User talk:Aminz/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Timothy Usher 2 Hijab 3 Islamic Barnstar Award 4 Files 5 Mizan 6 Hi once again 7 Discussion 8 Tahrif 9 Polygamy 10 HI 11 Rights and obligations of spouses in Islam 12 A barnstar for you 13 Excellent Work 14 re:Thank You 15 Criticism of Islam 16 Islam and Slavery 17 Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-06 Victim photo from 1981 18 Salaam brother 19 Good work 20 thank you 21 Ghadir Khumm 22 Thank you 23 hadith 24 Jihad 25 Itmaam-i-hujjat 26 Muhammad Image 27 hey Aminz 28 WP:3RR 29 Article needing review for significance 30 Hi 31 Best wishes on the start of Ramadan 32 Banu Qurayza 33 Muhammad introduction 34 Please do not put the tag on the Muhammad article without consensus 35 Muhammad as a diplomat 36 Khaybar 37 The user talk page that you recreated 38 re: letter to Mukawkis 39 Jesus 40 need clarification 41 Couple of things 42 You help required 43 Slave trade 44 opinion 45 You started it 46 Women's rights 47 sources 48 You Accuse 49 Request for sources for Quran and science 50 Shia/Sunni 51 Muchas gracias 52 Tag 53 License tagging for Image:Jle.JPG 54 License tagging for Image:Profwatt.jpg 55 License tagging for Image:Manning.jpg 56 Eid Mubarak 57 "Mahound" 58 Encyclopedia of Qur'an 59 RfC 60 Muhammad 61 Thanks 62 Ibn Hazm 63 Award 64 yes 65 article 66 A little (spammed) thank you 67 Thanks very much for your AGF 68 I'm only kind of back 69 Recent edits 70 Sorry! 71 Christianity 72 User notice: temporary 3RR block 73 Regarding reversions[18] made on November 7, 2006 to Christianity 74 Thank you for your support! 75 You are responsible

[edit] Timothy Usher

Sorry about the delay, I've been gone for a bit. Yes, Timothy told me about it, and I'll take a close look at the page sometime soon. I'm still inacive however, having just returned from a week away from home (and only here for a few days before flying away again). Dmcdevit·t 05:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hijab

I just put two verses more on Hijab from Qur'an and now it gives the impression as "head covering" is not part of Shariah. If you also feel it, do let me know. TruthSpreader^Talk 09:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually thought of an interesting example of my own, which I definitely cannot put on Wikipedia. As the Qur'an says:..and let them wear their Khimar (coverings or head-covering) over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments... It is similar to if someone says to me that I should close buttons of my shirt. Does that mean, that I should always wear shirt or it means that I should not show my bare chest to others. Because I can still wear some other dress and still follow this rule. So I think, this verse is just emphasizing on chest covering rather than head covering and it is totally taken wrong by most Muslims. But look at this: [1]. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 15:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at:Hijab#Scholarly_interpretation. TruthSpreader^Talk 06:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As I told you, I am a firm believer that Islam championed all those values, which west is finding now. TruthSpreader^Talk 07:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The biggest example is sanctity of family system, which definitely comes from restriction of sexual relations to only spouses. West is now filling this gap with excessive liberty. TruthSpreader^Talk 07:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If you read the article "Good and Evil" which I sent you and you read the Qur'an:"But the fact is that man is well-aware of himself even though he puts up his excuses." (75:14-15) and you read the saying of Jesus:Every man will be judged according to his own scale. These all things bring us to the fact that we all share same values as humans. We know from our nature what is wrong (basic stuff i.e. not to lie, not to steal, not to betray, not to be dishonest etc. and most of all, belief in one Supreme being) Hence west is not going to find something new in this regard. What the religion actually tells us, are only those things in which there are chances that we will make mistakes. For example, religion doesn't tell us how to make cars, but it does tell us that we should dress modestly, because it is possible that we will finish up in a moral dilemma. Similarly, religion does not tell us that we should not eat lions or tigers, but it does tell us that we should not eat pork, whose beastly habits are dominant, but human nature can fall easily. Similarly, the spirituality cannot be best attained unless done with body jestures. This is exactly what Islam teaches us in the form of prayer, and then religion sets limits that how can we show our affection to God, as people have been doing human sacrifices. It is a complex thing, this world is not black and white. Even though I have firm belief in Islam, there are Muslims who are doing horrible things. So things are not black and white on surface, but our decisions are always because of some struggle which we do in ourselves. TruthSpreader^Talk 07:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries, have your time. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 07:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Barnstar Award

Please offer your opinion, vote, or whatever about your choice for the image to be used with the Islamic Barnstar Award at the Barnstar proposals page. Although there is consensus for the concept of an Islamic Barnstar Award, some editors would like to change the image for the award. I was just thinking you should be aware of this discussion because you have contributed to Islamic-related articles, received the Islamic Barnstar Award, or have contributed to the Islam-related Wikiprojects, etc.--JuanMuslim ^1m 03:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You can mention your comment as well as which image you support at the link I mentioned.--JuanMuslim ^1m 14:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Files

Yes, I have received. Thanks for that! TruthSpreader^Talk 09:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mizan

Salaam, I created an article on ,Mizan, for quick reference. Maybe it'll help someday. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I have added the sources.[2] TruthSpreader^Talk 08:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi once again

I was just wondering if you can provide any Qura'nic verse where any reference been made about the life beyond our earth or on this subject. thanks phippi46 19:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

---

[edit] Discussion

I believe that Jews have a lot of difference among themselves. If you would ask a Ribbinic Jew or Hissinic Jew and then a progressive Jew, you will find a lot of differences. So you cannot generalize your ideas regarding Judaism by just talking with a Jew. Although, we Muslims tend to differ from each other on basic issues a little bit less than what Jews would differ with each other. For example, a progressive Jew (at least my friend) doesn't believe in a physical afterlife, but other Jews would disagree with him. In theory, it is a huge difference of opinion especially if said by a renouned scholar. TruthSpreader^Talk 09:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

But interesting enough, in many things, we do share a lot of trades. For example, Jews love to play with words, as this Jewish fellow replied to a comment on first commandment that it is the denial of all gods and not injunction of one God that will make us successful. Our scholars sometimes have such stupid discussions, which to me, are just making excuses to have your own belief. But I must say that, it was a good conversation. TruthSpreader^Talk 09:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tahrif

