User talk:Ibrahimfaisal/archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llamadog903 (talk • contribs)


Contents

who goes to heaven?

I read that in sura 2 line 62 in the koran that jews, christians, and sabians go to heaven just like muslims. I want you to ask a few things.

1.) If someone is good their whole life do they go to heaven

2.) if no to the first, what about those who have never heard of islam, christianity, judaism, or sabians, and they are good?

3.) If protestants and reform jews came after that line in the koran was written wouldn't that mean the are not elligable for heaven?

4.) magians (who were zoroastrians) were mentioned in the koran beside christians, jews, and sabians, but after polytheists. Zoroastrians are also monotheistic. Do zoroastrians get into heaven?

Thanks for your contact however I am "not" an Islamic scholar. Few things I can tell. Firstly, those who have not received the message (of Islam) will NOT be punished because Allah is just. But I am not sure that in our current media age it is possible anymore?? Secondly, Shirk (non-monotheism/polytheism) is a greatest sin. I also know that those who were "good" Christians before Muhammad and have not committed any Shirk (not taking Jesus as son of God etc.) are eligible for heaven. I do not know the answer of your this question that "What if someone is good Christian, Jew etc and has not committed any Shirk. If he is living in the era after Islam then will he can still go to heaven or not?" I do not want to give answer without some research and until I am sure (btw most/all Christians nowadays believe that Jesus is son of God and commit Shirk). --- ابراهيم 10:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks for you concern

Walaikum Musalam Faisal, I agree with you point ....... maybe you are right after all.I don't think though they would sack me for putting PBUH and espeacialy since some of the points in their article are not neutral at all . But just not to annoy anybody I will stop if thats your point after all wekipedia is not the ultimate source and correcting misconceptions is as important as anything since anybody can edit the article and even our enemies can .Hanozbs 14:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Helpme Request

How can one creates two articles with exactly same names. For instance, there is an article on Dawn, but Dawn is also a leading Newspaper of Pakistan. How can I create another article with the name Dawn without replacing the first one. Faisal 12:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Usually you need to disambiguate articles with the same name. So in this case, i'd suggest creating the article Dawn (newspaper). --Spook (my talk | my contribs) 12:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it is not a good solution. It is because, if someone will search for Dawn he will not find Dawn Newspaper. Is it possible that page about Dawn has link to Dawn (newspaper) ?

Also In future what will you suggest if there are two Newspaper with name Dawn? (Dawn Newspaper Country1 and Dawn Newspaper Country2). Not good. In long run I suggest in such a case, the main page should have links to all the relevent articles for example see HEC.

Faisal 12:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Dawn already has such a page. See Dawn (disambiguation).
Also, if you were to search for Dawn after creating Dawn (newspaper), you'll find that the newspaper article will show up. --Spook (my talk | my contribs) 06:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I saw that you live in Pakistan and I found an article about a Pakistanean that needs some expanding. Sadequain User:Englishfun.
Thank for your message. However, I do not have interest and expertise required expand Sadequain article. I am not interested in Art at all. --- Faisal 14:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


I want to know that who to check a wikipedia-editor's IP address and what law is broken if a banned user make changes in the article without getting logged in. Is banning means the IP address is banned or his login facility or both of them.

Tell me the page and I'll look into it. Sasquatch t|c 15:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
It is Dhimmi page, (see its history) that page was usually not edited by people not registered. But since User:Pecher is banned for a day, there are lots of edits from unregistered User (IP addresses). I want to see if I could establish any link between banned User:Pecher and the IP addresses used. May be I am wrong but still I like to check. I will appreciate your help. ---- Faisal 15:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the one IP (User:128.32.39.126) has been editing that page for a while. Otherwise, as for User:24.7.102.19, it seems that's coming from america as opposed to the Ukraine and there isn't enough evidence there for me to consider that any other action is needed. Hope that helps! Sasquatch t|c 15:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Thank you for your time. --- Faisal 15:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


2nd help request

Are all the websites unreliable resource or only the one associated with terrorist, personal-website, log website etc. I have already read WP:RS. I know that it is recomended to use books instead of website. Books are good. However, using website should be allowed when some scholar write there. The website Islamonline is NOT a personal-website, logs-website, terroist-website, associated with some organization. The website aim is following

Global presentation: Addressing humanity; avoiding ties with or speaking for any country, party, group, council, or organization. Comprehensive content: Presenting a whole and complementary image of Islam in the information and service pages. Balanced approach: Adopting the middle ground of Islam, avoiding extremism or negligence, rejecting deviant or strange opinions. Objective treatment: Striving for scientific accuracy, adopting neutrality and avoiding pre-judgments. Moral approach: Avoiding slander or praise of individuals, groups or states, avoiding propagandist and sensational methods, or provocation and incitement. Pleasant presentation: Ensuring that all contents are displayed professionally and enjoyably.

Usually a good scholar write and answer questions. Why one cannot say Scholar ABC says on islamonline [islamonline reference]? Is only have islam in the name make that website unreliable. I want to contact with administrators and find wiki-stand about it. Please help me. --- Faisal 17:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I am here to help you, but what is your question? Sorry if I missed it:) Eagle talk 18:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your responce. In fact there is a dispute created by User:Pecher. I add some good material of some good scholars from Islamonline and he revert it back. Hence I want to contact with administrators to have a decision in this issue/dispute. I want to contact with many administrators. See following.
For example, Sir Thomas Arnold, an orientalist of the early 20th century, in his "Call to Islam" has argued: -

This tax (jizya) was not imposed on the Christians, as some would have us think, as a penalty for their refusal to accept the Muslim faith. Rather, it was paid by them in common with the other dhimmis or non-Muslim subjects of the state whose religion precluded them from serving in the army, in return for the protection secured for them by the arms of the Muslims. When the people of Hirah contributed the sum agreed upon, they expressly mentioned that they paid this jizyah on condition that ‘the Muslims and their leader protect us from those who would oppress us, whether they be Muslims or others.[1]

This and other such stuff is reverted by Pecher (see [2]) with comments that islamonline is not accepted and not reliable. He continue humilating me saying that read WP:RR. Hence I want get support of administators or get some decision on this issue. Please guide me, what I suppose to do? --- Faisal 17:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Need your Help

I need support in editing the page for Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh from Pakistani-Wikipedians. The page concludes Pakistans link to 9/11 using information from Indian press and much information in that page is without proper references. The page says that ISI gives money to Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh and Sheikh then wired the money to Atta. I have checked some of the references on that page and information in the references is different from what is mentioned in it. I will appreciate any help because I have very less free time these days... Faisal 16:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for mentioning this, actually I hardly come to wikipedia these days due to time constraints. --Falcon007 20:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


Dear Faisal,
I think, the page Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh has now been edited and probably curtailed much.
Apart from it, unfortunately there are many Muslim freedom fighters, war-lords etc. who directly or indirectly have been involoved in acts of terrorism or at least there are so many references and media clippings that say so. Hence it is not easy to deny those evidence. No doubt, many anti-Islam and "orthodox secular" elements often capatilize the situation in order to defame Pakistan by distorting facts and demonize Islam by linking any accident with Jihad.
But rather falsifying the incidence we should focus on causes and consequences of such events. On ther other hand, Muslim masses support every anti-western act (whether it for or against techings of Islam) without realizing its repercussions. Aftermath of 9/11 inccident has further aggravated the situation against followers of Islam. And it is pity that we are far behind in hilighting the other side of the coin by producing concrete counter research and indepth analysis. Thus adequate amount of online references donot exist that could help in propagating your viewpoint. Now-a-days, perception matters more than reality...
Imran 1:25 (UTC), February 20, 2006

Imran, Falcon007, Szhaider and Spasage for your support in changing the article. Please keep a watch in it so that someone does not revert back it. ---- Faisal 20:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Spasage User page

I don’t know how to be nice but please don’t add text in my user page. There are many different ways to contact me. (Details) --Spasage 07:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I just had added a new category in your user page. Do you think it means that I was contacting you? very Strange! I thought I was improving your page. Faisal 09:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh

Did you check Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh? --Spasage 09:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes brother, it is a really great work. I hope that it will stay that way and someone will not revert back the changes. I have added the page in my watch list so that I could revert the change to your version in case those propoganda people come back and try to restore propoganda. ---- Faisal 11:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your kind words, it does much to lift my spirits to know that my work is appreciated :) Your wish does not bother me at all, I took a course in University on Islamic Studies, and (because I loved the professor, who was helpful, polite and loved Islam herself) it was likely my favourite course, to study the history of the Caliphate, the Empires, the Rashidun, all of it interests me a great deal :)

I do not want to sound patronizing, but the two aspects of Islam that most appealed to me, were that -

  • 1) I have a strong belief in the unconditional, in life and in religion. For many Christians, religion is just something they do once a week, or a few times every year, and then they call themselves "Christian" even though they have never learned anything, or changed their lives. It seems to me that while this happens in every religion, Christianity has probably the most people like this, and Islam has relatively few.
  • 2) I have always refused to believe that Jesus is God, I think I remember from Islamic Studies that is called shirk, but it is always my belief since I was a child :) I believe strongly in God, and that he has sent prophests to Earth, some to help us, some to show us the way, some to save us. But they are all human. traditional Christianity doesn't really offer any place for an absolute oneness of God. Unitarianism offered a belief in the oneness of God, while recognising Jesus as a prophet and Messiah...but not a deity - unfortunately Unitarianism joined with Universalism throughout North America and much of Europe, and while I believe in Unitarianism, I do not believe in Universalism :)

What bothers me most on Wikipedia is how many editors want to judge people they write about, they will write about Charles Whitman and want to judge him as a psychopath. They want to write about Mohamed Atta al-Sayed and they want to say he is a monster. They want to say that the Kent State shootings are only the fault of the government, nobody else. This bothers me, because as writers we need to understand that our first job is to understand people, and then to record what they did. As humans, it is not our place to judge whether somebody was evil, good or anything else.

