User talk:Editorius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Editorius, 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:

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:Questions, 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! 

Hello, can you sign your comments with ~~~~? Thanks! Luchador 72.21.33.130 20:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Muhammad

Editorius, many Muslims consider it offensive to claim that Muhammad was the founder of Islam.

Hence the opening para in the Muhammad article is a compromise: it gives the Muslim version and the non-Muslim version. By removing the Muslim version, you're destroying compromise that took a long time and much argument to craft. I reverted it. Please let the compromise stand. Giving all relevant POVs is the Wikipedia way -- not imposing your own POV and removing all others. Zora 01:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, if some Muslims consider calling Muhammad "the founder of Islam" offensive, then this is their problem, because a Wikipedia biography is not meant to be a hagiography, i.e. a worshipful or idealizing biography.
That Muhammad is in the full sense of the term "the founder of the religion of Islam and of the Muslim community" ("Muhammad." In Encyclopaedia Britannica) is a historical fact—period.
Islamic fundamentalists who are not prepared to accept this for purely ideological reasons ought not to call the tune here.—But apparently they somehow do.
Editorius 13:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your work on Mohammed, Editorious, and the fact that when you're right, you stay at it. Keep up the good work! Zenosparadox 23:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Editorius, you're right it's as simple as that. (Anonymous User) 12 June 2006

[edit] Barnstar Award

This Islamic Barnstar awarded to Editorius for your important contributions to the Muhammad article and dialogue on the Talk:Muhammad page.
This Islamic Barnstar awarded to Editorius for your important contributions to the Muhammad article and dialogue on the Talk:Muhammad page.

--FairNBalanced 18:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Muhammad

Thanks for the pointed words, but a tip anyway: Don't get personal, even on a mere formal level - that's not appreciated, even if your points are well made. Moreover, you might want to use consecutive edits, boldings and exclamation marks more sparingly: nobody needs to know that we're krauts :-) An RfC is underway, and uninvolved wikipedians might need to wade through the mud thread, so civility and conciseness rule. Fortiter in re, suaviter in modo... --tickle me 16:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh, just noticed: better "don't mention the war": kraut or not, one tends to lose it. If you're prone for zesty analogies, use Stalin or better yet, Animal Farm, but I advise against that too... Less is often more, and the Islam related articles are minefields already. --tickle me 16:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam

Hi Editorius,

I am wondering what you think of recent changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam.Timothy Usher 10:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad article

In response to your beg, I also beg please leave the introduction and Muhammad (PBUH) article from you "scientific" edits alone. I do not know what yours interest in Muhammad (PBUH) is? But for Muslims he is more beloved than our Parents, our lives, and no one is more loved than him. But according to you we have to compromise and you want your version. It should be easier for you to compromise than us. It is sad. --- Faisal 21:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like what you're saying, Faisal, is that because your views are more extreme, they ought to be given more weight. The opposite.
Everything about your contributions suggests that you are unwilling to address Islam-related subjects with neutrality, and consider your persistent refusal to do so as an act of piety. On your user page, you say you don't like Wikipedia, but you love Islam. That's up to you, but please do not promote the latter at the expense of the former. If you see your religion as mandating this approach, we can't change that, but we're then faced with the question of how to limit the damage.Timothy Usher 23:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, "my" formulation doesn't hinder you by any means from loving Muhammad more than your parents and your life. — What is really sad is that you stubbornly refuse to concede that the introductory sentence (+the footnote) is not at all anti-Islamic per se! Editorius 13:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you prove that Muhammad (PBUH) was not God prophet or visa versa scientifically? Obviously not. Hence the last formation was as scientifically as good as this one is. Which say he establish... Hence your change is illogical and un-neutral. The last one was much more neutral. --- 13:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Timothy read your view and then analyse your own neutrally.
.. considered his (Muhammad) actions and those of his companions - the cold-blooded execution of Jewish POWs, the taking of female Jewish captives as slaves and wives, the sale of Jewish children into slavery, the confiscation of Jewish property and the imposition of serfdom upon its former owners, the murder of Jewish poets, etc. - right, just and glorious [1]. You have fequently saying such things. I could present multiple post of yours on the similar line. Still you think you are neutral? Even if your religion is not mentioned on your user page (unlike mine) but still everyone can guess what your religion is by your edits. --- Faisal 09:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, take a guess, what is it? I'll not consider it a personal attack, as I've solicited it.
Muhammad was a real living breathing person. Islam teaches that there is no intervention between us and God - our appendations of (PBUH) cannot help Muhammad, nor can he help us, similarly with Jesus or saints. I endorse this view as common sense.Timothy Usher 10:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hay Editorius