I have no doubt that all religions did come from the same God, so theoratically speaking, they all have to advocate the same objective; which we don't see. So if all Muslims have the same Qur'an, the probability is very high that it is the same Qur'an from Prophet Muhammad(interestingly, even with some basic differences, Shias and Sunnis have the same Qur'an). But when we talk about issues like usury, people forget that prohibition is because of ethical reasons, and I would strongly disagree that Morals change with time. And I believe before people actually point out that Islam needs a overhauling, they should present problems in Islam, as our understanding of the religion can be faulty but the not the religion which is meant to be in this world till Judgement day. Every thing in religion has a reason, and I learned this way, and I am a strong advocate of this approach. But the important thing in our learning of the religion is that we are not taught Morals but rather religion is taught first (considered to be a substitute for Moral teachings), which I don't agree. A person has to be first human, then a good Muslim. Islam can only be appreciated if you have good Morals, otherwise results are in front of us. As I always say to my friends, you can be a good person without any religion, but religion gives you a good reason to be good, even in complex cases of Moral dilemmas. TruthSpreader^Talk 12:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sir a religion give us a chance to be a good human, this was the basic principal of nearly all the religions. I disagree with respect that a person has to be a human first and then good muslim. I think a good muslim is a good human, the problem come to interpetret the meaning that some take differently. The God send his messengers only to improve the human beings, in order to make them better. What kind of changes you think are necessary to improve Islam, if I ask ? phippi46 23:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• • The most important reason for the religion is the success in our afterlife, which with no doubt, is the most important thing as this life is limited but the next one is forever. It is also evident that those people who accepted Islam in the early days of Islam, were the ones who had strong appreciation for truth, and at least were abstaining from things like telling lies and dishonesty. Preaching morals are described in the religion under the term 'amr bi'l-ma'ruf wa nahi 'ani'l-munkar, and the reason behind is that, first a human is asked to have good morals and then he will be a better recepient of the truth, otherwise there is no benefit of putting best books on the back of a donkey. And I will re-iterate, what I just said in my previous message, that Islam doesn't need any change. Our understanding can be faulty but not the religion itself. TruthSpreader^Talk 03:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polygamy

I just made a few changes in this article, and I think Mizan is the best article, I ever created on wikipedia. It can be used to improve so many articles on wikipedia. BUT I need time to do that. :( TruthSpreader^Talk 15:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HI

Sorry for delay, I was busy doing something else. I will be able to feedback on your recent work, as soon I finished reading it. In the mean time, I saw that you are no longer active on Wikipedia. I hope to see you back in action soon, take care. phippi46 16:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rights and obligations of spouses in Islam

Salaam, I have changed this article. You should have a look. TruthSpreader^Talk 18:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Salaam, Nice to hear from you again. I edited another article, Women in Islam. I wanted to move Women in Muslim societies to this article, but User:Zora resented, as she said that even though we don't have credible source to link offenses like honor killing with Islam, we still need to present it. So I created a complete article altogether based on jurist opinions. Now I have asked User:Striver to secularize the latter article (remove the Islam banner and replace with contemporary controversies of Islam[he will have to make one new] plus giving socio-political reasoning for the events rather than religious reasoning). If you can also help in this process, that'll be great.

Secondly, you asked about Shia Muslims, I am ready to call "The people of the book" as Muslims, so Shias are definitely Muslims in my dictionary. But remember, salvation in the afterlife is not on your assosiation with any group (even identifying yourself with Islam is not enough), it is based on certain rules. As in Qur'an:5:69 . So these are the positive qualities, which a person should have. The negative things are: a person should not have killed an innocent life, he should not have denied a true messenger after it becomes evident to him, and he should not have decieved others in law of inheritence (that would apply only to Muslims to my understanding), otherwise Qur'an promises eternal damnation.

FYI: while it is true that Shias & Sunnis have the same Qur'an (I'm not arguing this issue at all), I wanted to point out that "Bismillah" is actually counted as an Ayah, at least by Sunnis. There are 114 instances of "Bismillah" in the Qur'an (the same as the number of Surahs); one Surah (At-Towbah) doesn't have it at its beginning like the other 113, while another Surah (An-Naml) has it twice (at its beginning and in the middle). Clearly, the number of times "Bismillah" was revealed is of significance. Salaam. (posted on TruthSpreader's talk page. --How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 08:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am going to the forum, which I told you. Do pray for me. TruthSpreader^Talk 15:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you please take care of Rights and obligations of spouses in Islam and Women in Islam for a few days, as I think, there is some serious POV coming. TruthSpreader^Talk 18:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A barnstar for you

		An Award
		Barnstar, awarded by User:Itsmejudith to Aminz for his contributions to the article dhimmi and just being always fair and cheerful 7th September 2006

[edit] Excellent Work

Hi Aminz, first of all cong. on new Barnstar... I think if this trend continue like that, we may have to recommend you for President :-) anyway, I read your work on page you send me for view and possible feedback, I must say, that you have done a great job, and its wonderful. What you have suggested as guidlines, I think no one will argue on it. As you know the realibility of some one is always relative, there will be some scholors, who are well known and admired by many, but still there will be some who dont like them. As I was reading the talk pages on Islam related articals, I have noticed that still this is the case, where alots of quotes and information was not accepted by many editors, because in their view the person is disputed. I personally agree with your recommendations of people, as reference on any Islam related articals. I think all these poeple are reliable enough to work with. I am sorry I dont know still Mr. Fred Donner, I think I missed him some how. I am very much carefull when its come to Sharia, there are alots of miss understanding about it and well as you know there are alots of different openions are "versions" so my suggestion that when ever we talk on it, we should ...well how I say be very carefull about. Similarly, I think you will agree with me when its come to the topics like, violence on the name of Islam, or slavery and other topiscs, where a non friendly picture of Islam presented, is important issue. There are alot of miss information on it, and alots of these can be found on wikipedia also. I agree with you on one thing, as you answerd someone, I m sorry i forgot where, that some of these things were not related with Islam, but with the time when these things happend. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) married many times, but at the time it was also a cutome or let say tridition. There are whole alot of things which can be present with that, offcourse if 200 hundered years later, we as humans find a way to slaughter Chikens in more "Decent" way, who knows if you use method we use now, you will called "Butcher" or non civilized.. you know.. I agree, that the matter related with religions are sensetive and difficult to present, but we can only try and hopefully our work may be seen as neutral and positive. phippi46 16:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• wow.. man thanks alot for Barnstar.. you have definately got my vote, when ever you run for President, tell me. :-) I hope we will be able to get a neutral point of view on our work. As you mentioned there is something for me.. I can't wait to see.. any way thanx alot again for your kind Barnstar, take care phippi46 22:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re:Thank You

no problem at all Aminz- vandalism has no place on wikipedia. if i can be of any help whatsoever, just ask. ITAQALLAH 06:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Islam

I see my reverted has been already restored by User:Truthpedia. I still don't think it fits very well, but I defer to you and the other editors on how to phrase Lewis' ideas. Thanks for understanding my concerns. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and Slavery

hey Aminz, what's the correct tag for proposing a suggested re-name of an article? i'm working on this article currently and it seems to co-incide with Arab slave trade in what the actual purpose of the article is. i suggest that documentation of historical slave trade in arabia be in its relevant article, while "Islam and Slavery" can perhaps be renamed to "Slavery in Islam" anc concentrate more on the islamic position on slavery as per islamic texts and scholarly commentary. what do you think? ITAQALLAH 21:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

oh i found out that "Slavery in Islam" is a redir to "Islam and Slavery". still, i would like to propose the title change of the article. ITAQALLAH 21:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of merging this section [3] into the Slavery in Islam article? TruthSpreader^Talk 04:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I originally took the whole article from Mizan. I refered it before enumeration. You can access this article from [4]. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right! If it would become necessary to free the slaves then those who would be handicapped, old men and women, and children would be forced to become homeless. But I am just concerned that whether I am giving a wrong impression or not. If I am, please change accordingly. As the article [5] does give this reasoning as well. TruthSpreader^Talk 06:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You are again right, but what a good option it is that you are a slave, and you have a right to choose. So you can choose which option suits you most. But God does not like slavery in general, as Qur'an used the word "free the necks", and you can feel the flare in it. TruthSpreader^Talk 06:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-06 Victim photo from 1981