I wish you many future months and years on Wikipedia, it is a great project, but it requires many people like you :) If you would ever like to talk, about Wikipedia, Islam, or anything else - I have MSN Messenger at Joshua_Sherurcij@Hotmail.com :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 16:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Caliph article

Ibrahim, I reverted your edits on the caliph article. Here's why. You removed a note in a discussion of shura in pre-Islamic Arabia. The note said that members of the leading clan got extra consideration when it came time to choose leaders. That's supported by the work that Fred Donner has done, in his book The Early Arab Conquests. You weren't there, you don't know how it was, and a belief that it "shouldn't" be that way can't change the practices of people long dead. You removed the para on the Ibadi for the same reason, that you believe that all Sunnis share the Ibadi belief that lineage doesn't count. Really? Have you interviewed all the Sunni in the world?

WHEN there was a caliphate (as opposed to the later and incomplete Ottoman assumption of the role), when the choice of a caliph was a pressing issue, the Sunni DID agree that there was a noble clan, a leading clan, from which leaders should be chosen. That clan was the Quraysh. Only the Ibadis disagree with that. The Shi'a just took the lineage principle even further and said that it should not only be the Quraysh, it should be the descendents of Muhammad.

You may be one of the Muslims who believe that the caliphate should be revived. If so, your beliefs belong, as one POV (point of view), in the section on current attitudes towards the caliphate. They should not be allowed to thwart a look at what people of the past did or believed. Zora 18:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Lets talk on the Caliph talk page. --- Faisal 09:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comment

Hi Ibrahim, your comment on Talk:Dhimmi: " ... we will present the context and event (according to different/many-many Muslim scholars, not according to some Jews [sic] writer who hate Islam) ..." [3] was inappropriate. The source is either reliable (in the sense of being a published author in that field, or a person qualified to discuss the issues) or is not. Whether they're Jewish, Muslim, black, white, male, or female is completely irrelevant. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I was NOT referring to all the Jews but a specific author that I believe is really biased towards Islam (and hate Islam). I do not want to mention his name hence I called him a Jew author. He is quoted often in that article. I am really sorry if I hurt your feeling. I meant to say that one should also quote many Muslim scholars when interpreting Quran. See they never quote a good (highly regarded) Muslim scholar when talk about Quran. At least let me say that it is not a right attitude.
I am going to change my wording there. --- Faisal 21:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Faisal,

What I meant was that the sources you'd added to the article aren't up to wikipedia standards. We want to go with reliable scholarly and whenever possible secular sources, not Islamic websites. That Dhimmi were exempt from zakat is well-known, and is covered by the current cites. I went in to the Taxation section, where it was already mentioned, and made this more explicit. I hope this addresses your objection in this regard.Timothy Usher 21:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, the Qur'an itself speaks of jizya as oppression ([Qur'an 9:29]). This passage would make little sense if one substituted, "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they are exempted from zakat and miltary service in exchange for a nominal fee, and feel themselves equal."Timothy Usher 21:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Re marriage, I don't think anyone is thinking that Dhimmi are worse off than non-Dhimmi non-Muslims. Anyhow, what difference does it make? The point is that Muslim women are reserved for Muslim men, while non-Muslim women are up for grabs. What spin should be placed on this? Is there an equitable explanation you can offer?Timothy Usher 21:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Why there is any oppression. Do you know that Abu Bakar fight with a group that refuses to pay the Zikat. So the rule is equal to all. I find no oppression there (anyone who refuse tax will deal with a fight Muslim/non-Muslim) Is that not same in USA.

"If I do not pay my tax they USA Govt. fight with me. is that oppression?"

It is if you're say, Egyptian, and the United States were to attack Egypt until all Egyptians pay a tax to the United States.

Re: Abu Bakr and the so-called Ridda wars, the "apostates" were intimidated into paying taxes to Madina to begin with. You really think they wanted to give their money away? When Muhammad died, they saw a chance to regain their freedom and gave it a shot. They lost. Is that oppression? You bet.Timothy Usher 21:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

" The family goes with the name of male not from female. Hence if a female marry with a non-muslim male then its children will be non-muslim. so the rule is okay."

Well, to you, it might be okay, but only under the premise that children ought be Muslim, which to non-Muslims isn't obvious. You are proposing that inequality in the treatment of religion is justified because...it promotes an unequal propagation of religion. Still not seeing the fairness. Nor do I accept that this is the only reason. It is that it would be considered a dishonor for "our" women to be taken by "them", while dishonor (so it's perceived) in the other direction is perfectly alright.

Can you find the verse that says "Allah does not forbid you regarding those who have not killed you, because of your deen. That you be good with them and be just with them. For Allah love that just"

Well, I agree with this verse, and if that's what Islam was like generally, might have converted some time ago. And I agree with you that it contradicts 9:29, which, if I'm not mistaken, came later.Timothy Usher 22:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I never said it contadicts with other one. Okay bye ..... --- Faisal 22:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, Egypt is actually one of the largest foreign-aid recipients of the United States. My tax dollars go to Egypt, essentially to keep commerce flowing through the Suez, which Egypt seized in 1956 (and collects revenue from it as well). I'll read the link you forwarded and get back to you.Timothy Usher 22:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

3rr

I'm not following Dhimmi anymore, and I don't think I would be seen as a neutral admin. If you think 3rr has been violated, your should prepare a report and post it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Best wishes, Tom Harrison Talk 19:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ibrahimfaisal, it is of course up to you to report other editors for passing 3rr, but if I were you, I wouldn't have reported Pecher. It is not enjoyable at all to see other editors of being blocked? It is sad to see you rejoicing in seeing him blocked? Aminz
I am not rejoicing at all. But yes I want the article Dhimmi changed and it might help to give him warning so that he can limit his number of edits. Its not personal. I know he would be back soon anyway. --- Faisal 16:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
If you ask me, Percher deserves to be blocked.--Dr.Worm 18:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A source

Hi Ibrahimfaisal,

Please have a look at:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=289&letter=I&search=dhimmi#806

I am copy/pasting it here. I think you may be able to find good additions to the article dhimmi from here. This is quoted from Jewish Encyclopedia; is more unbiased than many other sources but is not supposed to be perfect. I need to look into other encyclopedia's as well. This other link may also be useful (I have already added a bit from this to the article http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1654&letter=A#4894 )

The different tendencies in the codifications are shown in divergences in the decrees attributed to the prophet. While one reads, "Whoever does violence to a dhimmi who has paid his jizyah and evidenced his submission—his enemy I am" ("Usd al-Ghaba," iii. 133), people with fanatical views haveput into the mouth of the prophet such words as these: "Whoever shows a friendly face to a dhimmi is like one who deals me a blow in the side" (Ibn Ḥajar al-Haitami, "Fatawi Ḥadithiyyah," p. 118, Cairo, 1307). Or: "The angel Gabriel met the prophet on one occasion, whereupon the latter wished to take his hand. Gabriel, however, drew back, saying: 'Thou hast but just now touched the hand of a Jew.' The prophet was required to make his ablutions before he was allowed to take the angel's hand" (Dhahabi, "Mizan al-I'tidal," ii. 232, 275). These and similar sayings, however, were repudiated by the Mohammedan ḥadithcritics themselves as false and spurious. They betray the fanatical spirit of the circle in which they originated. Official Islam has even tried to turn away from Jews and Christians the point of whatever malicious maxims have been handed down from ancient times. An old saying in regard to infidels reads: "If ye meet them in the way, speak not to them and crowd them to the wall." When Suhail, who relates this saying of the prophet, was asked whether Jews and Christians were intended, he answered that this command referred to the heathen ("mushrikin"; "Musnad Aḥmad," ii. 262).

Under the dominion of the Ommiads the followers of other religious faiths were little disturbed, since it was not in keeping with the worldly policy of those rulers to favor the tendencies of fanatical zealots. Omar II. (717-720) was the only one of this worldly-wise dynasty who trenched upon the equal privileges of unbelievers; and he was under the pietistic influence. Intolerance of infidels and a limitation of their freedom were first made a part of the law during the rule of the Abbassids (see Abbassid Califs), who, to bring about the ruin of their predecessors, had supported theocratic views and granted great influence to the representatives of intolerant creeds (comp. "Z. D. M. G." xxxviii. 679; "R. E. J." xxx. 6). Under them also the law was introduced compelling Jews to be distinguished by their clothing ("ghiyar"; Abu Yusuf, "Kitab alKharaj," pp. 72-73, Bulak, 1302). At a later period such distinguishing marks became frequent in the Mohammedan kingdoms, especially in North Africa, where the badge was known as "shaklah" (Fagnan, "Chroniques des Almohades et des Hafçidcs Attribué à Zerkechi," p., 19, Constantine, 1895).

Thanks,

Aminz

Dhimmi

When it comes to Dhimmis clearly what the Quran says is important and relevant. It may not call all Jews and Christians apes and pigs, but the terms are used by Muslims for Jews and Christians and they are clearly derived from the Quran. What is wrong with pointing that out? I do not think it is against Muhammed's teachings to insult pagans, Jews and Christians although if you have evidence I would be happy to see it. Certainly the Quran is full of insults. The article needs to reflect Muslim behaviour and Islamic teaching - and be careful not to confuse the two. If you delete any false things I will be happy. But is that what you are doing? Lao Wai 14:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
You are 100% correct when you say that wilipedia nothing more than the representation of a view of the strongest group of users and that contentious articles are usually very badly written and they are very hard (if not impossible) to improve. Bigots control the discussion in most cases. Yhe only perminent solution is to create an Islam Wiki that has higher google rankings than wikipedia.--Dr.Worm 06:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Friendly reminder

Thank you for the reminder, faisal. But in that article , i was the one who was protecting the contents of the article ,unlike the others who were trying to blanking it.Therefore i am not sure whether i broke the revert rule myself.Anyway,now I have asked one administrator to look into that article.