Hi Editorius. Recently your post regarding me is becoming much harsher. Please do not think me your enemy. We both should have right to disagree with each other. It is not at all personal. It should never be personal. I think that previous intro of Muhammad was very good and putting things in footnotes, that no one usually read, will not solve the problem. I do not want to see it change. You disagree with me on this so what? We can still be friends and polite to each other. At least, I have no harsh feeling towards you. And I know that you intensions were good. Unlike few others, you are looking for compromise with good intensions. I hope that we could also agree on few things in future and when we have to disagree then we will not keep any bad feeling towards each other. Okay friend, see you around. Best regards. --- Faisal 10:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, I realize this might sound strange, but consider: even those who don't wish to compromise with you have good intentions. It's not about upsetting you - it's actually somewhat painful for me to realize you're upset - but about preserving the standards of western secular scholarship. It's served the west well, just as the known alternatives have served their adherents poorly.Timothy Usher 10:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Timothy my first post was not regarding you. And I know you very well now. Just as you said. those who don't wish to compromise with you .... Editorius on the other hand wishes to compromise. --- Faisal 11:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Faisal, as long as you remain a sportsman, I'm going to try hard to remain one too.
— I may have been too rash in calling you a (potential) saboteur, but, unfortunately, it has appeared to me that for you no "compromise" is reached before I and the ones sharing my opinion have simply *given in*, i.e. conceded defeat. But that wouldn't be a compromise (=def a settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions) but a kind of coercion.
— I don't know how many people actually read the footnotes in Wikipedia, but what matters is that the footnote in the entry on Muhammad is there, eagerly waiting to be read by somebody.
Editorius 15:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Islam article

Hello Editorius,

We are trying to increase the quality of the criticism of islam article. Your help will be appreciated (of course if you have time :) ) Thanks, --Aminz 07:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khaybar

Please assume good faith. You've begun pushing your POV on the article without agreeing anything on talk. In addition, some of your edits were simply unacceptable, as I wrote on talk. I've had very little time for the wiki recently, and it takes time and efforts to do additional research on my part. If you're willing to wait a week or so, that'll be fine; otherwise, we may have problems on that article. Pecher Talk 14:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Is that a threat?

If you consider the statements by some of the most eminent scholars in Islamic studies (Paret, Buhl, et al.) "simply unacceptable", then this has little meaning to me, because, I beg your pardon, I tend to find their statements more trustworthy than yours.Editorius 14:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

 :-) Welcome to the club Editorius! LOL!! Netscott 22:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the club's name?Editorius 01:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The good faith questioners specifically the POV "simply unaccetable" chapter on Wikipedia. You're only at the introductory level right now, are you interested in becoming a full fledged member? :-) Netscott 06:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your recent changes in the Muhammad article. We muslims could never made such a change as they would have reverted it back. I still might disagree with you in future on many issues but I think you as a fair person. A person if given good enough facts he can change his oponion and keeps this mind open for new ideas. Everyone in wikipedia is not like you.

Thanks for your appreciation!

BTW I am leaving for Germany on 4th july and will be there for 4 years. I hope my stay will be very productive (in term of research work) and safe (given the fact that I am Muslim). --- Faisal 19:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, there are more than 3.000.000 Muslims living rather safely in Germany.Editorius 20:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Muhammad

I am not being a pain in the neck Editoius. Simply, there was no concensus and there were 4 or 5 parties against 2 or 3. Can you show me the opposite? Indeed, if he did establish a religion than everybody did. Why not call for a peer review and settle this out? -- Szvest 11:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You can argue at ANI. -- Szvest 12:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

The headings like "Sabotage by FayssalF (Szvest)" are NOT a sign of civility in wikipedia. --Aminz 01:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you consider sabotage a sign of civility?!--Editorius 10:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Because what you call "Sabotage" was the reason I was informed about this issue. Was it still "Sabotage"? --Aminz 20:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Mu'tah