I have responded on this case, with my comment at the bottom. You might to read it and comment on it. Thanks, Iolakana•T 18:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salaam brother

Hi Aminz

I expect you have seen in the decision on HE's arbcomm case that it is has been ruled acceptable to use traditional Muslim terms such as "Salaam, brother". May I take this opportunity to say use this expression to you because 1) as we all know Salaam means peace, and I wish peace to you and to everyone around the world and 2) because I regard you as a brother, since in my experience you treat everyone you meet in Wikipedia as your brothers and sisters.

I liked reading your explanation about your interest in comparative religion.

I would also like to show that use of this expression cannot create a hostile atmosphere for non-Muslims, since I happen not to be a Muslim myself.

Peace to all Wikipedia brethren and sistren. Itsmejudith 20:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good work

I really appreciate your work at Dhimmi article. It is improving. I also appreciate your input at Muhammad. Thank you.--- ابراهيم 21:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thank you

thanks for your work on the islam and slavery article Aminz.. the lead was something that really needed a bit of work. i think the state of the article is much better than it was before (i still have some more stuff to add i think). cheers :) ITAQALLAH 06:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

do you think that the "Treatment of the slaves" section should be merged into the first paragraph of "slavery in islamic jurisprudence"? because they both essentially say the same thing and the treatment of slaves is part of the fiqh of slavery. ITAQALLAH 08:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

sure, no problem. the only reason i say is because i would assume in the books of fiqh that treatment of slaves would be included under the chapter of slavery. i think user truthpedia included some quotes from Lewis on the issue of changes made on the advent of islam (check first para in "slavery in islamic society"), if it doesn't fit there then in the treatment section would be ok too. ITAQALLAH 08:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

well done on the improvements made on the article. less than a month ago the article was in this state, so to have turned it into something on the threshold of GA status within that time reflects productive and hard work. i hope we can continue to work in this way especially on very controversial articles, thank you! ITAQALLAH 01:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghadir Khumm

Salam.

There is debate about Ghadir Khumm in Talk:Ali. Please write your idea there.--Sa.vakilian 08:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you, Aminz, that is very kind of you! It has cheered me up on what has been a somewhat depressing article.

Regarding the image, it's true that from many perspectives, this is anti-Zionism, not anti-Semitism. The reason I feel it's appropriate for this article is that this is what the new anti-Semitism boils down to (in many ways) i.e. a disagreement about what is anti-Zionism and when it crosses the line into anti-Semitism. The image is an illustration of the confusion. On the one hand, it's about anti-imperialism, anti-capitalism etc. On the other, the Jews are depicted as backing up Satan, there are Nazi symbols mixed with the Star of David, and so on, and these are all classic anti-Semitic motifs. It's that synthesis or ideological confusion that goes to the heart of the new anti-Semitism debate. In addition, the image has been discussed in the media and on blogs as representing anti-Semitism, so it's not just a bunch of Wikipedia editors who are saying that. But thank you very much for agreeing not to press the issue. I'm still trying to make contact with the artist in the hope that he will agree to release it under a free licence, and if he does, we can use it anywhere we want, so then it could go on the Anti-Zionism page too. I'll let you know if and when I'm able to reach him.

I very much support you on the issue of academic sources, and I'm currently trying to find strong academic sources who argue that there's no such thing as anti-Semitism. We have Brian Klug saying it, who's an excellent source, but beyond that I'm not having much luck. If you come across any, please do let us know.

Thank you again for the barnstar. It really has helped a lot. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hadith

Do you know any way to convert hadith no. to the one's used on USC website. It can be quite handy as I find many references like that on books but then to find hadith on USC website is a mess. i.e. Muslim 1661 would be x book and y hadith No. Maybe there is a formulae, I am not sure. TruthSpreader^Talk 10:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am already aware of this template. If for example, someone says that Bukhari 3362 (from Arabic version). How can I convert this into volume No. book No. and hadith No. in Muhsin Khan's translation. TruthSpreader^Talk 00:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jihad

Salaam, Do you think that User:Truthspreader/Jihad will be acceptable. As it is very lengthy now. TruthSpreader^Talk 02:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Check this out:I asked: If there is no state or ruler of the Muslims? He replied: In this situation, dissociate yourself from all groups, even if you have to chew the roots of a tree at the time of your death. (Bukhari: No. 7084)

How do militants legitimize their struggle????? TruthSpreader^Talk 02:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you write less but with quality and I write more but always with the fear that am I pushing a POV or if someone else will find the POV before me, maybe he/she will change in such a way, that it will distort the whole article. TruthSpreader^Talk 12:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Salaam, would you like to give us your input after my recent changes to the article, Jihad, as article is now lengthy. I think its length is justified by its importance and number of details involved. If you have some other idea, do share with us. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 14:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Salaam, I just put some extra information on Jihad#Jihad_as_warfare. I think that the whole argument pivots on the interpretation of these verses. I am definitely with the "proponents", as I don't feel that the whole "Muslim Nation" is a bunch of "chosen people". I wonder how others think this way. TruthSpreader^Talk 09:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't Shia Muslims have clergy, which would have the authority to do so! TruthSpreader^Talk 10:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting! I actually believe that even Jesus is not returning and I have put the detailed argument on Jesus in Islam under "Second coming". Ghamidi thinks that maybe Mahdi was actually Umar bin Abdul Aziz,Umar II, which people changed it for their own political benefits of their times. TruthSpreader^Talk 10:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Beside many other concerns, I do feel that Qur'an wouldn't make such a passing remark on such a huge event. If you read Gospel of Barnabas or even canonical Gospels, you will see that Prophet Muhammad or paraclete has been talked about again and again. Even Torah has many explicit references of a new prophet. If Jesus do come back, and we don't accept him, we will be infidels and Qur'an didn't even care to give us some clues or stressed us to believe in him, rather it seems to deny it. Cheers and Salaam! TruthSpreader^Talk 10:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As Qur'an says:Indeed those who are opposing Allah and His Messenger are bound to be humiliated. The Almighty has ordained: ‘‘I and My Messengers shall always prevail’’. Indeed Allah is Mighty and Powerful. 58:20-21. This clearly shows that God protects his Messengers. Similarly Moses dared to go to Pharoah, even there were prophets before him, just because he was a Messenger and not only a prophet, and he had the protection of God. And if people do kill ambassadors of God (Messengers), this definitely brings question on authority of God. Furthermore, it is very strange for Islam to accept that someone's suffering can bring salvation. Rather Islam asserts that every thing on the day of judgement will be on merit. So when these scholars say that Jesus died and then raised, it means that God does not allow people to dishonor his Messengers even their dead bodies. TruthSpreader^Talk 10:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you that we need God's grace. I believe that the difference between pure monotheism and others is that you ask God's grace directly, while in others, you go through a channel. Nice talking with you and have a nice sleep. TruthSpreader^Talk 11:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Itmaam-i-hujjat