Regards.Bharatveer 12:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse, yes. We can discuss in the talk page regarding the changes.Bharatveer 13:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

helpme removal

I'm sorry. I noticed you had the tag and was going to offer help, but the odd placement of it in the middle of a discussion confused me. I figured that maybe another editor had forgot to remove it. But now that I'm here, what can I do for you? — ßottesiηi (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Read what I have asked above please. Where should I post information about, above mentioned dispute? --- Faisal 22:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I would appreciate it if you could copy and paste the relevant question or summarize it below as I am having a hard time determining what you need help with. — ßottesiηi (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 :(- Where I should post the request to the group of administartors in case of dispute between two parties? The dispute is regarding a source/reference. I refer to a source and other person revert my change saying it is not reliable. I need some support from administrators against that User. So they can banned/stopped that User from revert my change stating wrong reason. --- Faisal 22:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I can help you now. I'm certainly not going to take sides on the issue, but am going to point you to the mediation cabal (a less formal dispute resolution system), or if you would like a mentor to back you up (that is if he/she agrees with you) go to the association of member's advocates. — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I am confused that where I should go. Both will resolve dispute? right? but the later will be more helpful? Can I go to both places (at the same time)? --- Faisal 23:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I would not recommend going to both places at the same time. From your question it seems like you are seeking more of a members' advocate, but my advice is to go to the mediation cabal (I am a member of both, so ask if you need help with any of the processes). If my status says I'm out, I really am either offline or maybe doing something where I don't have time for really dealing with Wikipedia, so keep that in mind, but I am online often, and you can always add the helpme tag again. — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. --- Faisal 23:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I should also note that there is probably going to be a delay in someone taking your case wherever you go (anywhere from a couple of minutes to several days) — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I'll drop Pecher a note on civility and give him a warning. — ßottesiηi (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No please do not this time. May be next time. Thank you --- Faisal 18:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, too late. But it was not a disciplinary action at all, just a warning. — ßottesiηi (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay --- Faisal 19:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Haram

It was because I occasionally go on "Haram patrol", making sure that none of the links to Haram should actually be to Haraam or Haram, Norway... AnonMoos

My talk page

It seems that you are continuing a conversation with another user on my talk page that may be more appropriately located on that user's page or your own. — ßottesiηi (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay :) . sorry. --- Faisal 20:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
May be there is another dispute about reliable resources, which I need to post someday somewhere. I will not reply him any more on your talk page. --- Faisal 20:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

More on personal attacks

They are in response to these comments of Pecher.
Faisal, you may want to start an Islamopedia, where you will be able to push your ahistorical POV that the article "Dhimmi" must not extend beyond Rashidun entirely unopposed. This is, however, Wikipedia, a secular encyclopedia, where the policy on reliable sources applies, even if these sources say something you dislike. Pecher Talk 07:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC) --- Faisal 19:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
That was an umpteenth reminder to you, Faisal, by me and other editors to abide by Wikipedia policies. Pecher Talk 20:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I feel you saying me that: I may want to start an Islamopedia,... to push my POV, as an attack. However, let now forget all and start fresh.
Please let me keep the orginal heading of the section. Do not change the heading of the section from "Critisum" to "Humiliating nature of Jizya". It will make the topic very much non-neutral and one sided. I am talking about this. --- Faisal 20:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I will mind much less if you report me than giving reminder without any reason. So report me next time and stop giving the reminders. Because the things you say are not reliable resources are reliable resources according to me, when quoted correctly. Hence if you keep saying me read WP:RS which I have already read. Then your reminder is not useful. --- Faisal 20:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I've already seen that my reminder is not useful because you keep ignoring it. There is a difference between reliable sources according to you and according to WP:RS. Pecher Talk 20:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Same I think too about you. That there is difference between reliable sources according to you and according to WP:RS. Hence to make a decision we need someone neutral who can decide. --- Faisal 20:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


I believe following is quoted rightly from islamonline.com. That is
. Sir Thomas Arnold, an orientalist of the early 20th century, in his "Call to Islam" has argued: -

This tax (jizya) was not imposed on the Christians, as some would have us think, as a penalty for their refusal to accept the Muslim faith. Rather, it was paid by them in common with the other dhimmis or non-Muslim subjects of the state whose religion precluded them from serving in the army, in return for the protection secured for them by the arms of the Muslims. When the people of Hirah contributed the sum agreed upon, they expressly mentioned that they paid this jizyah on condition that ‘the Muslims and their leader protect us from those who would oppress us, whether they be Muslims or others.[4]

and islamonline.com is acceptable according to WP:RS because it moto is following.
Global presentation: Addressing humanity; avoiding ties with or speaking for any country, party, group, council, or organization. Comprehensive content: Presenting a whole and complementary image of Islam in the information and service pages. Balanced approach: Adopting the middle ground of Islam, avoiding extremism or negligence, rejecting deviant or strange opinions. Objective treatment: Striving for scientific accuracy, adopting neutrality and avoiding pre-judgments. Moral approach: Avoiding slander or praise of individuals, groups or states, avoiding propagandist and sensational methods, or provocation and incitement. Pleasant presentation: Ensuring that all contents are displayed professionally and enjoyably.

Now tell me that why you think above is violation of WP:RS? --- Faisal 20:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Pecher I have to leave now for a trip (long drive). I will try to get on the internet to see your reply if possible. If we are not sucessful in finding what WP:RS says then we should go to some group of administrators. Okay bye. --- Faisal 20:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Pecher I am back from my trip but you have not reply to above. Now what should I do. Put the above quote in the Jizya article or wait for your reply. --- Faisal 16:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Help needed :-)

Hi, How are things? I noted that you have had some problem with hotshots thiking that they now better then others and maybe you noticed that there is a form of vandalism with users just deleting every article they can, aspecially thouse they of some reson dont like... they even have a own group Deletionists here on Wiki. Now they start again to try to delete some of the articles I wrote, original article was on Wiki for 5 years before they got hands on them.. could you visit Global Reserve Bank and se if you whant/can support me? Your Swedish friend. --Swedenborg 17:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Your message

It's strange that you expected me to reply to your comment addressed to me that you made on your talk page. We've already gone through this before, and I'm not going to waste my tim erepaeating it over and over again that there is no clause in WP:RS confirming that anonymous writings on a private website quoting someone who lived in the 18th-century is reliable source. Please don't bother me with this any more. Pecher Talk 17:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Assalumu alaikum Faisal.

Thanks for your comments on my Muhammad edit. By the way, I've thought about leaving WP too, but I decided that I won't let the vandals and anti-Muslims here win. Also, don't forget that many non-Muslims help to protect the Islam pages too. Hope you decide to stay. W'salam. MP (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Waaliakum Assalam.
I have decided to stay. I wish if there is better cooperation amoung Muslim wikipedian so that Islamic article could be protected better and improve. Have you seen The The Muslim Guild Wassalam --- Faisal 20:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


Personal attacks

Faisal, you've restored a rightfully-removed personal attack against another editor[5]. Personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia. It's that simple. Don't restore them. Thanks.Timothy Usher 20:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition, please remove the attack from the page. --Tony Sidaway 20:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I am instead thinking to put this Karl Meier Saying on my page. --- Faisal 20:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Please remove "I think that some specific people group is using wikipedia for their propoganda." from your userpage. This is a personal attack against a group of editors. Pecher Talk 20:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Report it. How can be it "personal" attack when I have not given any names. If I had specify names then it might be a personal attack. --- Faisal 21:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the edit as I requested. --Tony Sidaway 21:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Will Gladly Help

I will gladly help you on any articles, especially regarding Islam or Pakistan. --Ali 01:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

hey hey

Assalaamo Aleikum, السلام عليكم In relation to your question on Strivers talk page.. My answer (if you asked me, which you didn't - so feel free to ignore me if you want) would be "The Muslim guild has an ability to deal with things which affect muslims, such as the religion of Islam - which is shared by Muslims, but also things which affect Muslims which have little bearing on the religions - such as the role of Women in Muslim societies, or Hujum, or Paranji, etc, etc." --Irishpunktom\talk 14:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wassalam, why all the same thing the other project cannot do? If you change the moto of other project? --- Faisal 18:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:SPAM

Faisal, your reposting of "Articles Requiring Review and Participation"[6] is considered spam. Please remove it. Thanks.Timothy Usher 19:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not think so. If that is spam then why it is not spam on multiple notice boards in wikipedia. For example see this one. Also there is dozen such examples. --- Faisal 19:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Raphael1

It seems like I will leave Wikipedia soon. It has been my pleasure to work with you. See: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Raphael1 Raphael1 19:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Bogus Lapidus reference

Please stop re-introducing the Lapidus p. 599 reference in Dhimmi. Multiple editors now have shown that the particular page reference has no mention of the Ottoman empire. You can verify this yourself on Amazon using the method I outlined in Talk:Dhimmi#Unreliable_Source. - Merzbow 22:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

Striver is the worst POV pusher I know of on wikipedia. The facts bear this out. You are entitled to your opinion on the matter and it would appear that you have no idea what you are talking about.--MONGO 00:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

help

Well, a comment on my arbitration case would be very welcome. Raphael1 11:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad

I really beg you to tolerate the current formulation. Thank you! Editorius 13:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I start to Hate Wikipedia to deletionists specially..

