User talk:ZaydHammoudeh
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Salafi Page - Use of "heretical" vs. "astray"
Zayd -- re the Salafi article -- use of "heretical" is tricky. Some Salafi think that the Sufi and the Shi'a are mistaken, but not heretics. However, some Salafi think that they are heretics and should be killed. The early Wahhabis and of late the Qutbis/extreme Salafis/Islamists are quite willing to kill Shi'a and Sufi (recent attack on Barelvis in Pakistan). Since that's a lot of weight to put on one word, another word would perhaps be better. I don't think "astray" is the right word, but I'll have to think about it. Zora 21:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- What a nice response on my talk page! I hope you stay around -- you seem to be sensible, and willing to dialogue and compromise. All too often people who "seem" to be Salafis come here, post diatribes, remove anything they think is critical of Islam or Salafism, and then leave. I must admit that I have developed a somewhat negative opinion of Salafis (in addition, of course, to the fact that some of them want to kill me). I am always willing to have my opinions overturned, however. You can help us keep the coverage of Salafis fair. It is hard to be fair when you are working with people who don't talk to you. Zora 22:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC) (Oh, and if you're from Saudi, we can always use people to provide the Arabic versions of names, check on translations, etc.)
-
- I agree with your comments about Zayd. He does seem like someone sensible who is willing to dialogue and compromise. He is unlike Itaqallah Hassanfarooqi 15:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Scholars
Hello. Yes I dispute the ones that Oceansplash added are scholars at all and I have added my response on the talk page. Oceansplash has often been blocked for repeated blatant racism, trolling, and harassment against Muslims so I wouldn't take him too seriously. But I hope that the discussion continues before reverts. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] PBUH
Is it required for non Muslims to recite PBUH after mentioning the names of prophets? --
RND T C 14:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jewish Prophet
You said that you were deleting the term Jewish Prophet which preceded Moses' name in the "Peace be unto him" article because it is inflammatory. I am curious: Why is it inflammatory? Thanks.--Meshulam 04:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RE: Locking of the Salafi Page
Hi, thanks for getting in touch. There is a lot of discussion going on at that talk page, and I don't think that it is for me to say whether or not it should be protected as I am totally unfamiliar with the subject matter. I think it would be more appropriate to contact an administrator who knows about this area of knowledge to make the decision instead. Do you know of one? If not, let me know and I might be able to track one down. —Xyrael / 16:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- You did fine - talk page proceedures vary, but if someone responds to a message on your talkpage, it's generally best to do the same so that they get a new messages bar. If unsure, ask the person you are talking to and they'll get you up to date. The help did not come from me, but it's good that it's been sorted. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia; even though I'm an athiest I'm interested in major world religions. —Xyrael / 16:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Iman al-Hams
Please go here right away. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iman Darweesh Al Hams --Daniel575 | (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. Please spread this call around other Muslims on Wikipedia. This horrible thing needs to be stopped. See my comment at the bottom of the above deletion page. All people, but especially all children killed should have an article devoted to them as a kind of virtual memorial. I myself wrote such an article also, about Ayala Abukasis. Someone else (Crzrussian) wrote an article about Shalhevet Pass. I am quite sure that many of the Zionists who are now advocating the deletion of the article about Iman would oppose the deletion of those articles. Making it a severe POV matter. I saw that two other articles about Palestinian children were already deleted. We need to stop this immediately. People don't seem to understand that Wikipedia is not meant to be a battleground. Seems to be that articles about deceased persons are the easiest to write, particularly when the circumstances behind the death are obvious and not disputed. Unfortunately, these circumstances are much more often a problem when it concerns Palestinian children than when it concerns Israeli children, because Palestinian terrorists (I apologize for the term) openly declare and claim responsibility for killing these children, while the IDF will always try to deny its involvement in the death of Palestinian children. Concerning Iman, I really believe that Captain R. was more or less innocent (by the way, did you know that he is a Bedouin, Arab?). Anyway, please spread the message and let's make sure this article won't be deleted. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RE: Link spam to articles by User Mahdi7
I'm so sorry that it has taken me so long to respond to this. My talk page is a bit of a mess and I'm going to archive it soon, so I was reading through it, and found that I'd missed your request. As it has been so long, may I ask if the problems are continuing? Thanks. —Xyrael / 07:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sunni Islam links
That was a mistake. I reverted the wrong page. Please accept my apologies. --Nkv 19:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Salafism
Hi Zayd. Believe me. I've lost track of all of the article changes but seeing the article being kicked off as a football every hours made me furious. So i've just locked it. Whatever is the case, the actual version of the article is not an endorssement and visitors would know that there's a discussion at the talk page at least. -- Szvest 18:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Zayd, you reverted to a version that was incredibly POV and lacking references. My edits were adding references, even describing why the term "Salafi" is confusing and disputed. It's not my responsibility to address every single detail of my edits on the talk page. If you want to have an discussion of page content, then you have to frame your argument on the talk page and at least provide one decent reference supporting whatever you want to change. Currently I don't even know what exactly you are disputing. If I were removing referenced information, or adding un-referenced information, then you might have an argument, but that's not the case. As far as I can tell you just disagree with the newer version because it portrays Salafism as a modern movement and not "True Islam" as the Salafis prefer to view themselves. Cuñado
- Talk 20:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