I just edited this article. This article deals with the punishments by God. Any comments? TruthSpreader^Talk 05:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Salaam, you may find this discussion useful:User_talk:Itaqallah#Ghamidi. TruthSpreader^Talk 06:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Salaam, just asking about Islam and Slavery, you wrote, "The modern" Javed Ahmed Ghamidi. I think if he differs with classical understanding of slavery issue, then this term would be more suitable. I think he just put all these steps together which have had already been discovered by other Muslim scholars before him. TruthSpreader^Talk 06:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

As you said once, it doesn't surprise me that Muslims took things in wrong way. But I have changed the text, I hope that it would now suit more to the context without changing the prinicipal stance. TruthSpreader^Talk 09:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I am not even aware that if anyone else has used the same concept to explain persecution by Muslims in the days of Prophet Muhammad and subjugation of others by making them dhimmis, most Muslims are simply apologists. TruthSpreader^Talk 05:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well! It is easy to say that we don't have sympathy for pagans of Arabia but difficult to explain to a normal person. Secondly, dhimmi by any definition was discreminatory and a second class citizenship. It was good if compared to other parts of the world at that time but I am still not comfortable with it myself. Thirdly, expansion of Muslim Caliphate by the Caliphs to different countries, whome Prophet Muhammad wrote letters himself, cannot always be justified under "Warfare against oppression", Because it would mean that we can take over other nations if they don't follow our rules, which is exactly what modern captalist socio-economic system is pushing. This explanation by the concept of Itmaam-i-hujjat works fine for me to explain these things. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 06:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Bible portrays the correct impression, and I don't have any problem with that. But my concern is that world thinks that we have evolved to a point where we can have a better sense of human rights, but I think Islam championed it 1400 years ago. This is why, heavily taxing someone just because he/she is not from our faith, without any good reason, is not a good practice of human rights. TruthSpreader^Talk 06:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

My observations tell me that there are many Muslims who are doing the most un-ethical things and there are non-Muslims who are living an excellent life that would suit more to a good Muslim. And as we have discussed that salvation is based on certain rules. I also believe that Ummayid and Abbasid regime became so currupt that they couldn't even lead a friday prayer session infront of open public, and they gave this responsibility to scholars, which then used Mosques as propaganda machines (and are still using it). I do believe that Muslims treated non-Muslims better than others, but my concern is that God is just. Those people who saw the society built by Companions of Prophet Muhammad, they couldn't remain unimpressed, as the Qur'an says "you are witness to the world just like Messenger is witness to you". Only those people were rightly subdued but those who came under currupt regimes of afterwards, they don't need to be impressed by their ethics, and they were wrongly subdued. However, when I say ethics or morals, I mean universal morals, which don't change with time and indiscrimination is one of them. TruthSpreader^Talk 08:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a very good article written by Islahi, Good and evil. You can read it at:[6]. It compares philosophies of almost all big philosophers and finishes at a very interesting conclusion. A must read for someone who seeks difference in good and evil (and your question of relativeness is also answered) Whenever you are free, just send me the email. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 08:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mate! Can you please look at this article please. It has been nomineed for deletion. TruthSpreader^Talk 06:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

We can include stuff from here for comparison with bible:[7], this article was published in:[8]. TruthSpreader^Talk 07:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad Image

Please note that according to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. that image is not protected by copyright. Also note that multiple other sources vouch for the location and authenticity of the image in question. Captainktainer * Talk 04:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hey Aminz

you shouldn't let peoples' provocative or questionable behaviour get to you. take it easy, and stay as cool as a cucumber.. it will certainly pay dividends :) ITAQALLAH 07:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That will be a good exercise, as we may turn those sources into a complete article, such as, "Muhammad as a reformer" or "Muhammad as a social reformer". TruthSpreader^Talk 07:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you try:[9]. TruthSpreader^Talk 07:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It used to have a limited free membership, that would allow you to translate arabic text! TruthSpreader^Talk 07:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

Aminz, you seem to have violated the three revert rule. Remember that reverts don't have to be related. Please self-revert before someone reports you.Opiner 07:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, 3RR,as far as I know, applies to *reverting* back the same stuff. On the other hand, I and Jay are working simultaneouly on the article. I am not changing his edits in the revert sense. --Aminz 07:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a common misperception but it's not true, read the policy. It doesn't matter if it's the same stuff. You have seven reverts at least in eight hours. Other people don't not because we don't care but because we are following the rules. Please self-revert.Opiner 08:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, I still don't think I have made many *reverts*. See, this controversy is a headache and we need to reach a consensus. Reverting back and forth between two versions isn't helpful. I have provided reasons for my edits in the edit summaries. If it convinces you, keep them. Otherwise rewrite it. I am going to sleep. --Aminz 09:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. please try re-phrasing the sentences (that's what I sometimes do). At least it is better. Cheers, --Aminz 09:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article needing review for significance

Please take a look at Imam Wazir Ali. I'm not sure that he is more notable than the average pastor or is notable to WP:BIO levels, but am outside my comfort zone. Please evaluate whether nomination for deletion is appropriate. (I am making this request of Merzbow and Aminz.) GRBerry 18:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem notable to me. He is a religious clergy but there are many active religious clergies in the world. One thing I am sure, he is not notable enough to having him referenced in wikipedia articles. Aside from this, he may be notable because of the organizations he belongs to, or is directing (if those organizations are notable). In any case, I would go for deletion. --Aminz 20:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. GRBerry 21:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Very nice work on the articles . Thanks . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 21:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So wht happened to Pecher & Timothy. F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 21:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me who has been adding quotes by Ghamidi & Islahi in different articles lately . I have a few questions regarding their books that I needed to ask. F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 21:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Best wishes on the start of Ramadan

Best wishes, Aminz, to you and other Muslim editors (who may read this here). Itsmejudith 23:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banu Qurayza

Well, I think User:Briangotts and I have put both remarks from both sides. But maybe the article needs some cleaning. You reckon that you have some extra information that would add some valuable information on the article? TruthSpreader^Talk 05:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

uhmm... One can put these details but these are not conclusive or imperative. I am very much satisfied with the fact that Muslims negotiated with them and they were punished by their own laws. And similarly, I do believe that those who are involved in Terrorism should be punished by the same laws which the Qur'an has mentioned for such horrendous acts of "disorder in land", which include torturous death, cruxifiction, chopping of limbs from oppossite sides, and exile. TruthSpreader^Talk 06:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are 101% right, but then when there are wars being fought in middle east, people being tortured during interrogations, many think that it is important to curb the evil. So to me, it seems to be a double standard. TruthSpreader^Talk 06:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad introduction