Hi,

Thanks for your support in this voting... somehow it was deleted and I dont understand how it could be with so many Keep votes and so pore arguments for delete?? Do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Global_Reserve_Bank --Swedenborg 19:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


Grammar issue

Hi! I admire the way you decline any offer of becoming an administrator, and yet still edit articles, for the purposes of fulfiling your own belief on what is right. I can also tell that many view your user page, by your lengthy discussion page. However, I was sightly puzzled when I read the initial section of your user page.


The following statement "I hate telling lies because Islam teaches me that" at first glance led me to believe that you hated telling lies because Islam advocated lying! Of course, it took me a only split second to realised that you were actually promoting truth.


Might I suggest that you change the above quoted statement to something like "I hate telling lies, because lying is forbidden by Islam" or something as such. It is your User page, so I am only providing a suggestion.


Preceding the sentence on lying, the statement "I do not want to change myself or my user page, so that other users start liking me or I could be an administrator one day" sounded like you WANTED to be an administrator, as a result, you did not want to change your user page. Nothing is wrong with wanting to be an administrator, but a few lines down, you stated that you did not wish to be an administrator.


Might I suggest that you change the above quoted statement to something like "I do not want to change myself or my user page, even if my non-conforming actions do not gain me an administrators position." Again, this is your User page, so I am only stating an example. Please rephrase it in your own words.


I hope this helps you, and I took the time to write this message because I admire the way you live by Islam. Please don't take this as me trying to play a smart alec or mock your language In fact, in terms of language, i cannot come close to crediting myself with learning four languages. If I ever did, I would anticipate that it would be hard to utilize each with precision. ( I would mix up the grammar between all languages if I you ).


  • (I can ONLY speak English and Chinese, the latter contains almost no grammatical rules other than a standard syntax.)

Please feel free to leave a message on my user page. Ottokarf 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild#Islamonline_IS_a_Reliable_Source

--Aminz 09:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

mailbox full

Hi Faisal, I've just emptied my mailbox again, so I'm ready to receive mail again. Raphael1 14:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Userpages

Faisal,

As you're online, I'd lke to call your attention to Wikipedia's userpage guidelines.Timothy Usher 11:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not able to find the specific thing that is wrong with my user page. Can you be more specific? --- Faisal 11:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Using your userpage to attack other editors is unacceptable, for starters. Pecher Talk 11:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Pecher I never mention your name in it. Why you think it is an attack against you (or anyone) ?--- Faisal 11:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps Pecher didn't find his username in your userpage, but he did find himself in one of your descriptions. ;). His Excellency... 17:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It is not required to call people by username; attacking other editors on the grounds that you think they use "using wikipedia for their propoganda" is still unacceptable. Pecher Talk 11:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It is my opoinon about wikipedia. I know you will not wait for a second before proceeding to ban me whenever you could. As you have already said me useless for wikipedia in your previous posts. This might be a good chance for you to report me on that. So tell me that what is stopping you? --- Faisal 11:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with your userpage. BhaiSaab talk 19:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with BhaiSaab but it doesn't hurt to render one's user page more neutral friendly. Also your section entitled, "I do NOT like wikipedia" seems a little false for if it were indeed true you'd probably not spend your time editing on it. You might do better to change the wording on that to specifically say what it is (in summary form) that you do not like about Wikipedia. Netscott 20:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Article for deletion

Hi, Ibrahimfaisal. Would you mind offering your input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allahdad Bohyo? Thanks! -Medtopic 05:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no interest and knowledge about this article. I am sorry. --- Faisal 10:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Edward Said

Ibrahimfaisal, please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_Islam#My_.22new_section_proposal.22_-_Criticism_of_.22critics_of_Islam.22

I think we can use Edward Said quotes in Dhimmi article as well. Can you help me there? --Aminz 07:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot visit or contribute in Criticsm of Islam. However, I will try to support you on Dhimmi article. Thank you for good work on Dhimmi article. --- Faisal 09:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad

Hello Faisal, I have to admit while I do see this category being somewhat demonizing of Muhammad there is a part of me that does see some merit to it. I'm just doubtful that there's enough merit to it to justify its existence. Netscott 09:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have similar thoughts. Muhammad (PBUH) has killed or order to kill very few people. This category should exist if they do not misuse it and each person added is must be reviewed properly. However, I have real doubts that it is possible, because I know those people history (and hate towards Muhammad (PBUH)). --- Faisal 09:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Faisal forgive my saying so as I don't want to ruffle your religious sensitivities but I think you'd be taken more seriously if you didn't add pbuh nor SAW honorifics when discussing prophets in Islam. When editing on Wikipedia I would recommend that you just say to yourself (in your mind or out loud) such honorifics as you type names that correspond to them to remain respectful but leave them from the actual text. Let's discuss this category more where the discussion has begun. You should add your thoughts there. Netscott 09:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone never explained me about PUBH issue in such a nice way. Hence I will think to adopt it. --- Faisal 09:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Qadiani targeting Muslim articles for deletion

Can you check this Qadiani AeomMai who is targetting Muslim pages for deletion. I am very busy on a project. Siddiqui 19:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me Siddique Sahab. It is good to recieve a message from you. I hope to see your around soon. --- Faisal 19:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. I would like to draw your kind attention to your this message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonymous_editor&diff=57687368&oldid=57020078. I am curious to know who are they? Would you please clarify. In the absence of any clarification from you, your words ("they are becoming stronger") may tantamount to blaming a section of wikipedians without specifying any reason, and that is not a something good and violates the principles of wikipedia. --Bhadani 14:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not like to name people, as it will be a personal attack. Anonymous_editor was reverting some changes done by few people in different articles espacially Muhammad article. Hence I hope he can guess. I will specify their names when I will want to file a report against them. --- Faisal 12:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


No problem

People need to get the whole "correlation is not causation" thing down. :) - FrancisTyers · 14:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: threats

If you feel my comment was a personal attack, feel free to report me on WP:AN/I or start an arbitration case. Pecher Talk 10:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack, but an observation regarding your approach to editing, which you never attempted to deny. Again, feel free to report if you wish, but don't fill my talk page with threats. Pecher Talk 13:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
My talk page is not your playground. First, stop threatening me, and secondly, stop restoring your threats that I have removed from my talk page. Pecher Talk 17:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Zarqawi

Are you seriously asking me if it is unacceptable to say that Zarqawi was a piece of s***? The same Zarqawi who sawed off the head of a captive civilian while shouting, "God is great" over his screams? Tom Harrison Talk 21:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to have used indelicate language. The best I can do is hope that Zarqawi repented before his well-deserved death. Tom Harrison Talk 21:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad

On the talk page you linked an edit of Pecher's a added "You can guess his religion". Please refrain from that... it doesn't matter what his religion is and using that borders on a personal attack. Just... try to refrain from those type of quips. They don't help anyone and turn page editing into religious confrontation rather than an academic endeavor. Thanks. gren グレン 02:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

My goal was not to single you out on this issue. The thing is you don't need to know why he added it. You need to know why his adding it is biased and then tell him. The reason I jump on things like that is because too many editors on Wikipedia use other editors religion as excuses to discount their opinions. I don't know if that was what you were trying to do but I have found that if you jump on the issue right away and warn users to watch out it tends to minimize arguments not related to the argument. My main point is that it doesn't matter why material is biased... or if the editor has ulterior motives... it just matters that you establish that what they have added is not neutral.
I saw on your user page that you speak Urdu... what does "Balle Balle" mean... since I've seen it pop up in films and elsewhere and I am curious. Thanks. gren グレン 06:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Administrator dab