I thought you may be interested in the discussion on this article's talk page, where several people are claiming that The Sealed Nectar is a reliable source on history by an academic author because the book was published by the Islamic University Medina. Pecher Talk 12:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad

My comment about jihad was mainly with respect to the continued inclusion of the inappropriate image that had been added (which given the fuss over the danish comics, would be a very bad thing to leave in). Furthermore, I cannot see any indication of a discussion on the talk page, and your edit also removed the mohammed series of articles template, and the statements about being the leader of the early musilm community. In addition, the footnote you added is worded in such a complex manner as to obscure the meaning. Could you please:

  • Point out the distinctly muslim POV in the original text? (which you imply as being present)
  • Why the muhammad series template was removed?
  • Where the talk page discussion concluded in favour of your revision?
  • Exactly what is meant by the new footnote (you should seriously consider changing it to a more simple wording)?

I have left the article in your edit state for now, as a sign of good faith, as I'm sure you have your reasons, and the mistaken includes and excludes are most likely accidents. LinaMishima 14:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

note on reviewing edit logs, I see you didn't release the image was within the article untill after changing the heading text, then removed it yourself. Sorry. LinaMishima 14:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me stress that I have absolutely nothing to do with that image.
As far as the footnote is concerned, I deny that it's either too complex or too difficult to understand for the average reader.
For further comments of mine, I refer you to the discussion page.
Editorius 14:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the removal of the template happened inadvertently.Editorius

On a review of the article, I have to appologise about everything bar my thoughts on the footnote. This whole mess was the result of your initial edit not removing the image, which implied to me that your edit was of a similar intent to the image. On re-reading the changes on the final article (rather than diffs), I see that you meerly simplified the opening. However I did recall seeing some disagreement over the use of "founded the religion" on the talk page.
The footnote, however, really does need to be changed. The first statement seems to be talkign about how mohammad was not the first to propose monotheism, which I see no indication to the otherwise within the article, making this statement redundant. The second statement, "Here, "Islam" and "Muslim" are used in their active lexical senses, not in their etymological senses." is a very confusing statement, requiring the casual reader to understand the concepts of "active lexical" and "etymological". At the very least, some wikilinks could be used, but in most cases like this there exists a far simpler plain english explaination which is far less likely to cause confusion and upset. LinaMishima 15:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The foonote has become necessary because most Muslim readers appear incapable of understanding "Muhammad established the religion of Islam" properly. They mistakenly read it as "Muhammad established monotheism = the belief in and submission to one supreme god".Editorius 15:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
That's strange, but explains the need for the footnote.

The reason for this notorious misreading is the mythological Islamization of the entire history of religion and of monotheism in particular through the Muslim theologians. Their purely ideological, unscientific view on history has brainwashed most normal Muslims so that they cannot help but misinterpret "the religion of Islam". Of course, I suspect the theologians themselves do know how to read it properly, but they simply love to misread it intentionally in order to vex the non-Muslims.Editorius 16:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Will you consider rewording the second section, please, so as to not alienate your common reader (especially if you assume that many of the islamic readers it is aimed at may not speak english as a first language)? LinaMishima 15:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to sound arrogant, but for those who might not know the meaning of "lexical" or "eytmological" the dictionary has been invented. For what matters most here is the precision of the statement, so as to avoid any further misunderstanding.Editorius 16:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that sounds nothing but arrogant, however, insisting that those not as knowledgable as yourself have to struggle work work out the meaning of a statement because you are unwilling to ensure appropriate language is used.
Opening a dictionary is not a "struggle", especially not when such brilliant websites as http://www.onelook.com are freely available to everybody. Moreover, the language I use is "appropriate".Editorius 16:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Given that you have to both look up definitions and interpret their contextual meanings, it's not a simple, casual or trvial task, which serves only to make understanding the text harder. The language you use is certainly not accessable by all, my disagreement over it is proof enough. I suggest that we work to find a more simple wording, as it is evident that one does exist. What do you think of the below suggestion? Can you suggest an improvement? LinaMishima 16:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Simply looking up the terms allows us to say "Here, "Islam" and "Muslim" are used not in their historical meaning (to sumbit to the will of god), but in their modern common meaning which refers to a religion or followers of that religion". Although this not not entirely perfect, it is far more useful to a casual reader. Banding around complex terms is generally always a bad idea. LinaMishima 16:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I rephrased the footnote, hoping you now find it simple enough.Editorius 16:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
That's much better, thanks. I appologise for seeming harsh. It is my believe that the greatest failing of scholarly types is to not make sure their work is inclusive, which only then leads to more people turning away from academically styled thinking as they associate it with what they can only see as gobbledygook and nonsense. Although it looks like you're likey to have an edit war occur with someone else over the header :/ Good luck! LinaMishima 17:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I believe you are in violation of 3RR at Muhammad