Dear Aminz, please take a look at my new introduction proposal for Muhammad. The X believe Y believe compromise psychologically invites X and Y to take sides, argue about the order which in this form can never be stable, is not about Muhammad but about US and what WE think today, and is just not a normal way to write an article. Instead of two competing ideas maybe one idea which everyone can share and THEN debate. After reading instead of DURING WRITING the article!Opiner 06:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not put the tag on the Muhammad article without consensus

If you did in fact establish consensus for this, I missed it. BYT 20:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get this tag? BYT 02:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad as a diplomat

hey Aminz. there was some feedback on Talk:Muhammad as a diplomat on its corresponding article about possible improvements before having it properly assessed for GA status. i have started working on the suggested improvements, but i think i may need some general assistance (i anticipate that i may not be as active in the coming few days) with regards to getting all the improvements done, especially as i think we have a deadline of seven days (a few days have gone already!). what's most pressing at the moment is resolving the issue of Image:Taif_1970_Saudi_Arabia.jpg and finding a good alternative to it. i left a comment on WP:KSA[10] to see if i could get any help about that, but any assistance or general cleanup to the article to prepare it for upcoming GA review would really be appreciated. thank you. ITAQALLAH 03:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

i have opened a case for alleged sockpuppetry by User:Nodekeeper. if you have any noteworthy contributions or reasoning to add, please do. thank you. ITAQALLAH 14:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this a peer reviewed paper:[11] TruthSpreader^Talk 07:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have the access to the journal. Can you come on the messenger? TruthSpreader^Talk 08:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khaybar

It does not surpise me, they have made some huge blunders, as i have stated in its talk page. It would be very interesting to see the article, can you share it? --Striver 23:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The user talk page that you recreated

Hi, Aminz. I have (reluctantly) redeleted that page, as the user indicated that he was not returning and that he wanted the page deleted again. However, since you posted on it and the user replied, and I deleted the page four minutes later, I just want to let you know (in case you missed it) what his reply to your reply was. I quote: ":Not your fault, I should never have hit edit."

Cheers, AnnH ♫ 09:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: letter to Mukawkis

i took a look at it just now... that is really fascinating! note the seal too :) also, if you check out the topkapi pic in the article and try to look at some of the text on the actual parchment you can make out some of the similarities i think. i assume that if the book is copyrighted then the pic here would be too, though i am not sure because he takes the pic from a 1904 book or magazine it seems. if it's old enough it may actually be out of copyright. i will try to check. ITAQALLAH 01:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

yes, here is some more info about the same journal i think [12]. there would be a problem if it was the journal itself which holds the copyright. if not, then maybe it would be a PD image. i'm not entirely sure.. ITAQALLAH 01:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

perhaps you could ask here (or maybe more suitably: here) for some other (probably more well-founded) opinions? i'll see if anyone is available on IRC. ITAQALLAH 02:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the notes in the SUNY translation of Tabari, the supposed letter cited in Tabari is a later invention. The picture in the article is a picture of a forgery. I've been too exhausted and overwhelmed to remove it. Zora 02:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

yes, that the muqawqis letter is thought to be a forgery by Buhl, Ohrnberg, Noldeke and perhaps others. other, generally Muslim sources tend to declare it sound. i have put the caption information as "Puported letter.." because although its authenticity may be disputed, it is certainly notable to show within the context of the discussion. ITAQALLAH 13:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus

Sorry, I couldn't answer your question regarding Jesus. Can you please re-write the question? TruthSpreader^Talk 11:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, you are doing nice work on the article:Muhammad!!!! TruthSpreader^Talk 11:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Once I read in Qur'an, in which Qur'an alleged Christians for two things. One was that they followed their desires and second was that they forgot prayer. This prayer is essentially the same prayer which we pray. As there are hadith with say that people had already been praying five times a day before even prophet Muhammad were prophesized. Jews even today pray three times a day. The point which Quran wanted to raise that these people forgot the meaning of prayer. They followed their desires and made a complete doctorine out of it. Even in Surah Fatiha (the first chapter of Quran) the Quran call them as the people who went astray. Quran never uses the word astray for Jews, rather Quran says that they are the ones who earned God's anger (in first chapter). Quran also talks about those things which Jews still believe that God is residing some place higher and he doesn't interfere in wordly matters. Qur'an has replied to such beliefs in following verse:"The Jews say: "Allah's hand is tied up." Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for the (blasphemy) they utter. Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched:"5:64 After reading a couple of things, and pondering on different social concepts and our religious concepts, I have realized that there is a large chunk of knowledge that is mixed with Islamic knowledge and it actually came from Christianity. We embraced alot of concepts of these nations. Even Al-Tabari talks about such stories, which are no more than Jewish folk tales. We created a complete doctorine of Mu'tazilis after being inspired by Greek philosophy (which I think is the mother of Christianity). According to Esposito, our women were pushed back into the society because of the customs adapted from Christian world, which Quran doesn't preach. Now Muslims are trying to protect that part of the religion which neither Quran advocates nor the life of the prophet but a religion which has been evolved and mostly confused with culture. I would like to embrace the original Islam (or Original Christianity or Original Judaism) in which Prophet Muhammad use to take pledges from women, women use to participate in dialogue on every Friday prayer sermon. A society which is based on democracy that a person can hold a prophet from his neck and prophet would say to his companions that this person has a right over me as I have to give back his money. I think we have already confused ourselves alot in taking values from others. Maybe my tone is a little bit strict, but this is how I feel. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 12:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I am even suspicious that maybe Jesus' second coming was actually inspired from Christian traditions. I also think that Sunni Shia conflict was really bad. As people used self-made hadith to be-little others. Kim Beazley was telling us that Knights Templar joined their forces with Jews and Shia Muslims and attacked Sunni Muslims. Hence, a person can just imagine the confrontation between these groups. TruthSpreader^Talk 14:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

TruthSpreader, Thanks for your comment. I'll comment on this tomorrow, God wills. Salaam --Aminz 13:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for a lengthy answer. The relevant verse is 19:59. This verse alludes to Christians (although you can take it for someone else but this is the most appropriate meaning to me as it is talking about a nation even after Israelites). Secondly, when I said that the same prayer, I mean the prayer with the same objective and basic structure. As Quran explicitly talks about Abraham and other prophets prostrating and bowing, which is no more than a prayer, and Jewish traditions prove that it was a recursive daily practice. We utter Al-Fatiha in our prayers, Christians used Lords prayer, Jews used Davids prayer as in Psalms 86:1-17 and in Exodus 34:6-7. A person should always be submissive to God (as the Quran demands), but this thing is stregthened by physical jestures.

