page since they don't belong there. gren グレン 22:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, it can be on the article page... they have decided which to put it on (talk or article) so I have no wright to tell you where to put it :) Vote on the issue at Wikipedia:Template_locations#Template:Expansion. But, it does need to be listed on that page. gren グレン 22:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, I have deleted this article... firstly you never use a reflexive reference to wikipedia in a title! Also it's a duplicate of List of Islamic and Muslim related topics just in outline form... so, I moved it to Outline of Islamic and Muslim related topics... I personally have started a similar project with (no) help from Nickbee, the erason I created it in the first place. As of now it mirrors the Britannica outline for Islamic topics (see User:Grenavitar/Islam outline). I am deleting your title because it's just really unusable and we don't have wikipedia in the titles, if you have any comments ask. Please, please, please Striver! read our naming and style conventions! I've had to clean up a lot of this kind of thing from you. gren グレン 22:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey striver. An anti-Islamic bigot has been adding a Daniel Pipes link to this article that has nothing to do with the subject. The article is about Arabian sex tourism and is not about Nikah, but he keeps saying it is about it. Could you please keep on eye on this and revert it if he tries to put it back in? Yuber^(talk) 16:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How would you (we) do that?--Zereshk 00:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your greetings. In fact I'm just a student of history who is profoundly interested with the early history of Islam...As for whether I'm a shia or a sunni, well, let give an answer of what I'm not...I'm not a believer in the infallibility of the Imams (I advocate that only one who is immune from error is the prophet) and I never bought the argument of justice of companions, nor the "rightly guided Caliphs".

I'm not sure what that makes me, so I'm not a shia, or a sunni,nor even a secular...

Hi. The Muslim Guild/User comments/* were orphans in article space. I have moved them to wiki space under Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild. - Tεxτurε 21:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi striver. I did not delete Sirat un Nabi and I can't undelete it either. Please see this page [7].--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I came close to being one. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know who you mean. ;) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What are you trying to say? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you want me to give you a barnstar to make it equal? Juan's barnstar was given for graphic quality. Sure I will give you a barnstar too in time, one that considers all your contributions. :) I like that you started the Muslim Guild so don't worry, you will get one soon. But I suggest that you slow down in creating new articles and also discuss more new articles that you want to make on the talk page first. Otherwise good work. Thanks and ma salam. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and I see my good friend BYT has given you one already. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zora exhausted my energy today. Im tired, and I have a big day on Moday ahead of me. Take over bro. --Zereshk 03:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx man. By the way, read what I posted here. Very sad.--Zereshk 03:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link to the info re Madelung. Good googling! Zora 06:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We can't use his picture, because it would be a copyright violation. We could write the Institute and ask if they could give us a picture to release into the public domain. Zora 07:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep experiments like that off the main article space. Thanks.  :) - Lucky 6.9 02:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bro, are you there? --Striver 02:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC).