Perhaps I'm missing some technicality, but if I'm not, that's four. Since you've been around for awhile, I assume you're familiar with this rule, so I'm reporting this. Also, calling someone illiterate is a personal attack. Unless of course the person being addressed is Muhammad (pbuh). BYT 19:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

STOP, both of you. Go to the talk page and the topic I created for this purpose, and discuss this, rather than accusing people. Let's call the events so far a missunderstanding, and work towards a clean solution, yes? LinaMishima 18:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
My dear BrandonYusufToropov, I may be outspoken but, obviously, you are an advocate of foul play. — That's a difference!
(By the way, I'd never call Muhammad an illiterate, because he actually wasn't one.)
Editorius 00:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr on Muhammad

I've blocked you for 8h William M. Connolley 19:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

As you can still read all of wikipedia and post here, I'm willing to pass across a statement by you to the opening paragraph consensus discussion on your behalf. Obviously, the less offensive, and the more it attempts to enguage the community the better for your argument, but I'll pass across anything that will not in turn get me in trouble LinaMishima 19:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Why are you doing this, exactly, LinaMishima? This makes me question your neutrality on this issue, I'm afraid. BYT 19:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

How nice of you to block me, Mr Connolley. I really hope you've blocked the Islamist saboteurs too.Editorius 00:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

May I remind you to keep the colourful language to a minimum, so as to not result anyone misinterpreting any statement as being not of a calm and rational POV? You also get listened to more if you're civil, too. LinaMishima 01:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

To be frank, my patience with those radical Muslims here, whose sole intention is to Islamize all Wikipedia articles related to Islam, is exhausted. They tactically pervert the "POV policy" in order to bring everyone into line, so to speak.Editorius 02:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Editorius, please, I implore you. Please qualify such statements, so that your reasoning may be followed, and so that all who read them understand that you are not intending to make a personal attack. Exactly how is a muslim/islamic POV being pushed, and why are these actions classifiable as muslim POV? LinaMishima 02:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Editorius, You said once that you do not believe in religions. Now you are pushing hard "founder/establish" thing. I simply do not get that what is the difference between you and us? Why you yourself is not a "non-religion-redical", if you think we are "Islamic-redicals"?. (No offence intended) --- Faisal 02:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Faisal, let me remind you of the fact that it was me who (see discussion page) had eventually been prepared (willy-nilly) to accept the following formulation for the sake of compromise:

--quote begin--
In order to show that I'm not a primitive "Muslim-basher", I propose the following Islam-friendly formulation, which at least does not distort historical truth:
"Muhammad promulgated the religion of Islam and established the Muslim community."
(or: "Muhammad is the promulgator of the religion of Islam.")
This formulation should really be deemed non-objectionable by the Muslims. Editorius 13:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
--quote end--

But then I was told that, allegedly, nobody understood the verb "promulgate" ...