I don't deny that there are good teachings from other religions or philosophies. A person should accept anything that is good and leave what is bad. There are no two opinions that bible can be beneficiary. Even the flaws of Jews and Christians, which Quran discusses, has to be understood in the light of bible, otherwise we will try to understand things out of context. I myself, like many sayings of Jesus from bible, and I marvell at his wisdom. The point which I really wanted to raise in my previous message was that when we embrace others beliefs, we should first weigh them. Otherwise, we may confuse, because of the similarities, that this thing is what our religion teaches or we borrowed it. TruthSpreader^Talk 09:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I won't disagree with you. TruthSpreader^Talk 09:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] need clarification

hey Aminz, i was working on Muhammad_as_a_diplomat#Correspondence_with_other_leaders just to clean it up and make it flow a bit better. i have two questions. one sentence is talking about what cambridge history says about the letters in general, but abruptly the subject switches mid-sentence to discussing a detail of whether or not a letter reached Heraclius. is there a better way to phrase this (perhaps split up the sentence or show me the relevant passage)? also some of the commentary in that section discusses the letter of Heraclius and its authenticity, wouldn't it be better suited under the Heraclius subsection? thank you. ITAQALLAH 02:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

could you provide for me the exact quote from the source used in that passage so i can figure out the best way to leave the first part about general authenticity in the current section and then move the rest of it to the Heraclius section? thank you ITAQALLAH 23:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

thank you v. much for the quote, i'll get to work on sorting out the section. i think i have access to the other publication. ITAQALLAH 16:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

one thing: is Irfan Shahid summarising what is written in the cambridge history of arabic literature (i.e. does he say that the publication says this) or is he critiquing/evaluating it? ITAQALLAH 17:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

ok, i'll check it out. ITAQALLAH 01:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

i took a look at it, and i have responded with my thoughts. ITAQALLAH 01:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Couple of things

Salaam bruv, hope you're well. 1) Very interesting correspondence with Truthspreader about Jesus, a pleasure to read. Scholars think Mark was the first of the gospels to be written (traditionally it was Matthew). I recently (re)read it trying to brush from my mind all preconceptions received from my education in a nominally Christian country. What struck me was the way Jesus taught like a Buddhist master, the love of paradox, the way the poor disciples misunderstood everything until Jesus turned their beliefs upside down. If you google for "Tao + Logos" you will see what comes up. Few sources nearly good enough for WP but very fertile ground for future scholars. I wonder how much there is still to uncover about the links between different religions. 2) Talking about what's good enough for WP, wondering if you would have time to look at forced conversion. It is up for AfD and I really don't know how to vote. Very sad to see such a POV statement from the article originator on the talk page. Itsmejudith 22:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Lots to say, but hope to reply tomorrow, as I'm running out of time now. Itsmejudith 21:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Running out of time yet again and writing this in a hurry. You might as well dip into the Tao Te Ching itself rather than reading interpretations of it. It's not long and you can get different translations on-line. Balance is a part of what it's about. The Qur'an verses that mentioned "balance" seemed to relate to fair dealing in economic and political relationships, which is interesting. A great thing about Islam is the important role it gives to conduct in social and public affairs - never introverted, unlike some tendencies in Christianity. I think of the Tao as "the way of the world". If you work along with the Tao then things will go well for you. It is like "working with the grain", if you know that expression. Another thing you might want to do if you're browsing in your university library is to look at "Science and Civilisation in China" by Joseph Needham (several volumes). It describes the achievements of traditional Chinese science, which was Taoist in inspiration. I'm sure you'll find interesting connections with Islamic science. Needham was an Anglican Christian. And I'm glad you've met some Christians you can learn from. Perhaps they could introduce you to Jewish people who are interested in inter-faith dialogue. Please don't stereotype from your experiences on WP (I know you don't want to). All the Jews I know well are peace activists. Itsmejudith 22:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You help required

The article The Quran and science that I have created today is nominated for deletion. Can you please extend it and add some references? I will be thankful if you could spend some time on it. --- ابراهيم 01:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slave trade

Hi Aminz - and thanks for your message. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I'm not going to be much use to you. I'm not "knowledgeable" and got involved here by chance, after responding to a request to translate the 'Arab Slave Trade' article from French into English. At that time, I rearranged the French bibliography slightly, giving English editions of some books, and removing francophone external links. Since then, this book has been added to the list, and so has an English translation of Ibn Khaldun. Inline citations to "Pankhurst, Richard. The Ethiopian Borderlands: Essays in Regional History from Ancient Times to the End of the 18th Century. Asmara, Eritrea: The Red Sea, Inc., 1997" and to Mintz, S. Digital History Slavery, Facts & Myths have also been added, and the text changed a little. Sorry - but I can't think of anything I can do to help, as I don't have any of the books or articles to hand. Good luck with sorting this out! --HJMG 10:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] opinion

Salaam! I would like to have your opinion for:Itmam_al-hujjah#Punishment_by_the_hands_of_believers. TruthSpreader^Talk 14:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You started it

If you hadn't been cherry-picking friendly sources in order to glorify the Prophet Muhammad with extraneous information, I wouldn't have gone through those same sources to balance it out. If you could refrain from these sorts of edits, it'd save us both a lot of time and improve Wikipedia. We don't need to deal with this material in Muhammad. I only insist that if it's to be there, it should be balanced.Proabivouac 08:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I never did cherry-picking. My source was "Islam the Straight Path", yours was different. --Aminz 08:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Women's rights

I added something from 'Encyclopedia of Islam and Muslim world'. You can access it from:[13]. This is another opinion regarding seclusion of women. TruthSpreader^Talk 12:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Aminz, Thank you for your work on the Muhammad's page. Since the article is about Muhammad I thought we should give real examples from Muhammad's life that are proofs of his reforms as far as women's rights are concerned. Thats why I chose 3 good hadiths that show that. You may some issues with the Hadiths but thats how most muslims know what they know about Muhammad. I admire Espisito, but I think quoting Muhammad's is more worthy here and it would give the reader a better idea on Muhammad's reforms while keeping the article fair and balanced. Let me know what you think. Marwan123 20:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sources

there are a number of sources i believe exist, one which i have already incorporated partly into the article. Moore, an anatomist and embryologist (and a pretty good one too, his textbook on clinically oriented anatomy is excellent) has also wrote The Qur'an and Modern Science. i also mentioned some academic sources on ibrahimfaisal's page. you can check the bibliography of that first book to see other academic sources related to islam or qur'an and science. the list of notable sources is by no means complete, these are just a few books suggesting that academic material on this issue does exist. actually, worldcat has its own category for books related to qur'aan and science (even more results for islam and science), scan through the list to find some other academic works (for example [14] [15]) ITAQALLAH 12:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Salaam! Any comments on The_Quran_and_science#Evolution_of_Universe and The_Quran_and_science#Fossils_of_ancient_humans. TruthSpreader^Talk 13:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah! I am going to retire from editing this article, as all of my changes are being reverted, even after spending one complete day defending it, and I don't have guts to defend it any more. TruthSpreader^Talk 01:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! TruthSpreader^Talk 01:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you find online tafseer of Abdullah Yusuf Ali? I read it hard copy a while ago but not able to find the online version. That makes Jizya relationship with Zakat and also tell that Jizya used to be very less. Even if you could quote from hard copy of it, in the introduction of Jizya article then it would be great. --- ابراهيم 15:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I found an excellent article, [16]. The text can be seen here:[17]. TruthSpreader^Talk 14:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You Accuse