Yea, you wanna talk abt something? --Khalid! 17:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • What exactly is a RFC? --Khalid! 13:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see any reason for adding list of critics to Islamic scholars . When a lot of them are just pink elephants from the net . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 19:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, you seem to be anxious to gather material for your forthcoming RFC, and are hence being intentionally provocative. Do you LIKE fights? Please stop. Yes, I'm going to revert it. Zora 23:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Striver. I just wanted to let you know first that a discussion concerning you has come up at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_reform/Proposals/Uncontested_deletions#Example. You may be interested in reading that section. I also wanted to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, and encourage you to keep making quality additions to articles on Islam-related topics. Christopher Parham [[User_talk:Christopherparham|(talk)]] 01:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if I were you I'd refrain from using such language to describe Zora -- in the eyes of other editors, it won't make you look good. Either way, though, best of luck in working out your differences with her or at least coming to some agreement that will allow you both to edit without angering each other. Later! Christopher Parham (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think the article you made at Ali ibn al-Athir might be the same person as the article Ibn al-Athir. I thought I'd let you know to give you first crack at merging them. --DanielCD 13:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have created countless new, badly formatted, etc., new articles when you said you wouldn't. You had four Maududi books that were mostly links to Amazon... firstly, we don't link to commercial booksellers, we do ISBN XXX because that will link to something where all booksellers are referenced. Striver, it's getting out of hand. gren グレン 21:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the procedure is to put down the request here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I dont have time to get to it right now. Have to take a friend shopping. I dont even think making pages on "the Shia view of so and so" is right. Why is the Sunni view considered standard, and part of the article, but for Shi'as, it has to branch out from the article? I think youre caving under pressure from Zora. Her actions have no justification whatsoever. Unfortunately, aside from my life and studies, I am also the only active editor of Iranian pages. So my responsibility is very heavy. But I will continue to help out.--Zereshk 23:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Use the { { ref|(number) } } and { { note|(number) } } code to reference sources (like I just did on the Ali page), so that the revisionists will stop deleting text based on what they call bad referencing methods.--Zereshk 00:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, I am informing you of this because I don't want your information to be passed by. I have reverted to SimonP's edition because what you had fits WP:CSD A1 and therefore means it should be deleted... or redirected. If you want to flesh it out and reference it that is fine, but do not revert to that version Striver because with that little information it should be incorporated into Ali. gren グレン 07:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what I am telling you about Abu Turab is just a guideline... articles that small can and should be deleted when they have such little context. As for Zora, believe what you will but I recommend everyone dropping the issue, if she was Jewish it'd be her own affair, etc., and especially when she says she isn't. Maybe you'd be interested in taking a look at Islamic banking... see what you think. gren グレン 09:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notable fatwas should be discussed as important points in his career in his article. Listing the name of someone as a fatwa cannot be correct and shows no relevance as to what the fatwa could have been, therefore notable things he has said should be written about on his page. The idea of listing fatwas as you have done in See also sections doesn't exactly make sense because it doesn't describe what the viewpoint is. Listing fatwas and having "Ali" as one would mean nohting, now, going to the scholar's article and saying "Scholar A believe that Ali was the second best model for humanity that has walked the earth which differs from the views of Sunnis and twenty-sevener Shias whom have opposed that belief." Put fatwas in context, they are religious rulings and showing the socio-religio-political context is what an article should do. So, the list in itself has no real content, which is why it is up for speedy deletion, otherwise I would put it up for AfD. But, a list of fatwas tells very little and isn't very encyclopedic. Now, if the page of the person you were writing about was huge, you could make a page on something like "Religious stance of Scholar A" or, I would consult others for better names... or you could choose the style of "Scholar A life at Medina" and "Scholar A life at Mecca"... but, having an undescribed list of fatwas serves no use. gren グレン 10:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Get your facts straight before you slander other users. Here is my contribution list. Not that I have to prove anything to you. Unless of course you want to go to arbitration?--Bob 23:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are trying to reinstate this really offensive article. Can you please take a look? Yuber^(talk) 16:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, problem seems to have been solved. Yuber^(talk) 05:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salaam, tried to give you a barnstar, but think have messed up the format of ur page (not too good at this). --Khalid! 21:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that {{Islam-bio-stub}} (for religious figures) and {{Islamic-theologian-stub}} have been created, but need to be populated. Do you have any objection to {{Islamic-clergy-stub}}? --Mairi 08:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's right about the scope of {{Islam-bio-stub}} and {{Islamic-theologian-stub}}. I think the better question, as far as stub sorting, is whether seperating out clerics is useful (and clear who belongs in which category), and whether all three stubs would then still be of sufficient size. Since I don't know all that much about Islam, I'll trust your judgement on that question.

As far as {{Islam-book-stub}}, if you can convince people there's 60ish current stubs, you'll get it. --Mairi 03:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help translate this for me to swedish? Many thanks in advance!

Albania built its first railroad in 1947, and 40 years later Tiranë was linked to all other major industrial centres in the country. The highway network has been extended even to remote mountain villages. Air transport, however, remains largely underdeveloped. There is no scheduled domestic air service.

--Armour 10:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

... which was chilling. We really should find a way to work together more harmoniously, given the insanity we are all facing.

A propos of which -- if you get the chance to take a look at the article Islamofascism -- resurrected by some reactionary trolls through a parliamentary trick of some kind, I'd appreciate it. Option A is for the article to be deleted, but I'm not sure how to do that at this stage. Option B is for the page to reflect a very brief summary of the usage of the word, as opposed to, say, photographs of Nazis and Muslims palling around during WWII, which is what some people favor. BrandonYusufToropov 21:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote to redirect Islamofascism to Neofascism and religion...