I make a habit of apologizing immediately and without reservation whenever I recognize I have been wrong. But in the present case I honestly see no reason to apologize to you for anything. I can only interpret your hostility as due to your having misunderstood something I said. I have no desire to see you banned as you seem to believe, you are welcome to stick around Wikipedia as much as you like in my book, I was just trying to impress on you a notion of wikiquette and detached on-topic debate, both of which being in your own interest. dab (ᛏ) 10:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I never mind if anyone abuse me at all and you have not even abuse me. Hence this is a side issue. I also understand that on Timothy page you are taking my side. I am only stressing that issue because it is against policy of wikipedia and I can stress on it more easily. The reason I am now totally against you is that you have unprotecting the Muhammad page when Zora and anyanmous_User where not there. And I was begging not to unprotect it. You are taking their side on their talk pages and then after unprotection you yourself start editing. I wish if someone more neutral and have no interest in the article had unprotected it. --- Faisal 11:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Faisal, Muhammad became protected to defuse an edit war. This is a normal response for any particular page undergoing similiar warring. dab correctly saw that the environment that had existed at the time the edit war occurred had passed and he unprotected the article accordingly. dab just happened to be the most aware admin concerning that article at the time he unprotected it but you can be sure that most any particular admin in his same position would have unprotected it. That's just a normal part of Wikipedia's functioning. Netscott 07:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
See this. I still believe that "Wrongly" in Muhammad article placed rightly. So he was taking their side in the talk page of FayssalF. He had made numerous edits just after unprotection the page too. A editor who is making edits or taking side should not unprotect the page (as he is a non-neutral party). It just like anynomous_user unprotect the page (who is also not neutral towards the article). Furthermore, I have post a message at Requests_for_page_protection saying do not unprotect the page. Hence it was a tie. One Person (Pecher) was saying unprotect and I am saying keep protect. Should not someone wait to see more people votes there??? However, he still unprotected the page anyway. --- Faisal 07:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Faisal, if edit warring had re-commenced I would agree with your statement but it did not. You know that I tend to be pretty neutral in my editing here on Wikipedia and I agreed as well as Szvest (and others) that the "wrongfully" bit was very out of place as such statements are not neutral but advance a POV. Article protection isn't about pov protection but rather done to defuse disruptive editing. When dab unprotected the article he didn't do so to advance a POV but did so because he rightfully surmised there was no longer a need for protection based upon the possibility of disruption. Netscott 07:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
How the dispute (edit-war) can re-occure again? When they shut me up by threats and so is Anonymous_user, Zora goes to vocation. Other Muslims editors use to support the changes made by us mostly. Hence if we three start making changes after unprotection do not you think there would be another edit war? Also "Wrongly" could be even citied. Ibrahim made the Kaba according to Muslim sources and he was against idols. One can use hundreds of Muslim books to have reasons for Wrongly. --- Faisal 07:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You are making a fool of yourself, Faisal. Here I am, defending you again, on WP:AN/I, and you have nothing better to do than rant against me? Why do I even bother. Really. If people jump on you, you have only yourself to blame. dab (ᛏ) 20:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just like last time I acknowledge again that you are defending me. Thank you for that. However, my comments are regarding your this statement. You said: Faisal has still the potential of a problem user, and a polite warning may be in order. Just like last time when you are defending me you have good things to say about me, you continue with your habit. Useless-wikipedian, potention problem user, what next?. --- Faisal 20:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
My responce to your post was only that I do not accept any warning for the thing I have not done.. I once again appreciate your defending me otherwise and thus have said nothing against you (accept above mentioned). --- Faisal 20:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
fine. Look, in my judgement, you have aspects of a problem user; in my judgement, you acted too erratic and hot-headed on certain talkpages, with a tendency to escalate debates instead of calmly looking for solutions. I will gladly revise my judgement in the future: I have no doubt you are a good faith editor with good knowledge on Islam, and I do hope that you grow into editing Wikipedia with greater success and fewer clashes. However, my judgement as such is not a personal attack on you, it is simply my opinion based on what I've seen of you, here on Wikipedia. You are free to ignore me and my opinion as irrelevant, but if you shout at me for it, you will only reinforce my impression; you might also consider taking my or other people's advice on how to edit fruitfully: I've spent two years on Wikipedia and I've seen many conflicts, and often, a lot of time is lost in hectic and confused battles when taking a step back and sticking to the guidelines would yield a simple solution. But if you are not prepared to accept criticism, I recommend that you simply ignore it. Peace, dab (ᛏ) 13:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not need to shout on anyone and really wish to respect all. I cannot tell that how you have inferred from my posts that I was shouting. However, I admit that I am not good politically. Hence if I feel something is wrong then I say it straightforwardly. This happened in my real life too. However, I never try to abuse or get rude with anyone. At least these are my intensions always. For example, when 9/11 happened I was in USA, working in Silicon Valley, I spoke in my office against USA plans of attacking Afghanistan. That act of mine created few enemies in my office. I am trying to change myself so that I can say sensitive thing with tweaking but process of change is slow. --- Faisal 13:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

User space Muhammad

Hello Faisal, Just a courtesy notice to you: I fixed the link from your user page to your user space copy of Muhammad. I also commented out the categories (Article categories can't "exist" on userpage copies... as well as two Templates that categorized your copy). Cheers. Netscott 15:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit. But your second part of message is not very clear to me? Have I done something wrong here (against rules of wikipedia)? --- Faisal
Oh I got it. Thanks :) --- Faisal 15:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't have an answer on the reliability of those sources. What I can say though is the more secular the source the more reliable it's going to be viewed. User:Pecher may be commenting in that light, but relative to his pattern of editing on Wikipedia as regards to Islam I can not be sure. Netscott 16:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

missunderstanding

Please clarify what I think is a big missunderstanding. Raphael1 16:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that was not a misunderstanding. They do understand it but still reported it. Thank you Brother Raphael. --- Faisal 18:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Prosecutions by Prophet Muhammad

Assalam-o-Alaikum, I was thinking that if an article can be created which would discuss all the reasons why Prophet Muhammad prosecuted these people. What I have understood so far, I wrote on Banu Nadir/mpov under Muslims explanation for prosectuion. It is very important because the battles and People killed by Prophet Muhammad is a very important part of Islamic history. And then a link to this article can be given on every page which would discuss such killings. This proposal can also be posted on Muslim Guild project. The work has to be top class because the way he is being portrayed, that doesn't make a good sketch of prophet Muhammad's personality in one's mind. SaadSaleem 07:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea Saad. Can you change the article in my user space? It link is given on here In this way we can both correct it easily before moving the material on the main article. --- Faisal 19:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I am glad that you are interested in the project. I myself is doing PhD [7] and am quite busy these days and trying to get my attention off from wikipedia. I just got involved after reading Banu Nadir, but then we are trying to mediate, but nothing seems to work as the other side is very tought. Our version of article can be read at Banu Nadir/mpov. Anyways, I am quite inspired by the writings of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, who himself has been student of two great Islamic scholars of twentieth century, Amin Ahsan Islahi[8] who wrote Tadabbur-i-Qur’an, an accredited Tafsir and Abu ala Maududi, who wrote another Tafsir, Tafhim al-Qur'an. Articles written by Javed Ahmad Ghamidi and Amin Ahsan Islahi explain very clearly the reasons of prosecutions by early Muslims. Unfortunately, most of their books are in Urdu, but some of their articles have been translated in English, which can be accessed through links given on Javed Ahmad Ghamidi and [9]. I read some parts of Tadabbur-ul-Qur'an myself and wrote a small paragraph, which I included in Banu Nadir (now removed because the article is under dispute). [10] explains different accusations on early Muslim society. Just to give you an idea, the paragraph is as below:
Muslims explanation for prosecution
Muslims hold that Constitution of Medina was first broken by Jews. At first instance, by not helping them against invaders and at the second instance, by helping invaders against Muslims. Muslims believe that the responsibility of spreading the religion was now unto Ishmaelites, rather than Israelites. According to Quran, ...(God) said, "I am appointing you (Abraham) a leader for the people". He replied, "and also my descendants"? God said, "My covenant does not include the transgressors" (2:124), You shall strive for the cause of God as you should strive for His cause. He has chosen you and has placed no hardship on you in practicing your religion - the religion of your father Abraham (22:78), and We thus made you an impartial community, that you may serve as witnesses among the people, and the Messenger serves as a witness among you (2:143). The prosection that followed was of special nature. Similar prosections can be found in Bible, when Moses asked his followers to kill all those who worshiped Golden Calf, kill your brother, friend, and neighbor (Exodus Chapter 32 verse 27) or with the principle by which Solomon expanded his empire. Destruction of nations, when they challenge the God (by disobeying the Messenger), either with natural disaster or with prosecution by believers can also be found in many examples from Quran and Bible, like Nation of Noah, Nation of Lot, and finally Jewish miseries after denial of Jesus. Quran also states, ... that whoever took a life, unless it be for murder or for spreading disorder on earth, it would be as if he killed all mankind; and whoever saved a life, it would be as if he saved all mankind (5:32), and And he who kills a believer intentionally, his reward is Hell; he shall remain therein forever... (4:93). Hence prosection of Jews and others was a special case and is no more considered applicable.[ Amin Ahsan Islahi (1986), Tadabbur-i-Qur’an , 2nd ed., Faran Foundation, Lahore [11]][Order of the Qur’anic Groups (3rd explanatory note) [12]] The share in spoils for Muhammad has never been thought as Muhammad's personal property as after his death, his property was kept with the state and wasn't divided amongst his heirs.[ Sahih Bukhari, 5:59:368]
I don't know if I can be of more help, as I am trying to focus more on my studies these days. But I hope that this work would yield a better result. SaadSaleem 01:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

extremely active indians on wpedia

and not that much pakis, yes you were right about that 9/11 article, but it doesnt just stop there, the article on Quaid, Iqbal etc are also the victims, I have been trying to make changes to the Iqbal article but there are indian admins there, who wont let me do that ... i'm new to wpedia, and it's been 3/4 days of my editing and their reverts going on ... any ideas on this ?

--digitalSurgeon 12:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Because I consider myself a Muslim first then a Pakistani. Hence I have decided to spend my free time in contributing Islam related articles. See my user-page to know my views about wikipedia. It is a place where majority/stronger group's views are presented. Hence, we should continue making our contributions and will not think that one day wikipedia will be a fair place. --- Faisal 12:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Help

Would you please help in writing this article ? Thanks.--Welondekaw11:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I will try if possible. Thanks for leaving a message. --- Faisal 00:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Ibrahim, I'd just like to say that while I am not a religious practitioner in any manner, religion, cult or whatnot, I do have interest in the views of others, and your contributions I feel have been valuable to my pursuit of knowledge. It is, despite my own beliefs, whatever they may be, good to see someone who holds their views so foremost in their minds. Your contributions to the article on the Prophet Muhammed, to be polite, peace be upon him, were extremely interesting to me.

I hope you keep contributing. Alspittle 19:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


Image copyright problem with Image:Muhammad-Letter-To-Heraclius.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Muhammad-Letter-To-Heraclius.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Pecher Talk 21:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Pecher thanks for your message. You are always there for pushing me. Now I will go to the library today and start working on wikipedia once again. Thank you for ending my lull days. --- Faisal 13:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Feedback

Ibrahimfaisal, Do you have any feedback here[13]? we are trying to write a mannual of style for Islam related articles. Thanks --Aminz 04:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks you Aminz for contacting me. I do not know from where to start as discussion there is already very long. I agree with the few things that I have read there. Like calling Muhammad only The prophet when it is clear from contants. etc. I will try to give more time to wikipedia in future. wassalam --- Faisal 19:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

HI Ibrahimfaisal

Please visit [14] page and add your personal email (if you don't mind) at the bottom for better collaboration, networking and comunication. Thanks :) Omerlives

Thank you for you message. I am no more interested in Pakistans related topics but interested in Islam related topics. Hence it will not be useful to add my email address there. --- Faisal 00:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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 02:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Kafir"?