Aminz, you accuse me of being a sockpuppet on the AfD debate for the Quran and Science. Because I only have 60 (actually 64) edits and they are mostly part of AfD discussion. Please note that these 64 edits have been within a time frame of only about 2 weeks. Quite frankly if someone has time to have a significant higher level of activity on wikipedia, I think that they are a little too in love with the internet instead of actually going out and living life. With all due respect also, I think that your English is a little hard to follow sometimes and certain points in your accusation are confusing. In two weeks time how many posts or edits should I have made in order to satisfy you? I am new to editing wikipedia, although I have been a user for a long time. Sockpuppet was a new term to me, but as I now understand it (correct me if I misunderstand, since this is something you are accusing me of) it is someone who utilizes multiple accounts for the purpose of voting more than once, or otherwise utilizes multiple accounts in order to break WP policy. This accusation is unfounded and is an insult to my honesty. I voted only once according to my conscience to delete based on valid points. After the article made some progress I had an honest change of heart and changed my sole vote to keep as you can see in the archived debate. That most of my editing is in regards to AfD's is due to the fact that 1) I am a deletionist- I believe WP is best served by editing and deleting material that does not conform to WP policies regarding encyclopedic verifiability and NPOV; 2)if I participate in one AfD debate it becomes easy to go down to the next AfD debate in the current AfD discussions page that sparks my interest. Many people spend the bulk of their time doing similar things. I have run into the same users multiple times because they are most likely doing the same thing. You can be assured that I am not the same people as these users since I usually run into the same users with an opposing vote to my own. Please also note that I do occasionally edit pages such as the page for nihang if an article is within my personal interests and stands in major disrepair or poor spelling and grammar, or vandalism. Otherwise I stick to my vision of improving wikipedia by assessing whether a page is valuable or not worthwhile to the general user of encyclopedic material. I offer my respects to you, and ask for your respect and please assume good faith! Green hornet 03:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Green hornet, May I ask you to explain how could you have such a sophisticated first edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strata_%28band%29&diff=78658517&oldid=76801193 . --Aminz 04:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC) It is none of my business. I apologize. --Aminz 08:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I wouldn't say that my edits were or are sophisticated. Wikipedia is actually pretty easy to get used to. I had experience with writing some code in the past, as well as basic web design and flash, by comparison WP is really simple. Plus I played with the sandbox and read some wikipedia stuff on editing and deletion first to make sure I was doing it right...and I made a couple mistakes anyway. Hope you are well. Green hornet 02:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite a long lie. Maybe he was the puppetmaster though. Arrow740 00:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for sources for Quran and science

Please look at my request on its talk page. Golshani was good and we need more like that. Arrow740 23:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shia/Sunni

Principally speaking, I couldn't find anything different from Sunni Dua, except it talks about progeny of the prophet, which I think should be followers of the prophet (this is my personal guess). Secondly, I am of the opinion that a person should be interactive with his God, just like people have recorded different Duas from the prophet even in the prayer, which shows that except a few restricted things like reading Al-Fatiha and some part of the Qur'an, the prophet used to say different Duas at different occasions. I keep these Duas (ones you mentioned are also good) as role model and then describe my feelings in my own words (sometimes).

I think that Sunni Shia conflict should be left behind, as people call themselves Salafis (who were two three generations after Sahaba), why don't we call ourselves Sahabis to show that we follow the prophet and his companions, so that those events which occured afterhim doesn't affect our religion. But then I think, these events (even though some of them are political) determines our sources of the religion, especially hadith, which eventually determine our faith in different things and also shape rituals to some extent as well. TruthSpreader^Talk 06:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muchas gracias

Hey Aminz, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 04:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tag

Aminz, could we discuss this on the talk page, please? Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Jle.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Jle.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. 11:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Profwatt.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Profwatt.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. 12:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Manning.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Manning.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. 14:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eid Mubarak

Hey Aminz, happy Eid Mubarak! I know you're one of Moslem scholars in WP, who has been tirelessly defending Islam-related articles for their truly neutral ones. Taqabalallahu minna wa minkum taqabal yaa kariim. Oh, and the picture is our traditional rice, called ketupat, usually served during Eid ul-Fitr. — Indon (reply) — 16:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak. TruthSpreader^Talk 05:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak, Aminz. I believe that biryani would be a suitable dish to celebrate the occasion, and since I know how to cook it, I would like to offer you this large plateful (photo should go in here). I hope I'm right in thinking that it is an originally Persian dish that was brought into northern Indian cooking as part of the Muglai tradition (the recipe I follow is a British-Indian one). Anyway, however you're celebrating, celebrate well! Itsmejudith 22:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Your recent additions to article Muhammad are commendable. TruthSpreader^Talk 03:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak. All the best -- Samir धर्म 05:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I also thought the additions to Muhammad were very interesting. Can we turn you from a natural scientist into a social scientist? I'm away on a short Wikibreak now until early next week and hope to catch up with you then. All the best. Itsmejudith 22:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Aminz I was on a short break, and came today, and just want to Say Eid Mubarak to you.. take care phippi46 14:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Mahound"

Hi Aminz! Thanks for your message, and my apologies for not getting back to you sooner (give me a few moments and I'll find a good excuse, but for now it's because "I didn't get around to it sooner". My bad :o| ).

Yeah, he is def Mahound, not Mahmoud. This is clear to me because I remember a conversation about emails he wasn't getting etc, where we talked about how his name didn't have the spelling most people expected (nor the pronounciation... as he kindly pointed out to me!).

Mahmoud, of course, is a common name in the UK, so my mistake there wasn't entirely ignorance! I hope... :o/

As to where he comes from, it was Keighley or Oxenhope or around that area.

Oh, and if you yourself are from a Muslim background, happy Eid (coming up soon?)! Cheers! ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Or I could just have scrolled up and seen that Eid is happening right now. D'oh! Have a good 'un! ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

They have removed all the text from the pictures of authors in Muhammad article you have added. You might want to put it back. -- ابراهيم 08:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia of Qur'an

Our University library doesn't have it, I need to ask for it as it seems to be very informative. TruthSpreader^Talk 00:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

The RfC was improperly formatted. I have fixed it, please do not revert. Duelling "statements" are not encouraged; it's not an RfAr. Also, please review the policy on that page, particularly point 4. Thank you. IronDuke 01:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Your summary is clearly not neutral, violating both the spirit and the letter of the policy. If you wish to continue poisoning the well, I won't stand in your way. Having done so, I hope you'll understand that an RfC is worthless under the circumstances. IronDuke 02:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Your formulation is incorrect. Please look at the rest of the RfC page. Though the entire often represent significant editorial disputes, one summary should suffice. Also, leaving a rancorous summary on RfC, as you and User:Itaqallah have done, discourages participation in RfCs. IronDuke 02:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, just noticed I’m wrong. Improper debate on that page has already occurred – with you and Itaqallah being the culprits. IronDuke 02:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