Now, with me being confronted with those persistent attempts at verbally Islamizing the articles on Islam, my willingness to compromise has passed — unfortunately.Editorius 02:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if you consider the empirical point of view of science "radical", then I can live with that, for science's main task is to eradicate all untruth.Editorius 03:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I admit that "promulgate" definition was much better. Also I can still add another sentence there for you that says "Non-Muslims believe him a founder/establisher of Islam" etc and it is no harm. A good introduction should give both sides view. The problem start when the introduction gives a view like he "established" Islam (without mentioning it is non-Muslims view). Dear Editorius, science has nothing to do with it. You cannot prove with science that he "establishes" Islam. Can you? If you can then I am with you to change the introduction. --- Faisal 03:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You say: "A good introduction should give both sides' view." This implies that the scientific point of view (there is such thing as a science of history) is on a par with the point of view of Islamic mythology. -- This is what I deny! In an article on the earth the view of the Flat Earth Society really doesn't have to be mentioned, does it?!Editorius 03:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Editorius if there will be no member of Flat Earth Society we will be still writing about Earth. But if there would be no Muslim at all in the world you will not be writing about Muhammad as he will not be significant. Hence one cannot seperate Muhammad from Muslims but can seperate Flat Earth Society from Earth. I really like wikipedia today after seeing that introduction of Muhammad as it is so better right now. But we can still add something like "Non-Muslims think him ..." --- Faisal 04:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Ahhh, I see you are probably refering to the historical method, and the scientific method. A new compromise: "Muslims do not believe that muhammed founded islam, but rather...", and then avoid talking about founding or otherwise. In many respects it would be completely wrong to say that the major prophetic figure in any faith truely founded it - often it was the work of those who followed that truely made a difference, or a sect was already leaning that way beforehand. I believe we need some perspective on these matters. If you look at Jesus, you will see the first paragraph makes no mention of him being the 'founder' of christianity, and sticks to either agreed truths, or the beliefs of religious groups. LinaMishima 04:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"Muslims do not believe that Muhammad founded Islam." -- Therein still occurs an equivocation on "Islam".Editorius

You mean the whole arabic meaning thereof? That's easily fixed, I'm sure... "the religion commonly refered to as", or somesuch. Good point, however LinaMishima 04:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Please stop comparing Jesus to Muhammad. We cannot make one rule and apply on both. aaaaaaaaaaaa. I really need to sleep now. Why you Editorius do not have to sleep? Are you in different time zone than Germany? bye --- Faisal 04:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The comparison was made by myself between not the people, but the articles, because they are both about major religious leaders. It is generally a good idea to standardise the formatting of articles on related subjects, and methods that work well on one will probably work well on the other. I'm in the UK, btw (and I'm not Editorius, but rather... LinaMishima 05:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please play nice

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. Although humour can lighten the mood, it is generally a bad idea to use it to subversively make personal attacks. The community apears to be willing to reach a compromise, and if you would step back a moment, I'm sure you will see that a statement can be reached which would meet your ideals and the indeals of others. Don't rely on generalisations, deal with specific facts, ask people to elaborate, and most of all - remember that some people you are dealing with may not have english as a first language, and so may be hard to understand or slow to follow. LinaMishima 04:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been acting "in an uncivil manner"...?! Wasn't it BrandonYusufToropov who was deviously busy with having me blocked?! Is the persistent deletion of an indubitably impeccable formulation for purely ideological reasons by some headstrong Muslims an act of civility?! You seem to have mixed up cause and effect!Editorius 04:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And you seem keen on demanding you are right, rather than calmly attempting to explain your point in an non-argumentative manner. Rather than providing evidence, you are meerly citing it's existance. Rather than detailing points, you seem keener on a firm insistance, never explainging point by point why you believe something is one thing. Being civil will always grant you more luck in your goals. LinaMishima 05:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagreement

Hi,

I disagree with you about wikipedia. As I know wikipedia is a place for all viewpoint Muslims and Nonmuslims. You shouldn't banned others to write their viewpoints even it is noscientific. As a Muslim I allowed to write Muslim Point Of Views and of course I should tell this is Muslim POV. I put a comment for you [2].

[edit] Last warning

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. Comments like this are decidedly not helpful to anyone. You have been warned about this before. LinaMishima 20:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. LinaMishima 20:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Warning: do not remove

Please stop. If you continue to remove legitimate warning messages from your talk page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please discontinue from actions such as here and here. Even if you remove these, they will remain in the history of the page. It is better to address the concerns being raised. You have already violated a number of rules, and may be banned if you continue. LinaMishima 20:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. Removing legitimate warnings from your talk page is considered to be disruption. You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia and your talk page will be protected from editing if you do it again. . Please stop, this is your third and final warning for such activities as shown here, here and here. You are free, of course, to archive your talk page and provide a link, but removal of legitamate warnings is considered an act of bad faith. Such actions will not prevent such warnings from remaining in your talk page history, and so are ultimately futile. This is your last warning. LinaMishima 21:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there