Faisal, Kafir is not the most polite term to be using. Using it is borderline uncivil, no? (→Netscott) 19:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Question: Why do Muslims abuse non-Muslims by calling them Kafirs?

Answer:

Kafir means one who rejects. ‘Kafir’ is derived from the word ‘kufr’, which means to conceal or to reject. In Islamic terminology, ‘Kafir’ means one who conceals or rejects the truth of Islam and a person who rejects Islam is in English called a ‘non-Muslim’. If a ‘non-Muslim’ considers being called a ‘non-Muslim’ or ‘Kafir’, which are one and the same, an abuse, it is due to his misunderstanding about Islam. He or she needs to reach out to proper sources of understanding Islam and Islamic terminology, and not only will he not feel abused but appreciate Islam in the proper perspective. (from "Answer to Non-Muslims: Common question about Islam" by Dr. Zakir Abdul Karim Naik) --- Faisal 19:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

For really me it non-Muslim and Kafir is one and same thing. I do not wish to hurt anyone. --- Faisal 19:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

From this Islamonline.net link:

Sheikh Muhammad Al-Mukhtar Al-Shinqiti:

Kafir in Arabic has two meanings: 1) a non-Muslim, a person who denies Allah or Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him); 2) ungrateful, a person who is not thankful to the favors of Allah. The second meaning can be also used for Muslims who do not show gratitude to Allah. Kafir in this meaning is the opposite of "shakir" (thankful). Christians and Jews are kuffar because they rejected the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), but the Qur'an did not describe them as mushrikeen or polytheists. However, kafir is now a derogatory term, and that is why I would encourage Muslims to use the term "non-Muslims when referring to people of different faiths. This is based on the verse: (…Speak nicely to the people.) (Al-Baqarah 2: 83)

Does that make sense now? (→Netscott) 19:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Faisal. :-) (→Netscott) 19:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
No one has right to discard Islamic terms with English terms. That is the scholar's own view and one can disagree with his personal view. Kafir is used in Quran and I will love to follow Quran terminology than English. Also it is widely used by Muslims scholars (which I have listen too). I have replaced it for this time (because for your respact) but cannot promise not to use again. I do not know what else will follow. We cannot say "PBHU", or "brother" to other Muslims, we cannot look and dress like Muslims, and so on... --- Faisal 19:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Faisal, no one's telling you what to do (I'm certainly not). You do what you want and address others using the language/terms you want but I only wrote to you to see if you knew how that word can be understood. Use pbuh as you like... I never told you not to. (→Netscott) 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Seeking Help

Please help remove Hindi script from Allama Iqbal by your support in the favour of removal of Hindi. See its talk page. Szhaider 22:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any harm in keeping the Hundi script there. Sorry but I think it is no big deal given that the articles says he is Pakistan "national-poet" and he present "Pakistan-idea". --- Faisal 23:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
FYI it was me who added info about Iqbal being Pakistan's national poet. Thanks anyways! Szhaider 01:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Great work!. I would certainly support you if that information was not allowed to be added. It was important to be there. --- Faisal 06:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks, Ibrahim. Hopefully the articles will eventually become NPOV. Cheers, --Aminz 23:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

A correction

Most Americans know EXACTLY who did 911. It was Muslims. We will never forget. Every time you trot out conspiracy theories that just shows us that Islam does support terrorism. This is why Americans increasingly dislike Islam. I listened to a local imam shouting that it was all the "Jews" fault. He was a raving lunatic and not one Muslim disagreed with him. This is simply appalling. Islam needs to face the fact that it must change. No jihad, no forced conversions, no killing of those who convert to other faiths, full freedom and equality for Christians in Muslim lands, no dhimmitude. Lan astaslem.Cestusdei 21:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Cestusdei, I caution you in the strongest possible terms to refrain from generalizing Islam in one breath as Islamic fundamentalism. Otherwise, I will have no choice but to view your comments as a provocation and will be forced to apply sanctions accordingly. Thanks. El_C 00:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Deleteme.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Deleteme.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:

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. 13:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please delete that image. I do not know how to delete it myself. I created that to replace another image I have uploaded. --- ابراهيم 14:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Re your 3RR warning

Hi, thanks for your message.
I consider my contributions to be covered by the "Reverting_vandalism" exception to 3RR:
My reverts were solely focused on restoration of one (occasionally two) image(s), which had repeatedly been deleted from the article, without reason or explanation by the deleting person. Hence, my actions were merely reverts to acts of vandalism.
In addition, your threat to block me strikes me not only as rather unfriendly but possibly as the expression of a personal bias from your side: You are personally and emotionally involved re the aforementioned picture and now try to push this personal agenda forward. This possibility is corroborated by the fact that you demand the development of a "consensus" before inserting the picture, yet you do not answer to a single point I made on the discussion page, even though I invited you to do so almost three weeks ago. I cannot avoid the impression that you're not interested in a consensus but hoping to let the whole matter just fade away. Your answer is welcome! --The Hungry Hun 22:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
PS: As your warning is directly connected to the dispute itself, I'll mirror your message and my reply to the article's discussion page if you don't mind. --The Hungry Hun 22:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I cannot block you as I am not an admit. But yes I can certainly report you. I will leave on admins to decide if they really think it was a "reverting_vandalism" or not.
You are inserting a picture and many people are reverting back. No one else has violate WP:3RR while reverting your change except you but you have even violate 5RR rule (if that exist). See that Wikipedia is a community. It means that what majority want will stay in the article hence either one has to convince the majority to his side by using talk-page or accept their decision. Looks like in your case majority do not want that picture in the article. You are not able to convince people. Once again I will report you if you continue with reverting contents. --- ابراهيم 23:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

Please do not revert an article without providing an explanation. I'm not sure if you meant to, but you reverted a change I made to the bin Laden article. I'm not sure why. Levi P. 21:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

hiya

You're welcome! - Valarauka(T/C) 02:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Last Prophet"

It is absolutely sufficient to write that Muhammad is the Prophet of Islam. For example, Muhammad Hamidullah, an eminent Muslim scholar, calls him so: "Muhammad the Prophet of Islam" (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/prophet/profbio.html) Editorius 16:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of the text books and other books I have studied says he is the "last" prophet of Islam. I think it is better and more informative to mention "last". --- ابراهيم 18:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Every Muslim knows that "the Prophet of Islam" refers to nobody else but Muhammad. — Editorius 20:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to state the obvious but the guy before you there appears to a muslim and knows the opposite.
Personally I just feel that alot of muslims need to realise that Muhammed is just a man. He is a prophet of the religion of Islam however, he's just a man like every one of us and is hence fallable. Did he ever claim to be God? There are enough muslims who seem to act as though he is.

JHJPDJKDKHI! 05:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad article

Dear Ibrahim, I was once one of the main people working on the Muhammad article, and I wrote much of what is still there. But I had to stay away after I got so involved and upset that I got a 3RR violation. I dropped out of Wikipedia for several months after that, because I did not like the feeling of being angry all the time.

People are using the article as a debate forum. Some Muslims want it to be censored until it is completely acceptable to Muslims (and to specific currents of thought in Islam) and some anti-Muslim bigots want to use it to attack Muhammad, Islam, and Muslims. I'm tired of both camps. WP procedures have to change so that contentious articles don't just churn endlessly, lurching from one extreme to the other. I'm thinking that it might work to raise the bar for participating in articles with a long long edit history ... the more edits the article has received, the more edits you need to edit it. When it's down to oldbies, then it is likely to stabilize. Then we set that article in stone as "no more edits" and then open another article, on the same subject, as the working copy. It would start from zero, anyone could edit, and then it would ratchet up the same way. At a certain point, the two articles are compared (by an editorial board?) and the best one is picked as the stable copy. Then the working copy starts from zero again, as a blankety-blank debate forum.

Without SOME way to keep a good, stable version, working on the article is just like defending a sandcastle against an incoming tide of human stupidity and hatred. Zora 06:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Muhamad

Go Raibh Maith Agat! - And right back at you! --Irishpunktom\talk 10:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


Over three reverts

Youre over three reverts on Muhammad. Maybe you shouldd revert yourself or you might be reported.Opiner 23:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved a picture, do not revert it. Anyway you can report whenever you like. --- ابراهيم 23:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry but I did report you. Its no fun but its not fair to keep reverting when other people are trying to follow the rules. You had at least SIX in exactly twenty four hours which is a lot, wouldn't you say? It makes editing wikipedia very frustrating for everyone else when whatever you do Ibrahim will just revert you without even discussing it. And especially PLEASE stop taking down the pictures all the time. Thats more than old by now.Opiner 00:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem friend Opiner it is my pleasure. I wish if you could have readWP:3RR before making "claim" that I have violate any rule. --- ابراهيم 00:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It claims, Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. Then it claims, There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count.Opiner 01:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Now I understand what you what to claim but instead your claim was looking different. Sorry I will try to read those claims more carefully before making my own 'claims :) . --- ابراهيم 01:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

IMage for deletion

Ibrahim, I nominated the picture of suposed Muhammad seal for deletion.[15] I dont think anyone really has this, article doesnt say anything about it even though itd probably be the most valuable thing in their collection. Maybe help clear this up so we can keep it.Opiner 03:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for showing your love for me :). I have NOT uploaded it. --- ابراهيم 03:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for correction! I notified ITaqallah. I don't UNlove you only I think maybe youre not very neutral. But you probably think that I'm not neutral either. It can't be personal.Opiner 03:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sweden calling :-)

Hi Ib,

Remember Global Reserv Bank GRB? I have given up the idea to get info about GRB on Wiki, not skilled enough yet and the deletionst are a bit scary, they are effective :-(

How are you? I am studiying Comparative Religion at Uppsala University (distance education on te web) and are gooing through the world religions, really interesting, I have always been open and positive to all the main world religions but got impressed that Islam for example is so close to J and C.. check out Eco Theology what is your oppinion in this field?