... which is where it belongs. Vote here: [8] BrandonYusufToropov 14:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Striver,

Just letting you know that there is an AfD for Crusade (modern).

Regards, Ben Aveling 22:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Striver,

I reverted your additions to the Fallujah page. The WP information is already contained at the special pages US occupation of Fallujah and Operation Phantom Fury, along with detailed information on other aspects of the war and occupation. It was decided on the talk page that the Fallujah page should be focused on background info on the city's history, culture and people. Thanks, Seabhcán 14:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of Islamic and Muslim related topics:

I'll let an admin trace your IPs.

Admins can't trace IPs. Even bureaucrats can't. Only checkusers and developers can, but there's very few of them, they're very busy, and tracing the IP of a logged-in user constitutes a breach of privacy so it is done only in extreme cases. I don't think your personal disagreement with another Wikipedia user constitutes an extreme case. — JIP | Talk 19:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There are currently three stub categories, Category:Islamic theologian stubs, Category:Islamic scholar stubs, and Category:Islamic-scholar-stub, and two stub templates {{Islamic-theologian-stub}} and {{Islamic-scholar-stub}} to be used for stubs of one type. I put theese on WP:SFD to clean up the situation. You might want to join the discussion there. Conscious 08:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to the talk page of the Tawhid article - section "Added Sections" --JuanMuslim ^1m 16:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, I've reverted your changes putting books into this category. I agree that "Islamic studies books" might not be the best title but "Books about Muslims" is far far worse and misses the point of Islamic studies books. Any book about Arafat would be a book about Muslims, or any fiction by authors whose main characters are Muslims. Islamic studies books denotes books that are related to Islam in some sense. Not necessarily theologically, but at least Muslim societal aspects and Islam's affect on society. A book about a Muslim is so vague, so don't just unilaterally make these decisions. If you want to put it up for a vote then do so, but don't change them without discussion when it's not just a straightforward issue. They also should not be in the category Islamic scholars. Books are not people, and scholars are people. Also, many people write books about Islamic related issues that are not Islamic scholars. I am also moving Standing Alone in Mecca (book) back to Standing Alone in Mecca. There is no reason for your move and there is no reason to disambiguate. For articles like "Islamic connection to Nazism" adding "(book)" was necessary so people didn't take the article as fact mistakenly. However, Standing Alone in Mecca doesn't have a misleading title. Thanks and please think and discuss before you just make changes. gren グレン 03:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I just saw your Category:Islamic books and realized it should be merged with Islamic studies books. I think Islamic studies books is better... because it denotes a study... Islamic books is like... Islamic movie... is it Islamic? or a study of Islam? The point being, the material isn't necessarily Islamic... it's a study of Islam. Granted, this differs from books like hadith collections, which parobably are "Islamic books" although I prefer wording like "Islam related books" what do you think of this. I personally think we should solve it the way Christianity solves it. They have "Christian texts" and "Christian studies books" which is why i had it setup the way I did. I don't mind your input in reorganizing some what... because, I think there could be a base category for writings on Islam in general. What do you think of this director structure:

• Islam related literature
  • Islamic texts
    • Qur'an
    • Hadith <--for hadith collections to be listed
  • Islam studies books
    • Books critical of Islam

If a text is a matter of faith then it gets listed under texts... if it is a study of the sources of faith then it goes in under Islamic studies. Of course, there will be some debate about "Peak of Eloquence" or Sunni hadith collections... but, is peak of eloquence and the writings of the Imams considered holy, or doctrinal work, or is it a study of tradition and the prophet? You could decide that since I don't know well enough. I am going to start creating this system, so... feel free to comment, I think it's more organized.

Also, the issue gets even more muddled with texts like Ahmadiyya texts... but, I suppose they could get a sub-category. gren グレン 04:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic related books can't be a sub category of Islamic scholars, it's just the way our system works. Categories get more and more precise. A less precise version of a book about Islam is not a scholar -- it's a book. To put books in a subcategory of scholars is attempting to call books humans since category:scholars is in category:people by occupation. It's just how our system works so we can't do that. I understand they are related... but, it's not to be a subcategory.