Dear Editorius, I will feel very bad if you would be banned. Please be patience friend. Remember I once said thanks to you. That thanks was really from my heart. I still believe (faith) in you but I think you are just losing your patience. I hated Muhammad introduction that was there previously, just like you feel about current introduction. Because of that introduction I disliked whole wikipedia. But I still tried to be remain clam for "many months" and not to be rude with anyone. Tomorrow you will have more support then your introduction will be replaced on ours. Wikipedia is a constant changing thing, nothing here is final. Okay my German friend. I hope to see your many valuable contributions around. Be cool !--- Faisal 22:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Faisal, as far as Lady Shady is concerned, I'm through with her and her malicious ban threats. Otherwise, I am very well aware that several of my previous comments are indeed harshly polemical and ad hominem; but you shouldn't overlook the fact that there is a concrete reason that provoked them. On the other hand, I can display good conduct and willingness to compromise, can't I?! But if somebody stubbornly and persistently refuses a handshake for purely ideological reasons, I am no longer willing to offer my hand. And that's what's happened — unfortunately. Editorius 00:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reality Check

Editorius, you're a fine and earnest editor. It's that second part which will get you into trouble. Consider the recent His excellency ArbCom decision.

Link?—Editorius 13:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If you disagree with Islam, Muslim editors will be offended. Say they've no right to be, say you've a right to your own freedom of conscience; it matters not, they still will be. This will be called uncivil. In theory, you have freedom of conscience, especially in matters of religion. In practice, you don't. Not on Wikipedia. You will treat Islamic mythology with reverance, or face discipline. Argument is useless against fundamentalists of any stripe, as the conclusion is utterly fixed before the first word is uttered. To listen to you would constitute apostasy; these editors aren't here to apostasize. It's futile to argue, because to ignore you is itself an act of faith for which they'll be rewarded. ArbCom has driven off several allies you would have otehrwise had. Muhammad (SAW) is the great and final prophet of God's sacred holy perfect religion of Islam whcih has existed since Adam (SAW) and Eve (no SAW for women) and that is all. The Committe has decided; let Wikipedia be what WP will be.SadTruth 09:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your supportive words! Argument may be useless, but perhaps intellectual resistance is not. I am well aware of the Muslim fundamentalists' utterly devious "offence pretence" strategy. In their eyes only the 'superhuman' Muslims are offendable, while the unbelievers may certainly be bluntly declared subhumans:

Quran 8:55. Surely the worst of beasts in God's sight are the unbelievers, who will not believe.

"The worst of beasts" — How civil is that...?! If we "unbelievers" called the Muslims so, they would cry for World War III, wouldn't they?! —Editorius 13:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That is Allah words not Muslim's words. I wish if you could understand what Allah is. First time I realize from your post that someone could think God a "person". You will never enjoy reading Quran unless you could fully appreciate what God is. --- Faisal 18:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So it's Allah who called unbelievers beasts. What if, hearing this, an unbeliever got upset and called Allah a beast? He'd be blocked for attacking Muslims. That's what happened to user FairNBalanced who wrote the word Allah on a pig.

Anyway I thought Muslims should recite the Koran. Do they leave out those words?

A Muslim who was neutral about Muhammad (SAW) or Allah wouldn't be a very good Muslim, would he? To ask for NPOV is discrimination because you're not allowing Muslims to follow their religion, which defines NPOV as unbelief. Alternately, calling Muhammad the final prophet of Allah and the Koran Allah's perfect words is itself neutral.

My religion is Communism. It's based around Karl Marx (he's totally great) and it says that everything Marx (HTG) did was perfect because he was guided in all things by the Spirit of Perfect Truth (drop to your knees in worship). Also the rightly-guided successors Lenin (he is worthy), Stalin (HIW), Mao (HIW) etc. You can't say Marx (HTG) did anything bad or you are discriminating against me and other Communists. And you can't say he founded Communism because Communism has always existed. You can't say "Marx (HTG) believed ___," because those aren't his (HTG) beliefs, but those of the Spirit of Perfect Truth (DTYKIW). Plus the only reason Marx (HTG)is important is because we Communists follow him (HTG), so Communist views must come first.