And one last thing -- please don't label neutral statements as "Statement by User: IronDuke". If you would refrain from labeling any of my edits, at any time and for any reason, I would be most appreciative. IronDuke 02:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Your last edit to RfC is particularly troubling. Your input was unhelpful before. Now it is simply inflammatory. Do you really believe that your "summary" is an unbiased and neutral introduction to the dispute surrounding the article? You only hurt your own POV. IronDuke 03:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you not read point 4? Here it is: 4. Do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page. This is what you have done in the past -- even Itaqallah asked you not to. Please don't do it now. Your message to him to present a neutral account of the dispute was spot on. And yet you've reversed 180 degrees. I don't know why, I don't want to know why. As I said, you two have combined to poison the RfC before it's begun. <<Shrug>>. IronDuke 03:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Poisoning the well is not a blockable offense. It just hurts the debate, both sides. I don't believe that you can't understand a simple sentence. Is there some part of "debate" or "personal comments" you don't get? (BTW, that's rhetorical, please don't answer. You've made your position clear.) IronDuke 03:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, sorry I didn't actually move the text to the talk page-- I was going to, but when I went to hit save, an edit conflict told me you'd already beat me to it! :) --Alecmconroy 03:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Aminz thank you for asking Ibrahimfaisal to have the cooling off period about the template.Opiner 05:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad

May be you are interested to look at the changes dones in Muhammad article without using any references and changing meaning of the existing reference. --- ابراهيم 12:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The section is changed once again. Please take a look at it . best, --- ابراهيم 13:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Aminz, I very much appreciate the thoughtful note you left. This can be an emotional issue, but your acknowledgment and understanding of the value of civility (and mine) is essential in order for us to move ahead. BTW, I am going to move your last comment to talk and reply to it there, as it pertains directly to the discussion. IronDuke 01:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ibn Hazm

What exactly is his view of tahrif? gren グレン 02:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Award

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Barnstar awarded to Aminz by TruthSpreader for his tireless work on Muhammad and Islam and slavery.

You're welcome. TruthSpreader^Talk 06:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Most of the time, I simply push my POV, although with good intensions, and my additions are normally not as scholarly as yours. But thanks again. Cheers! :) TruthSpreader^Talk 09:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In that sense, all of us are pushing our POV. Cheers, --Aminz 09:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] yes

i did receive them, i was going to reply once i had studied most of the material ( haven't done so yet :o ). other material would be great too, thank you! i'm probably going to start serious work on it on the weekend or later today. ITAQALLAH 06:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] article

I have sent you the article, while I am writing summary. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 12:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have sent you the summary, can you please check your email. TruthSpreader^Talk 14:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A little (spammed) thank you

[edit] Thanks very much for your AGF

It makes it a good deal easier to work on this with you, and please know I very much assume good faith on your part as well. As to the link your provided, I'm not sure what you meant by it, and am reluctant to make assumptions. I will say that there is nothing on that page that I consider binding as far as my, or anyone else's, editing, goes. It's merely a proposed guideline, no? IronDuke 02:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been away from WP for a while. As you may notice, I have gone back and tried to put back what I inadvertently took out of your thoughtful, previous edit, and tried to reconcile our two versions. It's a bit complex, but if you see anything I took out that you'd put in, please give a shout. IronDuke 03:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm only kind of back

I did have a really good time away thanks, and now I have a backlog of work (at work, real work) so am trying (yet again) to limit my time on WP strictly. Speak again later. Best. Itsmejudith 09:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you online? TruthSpreader^Talk 00:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

Hi Aminz

I made some edits to yellow badge and would be grateful if you could glance at them to see if they are useful. I was also thinking of shortening the Lewis quote a bit. Or perhaps it could be summarised rather than cited. What do you think? Itsmejudith 19:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry!

Sorry for removing your comment on User talk:Redvers on October 30, 2006. It was accidental. =) --Nehwyn 17:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity

Hi Aminz; Maybe I misunderstood your edit summary, but 'indignent' means 'poor'. It's not some different group of Christians. Or am I missing the point? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The word you are thinking of is "indigenous." Indigenous means "native", but in context meant those sects deemed heretical to Byzantine Orthodoxy.Proabivouac 06:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

I wasn't removing sourced material. I was restoring them. It would be a long story if I want to start from the beginning. That section got my attention while ago and tried to improve it, but was encountered with silly arguments sometimes at the level of arguments like: The title of Lewis book: "The Jews of Islam" says it is about the Jews so it can not contain anything about Christianity. I stayed away from the article for awhile, but then came back recently.

Anyways, I don't think it worth it either for me to explain everything from the beginning or for an outsider to follow all those discussions. It is much better to spend our time doing something more useful. I drop my request for unblock. Thanks anyway for your response though, Future Perfect at Sunrise. --Aminz 22:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry again to disappoint you - but now that block will be over soon anyway. Please let me know if you need any help or advice over editing conflicts in the future. But now, first of all, you too should get my official RfA thanks: :-)

[edit] Thank you for your support!

23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If I'm a bit pale in the face now, it's because of the amazing support during my recent request for adminship and because of all those new shiny buttons. And if in the future my use of them should not always be perfect please don't hesitate to shout at me any time, sunset, noon or sunrise.

[edit] You are responsible

for bothering me. I will complain to God against you in the judgment day. --Aminz 11:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And you are responsible for bothering me. I will ask God to forgive your offenses and mine as well, for the sake of His son's cross and the blood of all the martyrs. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies doesn't let me to answer you. --Aminz 11:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You can always send me an e-mail. I promise I will not call in the cops for that. But remember that He reads all. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to get away from wikipedia now. I was wondering if Jesus had come today what his message to Christians was; we know what his message to Jewish rabbis was. --Aminz 11:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, my friend, Jesus' message was the same to everyone: love each other. And if you think that's difficult, he also said that if someone attacks you, turn the other cheek. If that's what he said in a country under a brutally repressive foreign occupation, that's what he would say today. (At least that's what his main message is in the New Testament but I know there are also lots of Islamic writings about Jesus, that portray him as a gentle and kind person.) Hope you are doing fine. Don't let Wikipedia stuff get you down. Itsmejudith 12:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Judith, I wish you knew what pain did these editors gave me. You are quite knowledgable about Dhimmi. Dhimmis were guaranteed their personal safety and security of property. As Lewis says "persecution in the form of violent and active repression was rare and atypical".(Lewis (1984) p. 8.) Yes, there were social and legal disabilities, but not violence. I don't know where did they got the idea that there were waves of violent Muslim persecution of Christians. Even after long discussion (imagine I was faced with arguments like since the title of Lewis's book is "Jews of Islam", it is not about Christianity) One of them reported me for 3rr revert because they wanted to write Muslims were sometimes violently persecuted Christians, while I was saying rarely is more accurate as Lewis says. I was blocked for 24 hours for nothing. Then isn't it hypocrisy to recite Jesus's words for me? The words are beautiful only when they are uttered in action. --Aminz 13:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)