You could also check [16] I am so fed up with this nonsens, what should I do? --Swedenborg 07:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I am in these days more busy and trying to adjust in Germany. These are relatively new concept for me, therefore I should read more before making a Opinion. Hay, I have heard that Uppsala Univ. is good. Good luck with your studies. --- ابراهيم 19:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Bordering the sabotage!

That line which you are right is horribly written from BrandonYusufToropov not me! Please look at the history before reverting again. Or revert to my version at least is was not badly written as you say. 'This claim of prophethood arose from revelations' borders on the sabotage!Opiner 11:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

thank you

السلام عليكم يا اخي

and to you too. ramadhaan mubaarak by the way! it may be easy to let tempers fray during this month, but make sure you stay cool and calm even in the face of what may be blatant provocation. it will help immensely ان شاء الله. ITAQALLAH 11:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Who goes to heaven

According to Islamic concept, 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:[Qur'an 5:69], that includes belief in one God, belief in afterlife and good deeds (which are evident from human nature). 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. Cheers! TruthSpreaderTalk 01:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ibrahimfaisal, I am astonished by the double standards of some editors involved in the Muhammad article. They are so illogical in their whitewash of every positive comment that the renowned scholars such as Bernard Lewis have made about Muhammad on the basis of being un-neutral. Yet, they put you under pressure regarding the Muhammad pictures. You know, Ibrahim, as Watt pointed out many of the old prejudices in west still linger on. Still the time hasn't arrived for west to accept Muhammad as a great reformer, if not as God's prophet. Looking at myself and my zero contribution to humanity, I will be filled with the respect and love for a man who endured persecutions and sacrificed his life for humanity. I am sure a time will come that the world will respect Muhammad as a great man, if not as God's prophet. A time that one himself would felt ashamed of saying that Muhammad brought nothing except violence for humanity. I am pride of my belief that my elah is God and my lord(mawla) is Muhammad: There is no god but God, and Muhammad is the Messenger of God. --Aminz 09:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for showing your support. It is good to know your good view about Islam. Those people behavior encourage me a lot. Your contributions are really valuable for wikipedia. Me on the other hand is busy in my PhD and find less time to read books for improving some Islamic articles (that I wanted to). --- ابراهيم 13:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I am actually feeling that people are having excessive prejudice which is degrading the quality of Islam-related articles, especially Muhammad and Muhammad as a general. I think even in the life of the Prophet Muhammad, there were people who never gave him the respect (including Kuffar and hypocrates), so I am not very hopeful thesedays, only considerate people will be able to understand this. TruthSpreaderTalk 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
So it is. Censoring sourced material comes from nothing but prejudice. --Aminz 22:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Mohammed killed people who disagreed with him. We in the West have progressed to the point where we realize that those things are wrong. Because you are told to emulate Mohammed you never will. Hopefully we will never accept his "reforms."

re: shura and democracy

you may find this an interesting read [17], wa as-salaamu 'alaikum. ITAQALLAH 00:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It look interesting. I am tooo sleepy now will read it soon In-Sha-Allah. Thanks --- ابراهيم
Ibrahim, why did you do a blanket revert? Who really cares what about salamah means when you're reading the Islam article? BhaiSaab talk 01:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Bahi saab. My father name is Aslam. I never know its relationship with Islam before reading that article. I found it really useful. It is just my oponion, no offense bahi please.. :) --- ابراهيم 01:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
It was not a black revert, see my comments. --- ابراهيم 01:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, no offense to your father but it should be at the SLM article (if there is one), not Islam. Also, you should respond on the talk page about the democracy stuff. BhaiSaab talk 01:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
But sir if it is related to word Islam and derived from there then it is on the right place. Also Muslim etc. I do not find need to remove them. I will follow the talk page more closely now. --- ابراهيم 01:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
The words are not derived from "Islam", they are derived from Sin Lam Mim. See S-L-M. Not only is this unimportant for the reader to know, but it's also only indirectly related. No wants an Arabic word lesson when they are reading about a religion. BhaiSaab talk 01:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
sir jee it sound bit disputed to me and what is wrong to have some extra info. But no problem, it is not a big deal. If you really want to remove them then it is okay with me. I will not revert this time. Okay! :) --- ابراهيم 02:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Salam. BhaiSaab talk 02:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Message

Sahih Bukhari padh lo. Agar aap voh nahiin mante, aap vaqi Sunni nahiin hain.

From Bukhari's Hadith 5.713:

Narrated Ibn Abbas: 'Umar bin Al-Khattab used to let Ibn Abbas sit beside him, so 'AbdurRahman bin 'Auf said to 'Umar, "We have sons similar to him." 'Umar replied, "(I respect him) because of his status that you know." 'Umar then asked Ibn 'Abbas about the meaning of this Holy Verse:-- "When comes the help of Allah and the conquest of Mecca . . ." (110.1)

Ibn 'Abbas replied, "That indicated the death of Allah's Apostle which Allah informed him of." 'Umar said, "I do not understand of it except what you understand."

Narrated 'Aisha: THE PROPHET IN HIS AILMENT IN WHICH HE DIED, USED TO SAY, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison." .. mujhe sazaa mat karo, sachaaii sunke ...

First and second hadith tell about a predition and do not indicate the cause of death. The 3rd hadith from Ayesha could indicate cause of death if (1) it is reliable, what book it is from? (2) what time period it is from. Just before death or many years before death? --- ابراهيم 02:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Aisha indicates that Mohammed died from the poison. That is clear to anyone except people with closed minds like you.

Also see WP:No_Personal_Attacks and do not abuse me.
if Aisha had said so then I will belive her. But the question is that if it is really said by Aisha and where I can find above saying. Is that hadith is a realiable hadith and it is indeed a hadith? Also it is important to know when did Muhammad said so to Ayesha (after 3 years of poisoning or 1 month) --- ابراهيم 02:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

From Ibn Sa'd:

Umm Bishr [the mother of the Muslim man who also died eating poison], came to the prophet during his illness and said, "O apostle of Allah! I never saw fever like it in any one." The prophet said to her, "Our trial is double and so our reward [in heaven], is double. What do the people say about it [his illness]?" She said, "They say it is pleurisy." Thereupon the apostle said, "Allah will not like to make His apostle suffer from it (pleurisy) because it indicates the possession of Satan, but (my disease is the result of) the morsel that I had taken along your son. It has cut my jugular vein."

I have proven my point; the first Aisha quote is more convincing. I apologize for my anger; you personally are probably in no way responsible for any of the 14 world conflicts involving Muslims (there is one more: Hindus vs. Buddhists in Sri Lanka). If you think of yourself as a rational, kind man, which you appear to be, I challenge you to read the Qur'an and the main Hadiths in their entirety and see if your nature is consonant with your religion.

Not clear if I could find about it Sahahi-Bhuari or Sahahi-Muslim? Please tell the references properly so I can varify them? Aisha Hadith is in which book and what section? ... --- ابراهيم 02:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Bukhari's Hadith 5.713. And there is no Aisha Hadith. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.713

I have changed it . and do not add any un-referenced material there please. --- ابراهيم 23:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad killed the children of Khaybar.

Musharraf

Your edit summary "The section is about this country people (like me) and we are very clear about this term and no nothing about "progressive". I am reverting to "original" version so you talk before making a revert." is inappropriate. You have not responded to the basic point, that un-Islamic has differing meanings across the world, and that WP must reflect that. I have suggested on the talkpage how you might edit the article to respond to that exigency. Hornplease 10:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for first reverting and then posting it on the talk page. I think I should also revert it back and then reply, if this is the way to go? The section heading need to change and it should say "Anti-islamic according to Pakistanies". Then we could find references from News paper articles. I know there will be lot of references. People could see those article if they do not know what is meant from Anit-Islamic. The section need to rewriten too as it is not unislamic or anti-islamic to give son/daughter higher education but many other things that he had been trying to do. However, all this could be done only if you let it stay that way for sometime without stating a useless edit-war. --- ابراهيم 10:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Anti-Islamic should not be in the heading. The point being made is that he is perceived as personally liberal/progressive in the West and India and anti-Islamic in Pakistan. These things are not the same on WP at least, and I hope you are not suggesting they are. However, the entire set of things - his dogs, his duaghter's education, and what you call his anti-Islamic behaviour - are being put together. So the best title for the section is what I had suggested. Unless you can respond to this adequately, I am changing it back. Hornplease 08:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not interested in Musharraf and I do not care. Nationalism is against Islam and hence I am not a Nationalist or anti-Nationalist. I even do not care about people like Quaid-e-Azam then why should I care about tiny Musharraf. I had visited that page by chance and now it is out from my watch list. Make whatever you wish of him... (btw teaching daughter is great and NOT against Islam but PRO-Islam. However things like permitting new years dance parties and attending them, changing TV towards vulgarity, encourage other people vulgarities and saying things like “Sab say Pahly Pakistan” etc are anti-Islamic. The section is written what "Pakistanis think about him" hence your heading is wrong. Now I should stop myself and be out from that yacky mud. so no more from me... you do your changes there) ---- ابراهيم 16:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Offa dinar

the description is taken from Offa of Mercia -- I understand that the inscription is upside down in relation to the obverse side. It stands to reason that the text wasn't understood, since 8th century England wasn't, of course, Islamic :) dab (ᛏ) 11:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we cannot say "for sure" that they do not understand it. May be they do understand it but keep it as it is even being non-Muslim? Having text upside done to make a point does not make sence when we can rotate in in any imaging application and make it correct (it could be a photographer miskate? possible?). Hence I suggest we should not used words like certainly and use may be until we do not have some solid proof. Btw it is not a great deal for me, just some thinking. You can keep it as it is, which might be wrong but does not bother me much. --- ابراهيم 12:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
look at the front side of the coin: "OFFA REX" is written upside down relative to the Arabic inscription. As I said, I only copied the description, and I am not really sure if the image is notable enough to be on the Shahadah article. regards, dab (ᛏ) 16:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay sir then we leave it as it is. I think it is relevant with Shadadah article and thanks for adding it. best regards, --- ابراهيم 21:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: The Quran and science