The introduction should read "Communists believe Marx (HTG) was the last prophet of the Spirit of Perfect Truth (DTYKIW) to whom the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital were divinely revealed word by sublimely perfect word. Non-Marxists consider him the founder of Communism." Is your head spinning yet? Ours has been.SadTruth 04:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Timothy = SadTruth? For me above is not only totally acceptable but is a great introduction. Because it says "Communists believe ABC... and Non-Marxists say XYZ..." There is "nothing wrong" with it. Quran should be explicit and cannot be politically correct. Laws are always written in this way even by human being. I believe that Allah cannot make mistakes and is perfect. He is the only one who is perfect. Muhammad is special "human-being"; Allah guided him and helped him as being his last Prophet. --- Faisal 13:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hi Editorius, I have found a good video on youTube. I thought that I could share it with you. I got courage to share that video with you as I think you are truth seeker (like me) and not a stubborn person. In that video an Islamic scholar (medical doctor too) tries to give convince an "Atheist" that Quran could not be written by some human-being 1400 years ago. I hope you will take a look and do not mind that I sending you the URL . Sorry in advance if you get offended by me. --- ابراهيم 00:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that ابراهيم has been misled by the confident and charismatic but ill-informed Mr.Naik. No doubt we could pick this apart further, but for now (and this is more for the benefit of ابراهيم than for you):
  • The "big bang reference" is no less ambiguous than that found in Genesis.
  • As you're probably aware, Drake's was not the first expedition known to have circumnavigated the earth. Regardless, long before Magellan and Columbus - since the ancient Greeks - it had been thought that the earth was spherical; in fact its diameter and its distance from the sun had been calculated to a reasonable degree of accuracy.[3]
  • Qur'an 14:33 is being egregiously misinterpreted, as meaning "the sun rotates around its own axis":
"And He hath made subject to you the sun and the moon, both diligently pursuing their courses"
Rather, it's an excellent example of an understandable human error in the Qur'an, as the most natural reading is that the sun is being said to rotate the earth; contra Mr.Naik, angular momentum would not normally be described as "pursuing its course."
  • Plants are male or female: surely, this has been known since at least the dawn of cultivation!
  • That there is a difference between fresh water and seawater...well, this cannot be quite new, can it? That there is a division between them is obvious enough to any who live near the mouth of a river or coastal swamp.
  • "It is the mountains which prevent the earth from shaking?" - It is? Perhaps the Qur'an is yet more advanced than modern science, as this is not yet known to us.
  • The west knew long ago that the moon's light came from the sun. Not sure when this was known (it's observable and deducible with the naked eye), but a lot earlier than the past few centuries. From our own sacred scriptures (Timon 4:3:438-445):
I'll example you with thievery:
The sun's a thief, and with his great attraction
Robs the vast sea; the moon's an arrant thief,
And her pale fire she snatches from the sun;
The sea's a thief, whose liquid surge resolves
The moon into salt tears; the earth's a thief,
That feeds and breeds by a composture stol'n
From gen'ral excrement; each things's a thief.
See also Nabokov's Pale Fire, titled after the connection between the passage above and this from Hamlet (1:2:82), "The glowworm shows the matin to be near/and gins to pale his uneffectual fire." I challenge any mortal man to write anything like it. That's the real proof of Shakespeare's prophethood.SadTruth 04:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Well, noting that the Qur’an does talk about scientific issues, one should then expect the Qur’an to be full of superstitious ideas sneaked into it. The Bible's Scientifics errors are numerous and abundant. Aside from these, Sad Truth can you refute the prophecy of Muhammad "The Romans are vanquished. In a near land, and they, after being vanquished, shall overcome within a few years. Allah's is the command before and after; and on that day the believers shall rejoice" (Surah 30:1-3). Also, Sura 111:1-5 condemned Abu Lahab and his wife to Jahannam "The power of Abu Lahab will perish, and he will perish. His wealth and gains will not exempt him. He will be plunged in flaming Fire, and his wife, the wood carrier, will have upon her neck a halter of palm-fibre" (111:1-5). Infact Abu Lahab and his wife will never accepted Islam though Abu Sufyan and many others did.