"Books about Muslims" are just too vague. I understand your point in this... trying to separate theological vs. societal books, but it can't really be done cleanly so it shouldn't be done at all... the divide is very wishy washy in some books. Is a Daniel Pipes book about inherent flaws in Muslim societies or flaws in Islam? It's hard to tell.... and, I'd say it's about both more or less... even if many Muslims would disagree that it's about Islam. I understand your point but it can't go by that title... let's try to think of something... that wouldn't include fiction about Muslims.... because, "books about Muslims" could include that and is too vague. gren グレン 15:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at Zeno of Elea's pov changes to this article. Yuber^(talk) 00:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per here: [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim jurists]

I am sorry you are pissed me off at me and I lead you to give me sarcasm or whatever, I just thought that the division of jurists on a religious basis was a little questionable. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see it was in good faith. Sorry for the sarcasm. --Striver 03:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No it was funny! That is why I said thanks : ) A lot of time people think I get mad when I am not, so I'll start using these ": )". Take care, εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, wanted to let you know that this list:

• China (1945-46, 1950-53)
• Korea (1950-53)
• Guatemala (1954, 1967-69)
• Indonesia (1958)
• Cuba (1959-60)
• the Belgian Congo (1964)
• Peru (1965)
• Laos (1964-73)
• Vietnam (1961-73)
• Cambodia (1969-70)
• Grenada (1983)
• Libya (1986)
• El Salvador (1980s)
• Nicaragua (1980s)
• Panama (1989)
• Iraq (1991-99)
• Bosnia (1995)
• Sudan (1998)
• Yugoslavia (1999)

Is incomplete, and I can help you with it later on. One thing that should really be on here is this man's evil schemes. How I hate Bush. I have some books on the U.S. after the Second World War, and I am currently reading this book called Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, all of which have lead me to conclude that the U.S. policies around the world are atrocious (and that the U.S. is probably the most evil nation in history since the Roman Empire). You forgot, of the top of my head, Iraq, Somalia, and Haiti! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, good work on Islamic Christianity studies, and thanks for the contribution. However, you forgot to add any references to the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. From what websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Islamic Christianity studies? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? You can simply add links, or there are several different citation methods list at WP:CITET. Thanks! Lupin|talk|popups 20:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What I'd like to see here is a reference verifying that this is really a recognized area of study, and that the description in the article is accurate. Cheers! Lupin|talk|popups 21:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised the issue of your hierarchical notation at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).

Also, I think it was totally outrageous that you moved Ulema to Muslim Islamic jurists without consulting anyone. Your new title is silly -- it's an oxymoron. Zora 09:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver do not move articles like that without any discussion. I have moved it back. You cannot just change everything without consultation. gren グレン 10:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Muslim Islamic" ? --Irishpunktom\^talk 12:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware, Jayjg and Klonimus are Conspiring against you. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like for you to help maintain the Shia Islam Portal.--JuanMuslim ^1m 04:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salaam -- I think it's the sort of thing that needs to be developed collaboratively, not by one person. BYT 04:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Could you give a reference (Koran or haditha) for Muslims believing in the Virgin Birth of Jesus? I've lived many years in Muslim countries and had arguments with scholars who are disgusted at the idea. (That was in Bangladesh).

PiCo 06:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to Virgin Mary in Islam. --JuanMuslim ^1m 16:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks :).

Vote is here, apparently extending forever until move proponents garner 60%. Could I ask you to take a look, and consider voting Oppose? BYT 20:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I just want to remind you that removing AfD tags before the articles entry is closed is frowned upon. Please don't remove them anymore thanks. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize I see the mistake I made. Sorry to have wasted your time :-D KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey this is on a side note, and it is none of my business, but do you know how to archive your talk page? For when they get extremely long as yours is now? If you don't and would like to have a look at How to archive a talk page. Again sorry for the misunderstanding. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver every single day i write the story of the Battle of Khaybar but these two (Timothy Usher and Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg)keep on deleting my stuff. I think that they are playing around with the Islamic war aticles. I don't know what the really want, why don't you try editing the article, ok! user:Salman01