By refuting, I mean establishing that its probability was high. --Aminz 05:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

So, he says, we'll kick the Romans' ass, and that Abu Lahab will go to hell. Later on, they do defeat the "Romans" (though they were not overrun for many centuries, and by the Turks). Abu Lahab, we don't know that he went to Hell, much less that his wife was fitted very specifically with a halter of palm-fibre, only that he didn't accept Islam, and Muhammad could tell or guessed correctly that he wouldn't. If I call "heads" twice in a row, am I psychic? These are not signs of any special gift. He had many special gifts, but discerning occult scientific truths and telling the future were not among them.
In any instance, none of this changes the fact that this Naik fellow is banking on the ignorance of his audience to make a wholly bogus point. More convincing to say, isn't the Qu'ran beautiful? That is what brought humanity under its spell to begin with. That is how people fall in love.SadTruth 06:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. I think you are downplaying the significance of the Roman's victory after their severe defeat in a near land. Damascus and Jerusalem were occupied by Iranians. The Qur'an says that within a few years, Romans will be victorious. I know probability, do you have anything real to add? Regarding the Abu Lahab, well, we don't know if he went to hell or not, but we can check for the consistency. Abu Sufyan and his wife, hend, were not definitely good with Muhammad either. --Aminz 06:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, due to his speaking with a strong accent I had some difficulty in understanding Naik; but nevertheless I did listen to his entire sermon. He is doubtless a shrewd and eloquent man, who knows how to manipulate the gullible ones among his audience. Owing to his persuasive powers, his arguments seem virtually irresistible, but below the rhetorical surface there is hardly any substance.
Here's a website for you, which deals with Naik's arguments:
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Responses/Naik/index.htm
(Especially: http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellintro.htm)
Editorius 13:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

BY THE WAY, MY PERSONAL DISCUSSION PAGE IS NOT THE RIGHT PLACE FOR GENERAL DISCUSSIONS! THANX. — Editorius 14:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Editorius, these sites like faitfreedom and answering-Islam are not good if someone has to get real answers about Islam. They have underline hate against Islam to "begin with". You should read good secular/neutral editors to find answers. Anyway, please never end your search and keep looking always. I was not a Muslim (at least by heart) few years ago. But I look and think. I accept thing that I feel is best. I still change my views about different things depending upon new information available as a person I would like to keep looking always. I will try to re-create a page regarding "Quran_and_Science" (discarding current one). I hope that page will have many interesting things, "scientifically written" to ponder. best wishes --- ابراهيم 17:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Btw Thanks a lot that you have heard the video. I am very happy. --- ابراهيم 17:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, I am well aware that the two websites mentioned above are not pro-Islamic. But the texts from these which I have read so far are full of very good counter-arguments, which are formulated objectively and rationally (including a lot of serious source material). The authors of those texts are harsh critics of Islam, but they appear to me in absolutely no way like members of a hate group. — Editorius 18:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Editorius, See we Muslims eccept the version suggested by you (with only few modification) and made a compromise. Now those people in the section "Problems with Introduction - Weasel Words" even want to change it more. I hope being a fair person, will you this time stand with us? --- ابراهيم 21:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi once again. I want to chat about Germany and stuff. Can you email me at faisal.aslam@gmail.com I do not want to give personal information here. --- ابراهيم 22:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad introduction

Dear Editorius, 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 06:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] about Muhammad portraits

Dear Editorius, you said Dear Muslim Wikipedians, you ought to take note of the fact that Wikipedia is a non-Islamic encyclopedia. That you happen to dislike portraits of Muhammad has absolutely no bearing on what is allowed here. You simply have no right to demand that no painted portraits of Muhammad be shown here!

If its Non Muslim encyclopedia and can not respect the relagion and there prophet then Muslims should not come here. Its not matter of rights it was my humble request and you please increase your knowledge regarding religions, Muslims and Islam and its history then you will in some good position to say some thing about it. And one thing, because this artical is abouot prophet Muhammad(PBUH) to whome Muslims of all world love most so please keep in this mind that it should not hurt there beliefs.

Thanks for your comments, concerns and interest. --Mahmood Sarfraz 18:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Quran and science

Would you mind weighing in? Or helping with it? Arrow740 01:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/d/i/User_talk%7EEditorius_f130.html"