I've nominated the article The Quran and science for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that The Quran and science satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quran and science. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of The Quran and science during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. -- Merope Talk 21:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The web-sources which have been added to the article's Talk page are good enough for me. I'm not sure where you get the idea that Wikipedia only accepts books as sources, but that isn't the case. I've withdrawn my vote to delete, since the sources I wanted are now there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 06:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

thank you. --- ابراهيم 10:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Your comment

Thanks, DRK 22:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Quran/science

You might find some helpful things in zakir naik's debates , specially in his debate with Dr.Campbell . Additionally , Javed ahmed ghamidi says that Quran gives a hint of evolution in it . User:Truthspreader might help you with this . BTW how about "Scientific interpretations of Quran" for a name .F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 05:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ibrahimfaisal,
I think you are probably aware of Dr. Maurice Bucaille's book. But Dr. Maurice Bucaille's books is not published by university presses which means that it is not a reliable sources. I think we should yet wait for a book to be published on this topic. But I hold high standards on reliable sources and that's what I think. Cheers, --Aminz 05:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. Please also contribute in the article by spending some of your time. Otherwise it will be gone in next AFD. It is a good subject and should be written in a good way. We all can make it best on the web. Dear Farhansher, thanks for the tips. I will work on them. I like the present name as compare to what you have suggested :(. best regards (hope to see your guys contributing in the article). --- ابراهيم 08:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
As you might know I've renominated it for deletion. My reasons are on the debate page. Arrow740 01:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Jizya article

It's bad enough that User:Islami would insert unsourced, original research into the article. It's worse that he would revert war to keep it in. It's even worse that he would recruit you to revert for him. And it's even worse that you would remove the evidence and then revert for him. You are on extremely thin ice here; if you have evidence for any of the claims made by Islami please bring them to the Jizya Talk: page. Do not act as a tool for others in their policy violating revert wars. Jayjg (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I had just one revert and I am sorry about that. However, I think I have indeed read somewhere either in Yousaf-Ali tafseer or in Barnard Lewis that Jizya is used to be very less. However, still I think that I should not have reverted it back withtout first finding references. It is my mistake. --- ابراهيم 19:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The jizya article is good. Arrow740 05:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for teasing me. Good that you have got a user-name finally. Please continue teasing me and abusing me. As these things always help me to become better Muslim. --- ابراهيم 08:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
You could start by reading the hadith. However I hope you don't try to emulate what you find there. Really, if we could remove the violence from Islam, I would support you in trying to convert the entire world to it. Arrow740 06:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Never mind about the last part, I've learned more. Arrow740 17:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Hal Abelson.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hal Abelson.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:

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. 20:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't?

Wouldn't joining the discussion on the talk page prove more civil and more fruitful than baselessly threatening other editors in edit summaries?Proabivouac 09:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not need to talk about the section I HAVE written using books. You do not change it if it is referenced. I do not threat but will soon report you. So STOP it. --- ابراهيم 09:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if your sources say "invited them to embrace the truth of Islam," we still can't say this unless it's attributed and in a quote. See WP:NPOV.Proabivouac 10:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Mr.Faisal, it would appear that you are wikistalking me. Please desist. Thank you.Proabivouac 10:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
That page is in my watch list and you are not that important. --- ابراهيم 11:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

quran and science

Have you visited:[18]. There is also another very good website:[19]. I actually once read somewhere, but couldn't remember that Earth was made in 2 time periods and universe is made in 6 time periods, so earth's life is one third of the universe. This is exactly what science says that universe is 13.2 billion and earth 4.6 billion years old. It is just that the Quran divides the whole development of universe in six equal time periods or phases. 141.132.11.3 04:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, they couldn't be equal, as 3 * 4.6 = 13.8 Arrow740 06:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. --- ابراهيم 08:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Ibrahim, there is something you should know. On wikipedia you are only allowed to present the work of published scholars. You are only allowed to make connections that published scholars have made. Otherwise your additions are classified as original research, and as such are unacceptable. Arrow740 08:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

another ref

you may be interested in scanning through the book Theology and Modern Physics by Peter Hodgson, in which he quotes a number of perspectives on the issue of qur'an and science, namely on pages 46, 47 and 48 i think (search through using the words qur'an science etc.). also check out its biblio (p. 236), as it cites numerous times a book by Mehdi Golshani entitled "The Holy Qur'an and the Sciences of Nature" (1997); Binghamton; NY: Institute of Global Cultural Studies, Binghamton University- which would certainly be a useful source in the article (maybe you could get a hold of it somehow). it also mentions a number of other related publications you may find useful. there do seem to be a number of notable works on this topic. hope that helps. ITAQALLAH 16:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I really appreciate your help. But I am very much busy with my PhD. I will give whatever free time I will find to the article but please help me by contributing directly to the article. Please give some of your time. Jaza-ul-Allah Khair --- ابراهيم 17:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Good job, Itaqallah. I really liked the work by Mehdi Golshani, published by Binghamton University press. Golshani, whom I've personally heard of him, was graduated from UC Berkeley and is the winner of several awards. --Aminz 07:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Al-Farooq

Al farooq (Urdu) by Shibli Nomani is available here[20]. It has got a whole section on Dhimmi/Jizya . So whenever you get time, try to add to the article .F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 20:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome!

You're welcome! Now provide references for all of it. ;) Dev920 (Tory?) 21:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

human evolution

I actually read this article on evolution and it removes all the flaws between religion and evolution. As in Qur'an:Your Lord, the Rich and Merciful, if He wishes, can discard you and succeed you with "WHATEVER" He wishes; Just like He created you from the seed of another clan. 6:113. So the author believes that humans did evolve, it is just that when homo-sapiens were there in the world, God incarnated soul of adam and eve in them, as there is no incident of childhood of adam and eve. The completel article can be accessed from:[21]. 141.132.11.3 05:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. However, can you please add it directly in the article. I do not know when I will have free time available. Hence it will be great if you could contribute directly in the article. best wishes --- ابراهيم 07:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Introduction to Quran and Science

You deleted the introduction sentence I put on the Quran and Science article. I used the same sentence that is on the Science and the Bible article. You mentioned in your edit summary that Quran and Science don't have to agree, which I think is a true statement. However the purpose of the article is to study the relationship between the Quran and Science. I think that the discussion that has occurred on the article Talk page and the AfD's show that there is dispute regarding the relationship between the Quran and Science. I feel that it is important to state the overall purpose of the article in the beginning and if you have another sentence that speaks about the relationship between the Quran and Science then please insert it in the article. I will also be posting this on the article Talk Page to get opinions from the other editors. Also if you could not be so defensive towards the other editors I think this article could be greatly improved, and everyone will be able to approach it calmly.Ratherhaveaheart 20:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Help in al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock

I am editing the Articles of both al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock. And the non muslims there keep reverting claiming that the Dome is not a mosuqe but rather a shrine or a temple. See discussions of each article please to have more idea on what has been going on. Thank you. Almaqdisi 11:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Find some references then they will not able to change it back. It is better if your reference is from some English-book which is reliable. Read WP:RS for some information. I am very busy these days and not contributing much in wikipedia. You can also post it at Muslim Guild. May be someone there could help you. --- ابراهيم 11:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Image of Muhammad with Black Stone

Hi Ibrahimfaisal, Please help me to understand why you believe the image of Muhammad with the Black Stone is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. It may be so, however, that image does indeed depict a known story. I would very much like to know your views. Thank-you. --BostonMA talk 19:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It shows Muhammad. If you could modify the picture and blank Muhammad face then it would be more acceptable for me. I think without showing Muhammad same story could be told. --- ابراهيم 19:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thank-you. You are correct that the same story could be told if Muhammad's face were blanked. I understand that such a procedure would make the image more acceptable to you. However, in your edit summary [22] you mention violation of Wikipedia guideline(s). It isn't clear to me which guideline is violated or how. That is what I do not yet understand. Further clarification would be appreciated. --BostonMA talk 19:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
This guidline regarding Profanity. "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not." If we both agree that same thing could be said without showing Muhammad therefore an alternative exist then why not follow that alternative. I could try to blank his face myself if they let me do that. --- ابراهيم 19:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank-you again. I do not have a fixed opinion on this, but I wonder whether a modified version of an historic depiction would be considered a "suitable alternative". I am sure that many peole would argue that it is not. I will think about this, but in the meantime, if you are able to bring forward arguments for why such a modification would be a "suitable alternative", I am very happy to listen. --BostonMA talk 19:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
According to vast majority of Muslim believes (ALL of Sunni and many shias too) any dipiction of Muhammad is highly offensive and against Islam. Hence according to guideline if an alternative could add same thing in the article then it should be used. The image is not there because it represents true Muhammad because Muhammad does not allow to picture himself and no non-Muslim biography exist of that time. All early documents about Muhammad was written by Muslims and contain no picture of him. Now that image could be only important because it shows a real event (not because it is historical image related to Muhammad NOT AT ALL and it is not of his era). It shows young Muhammad resolving a dispute (before even becoming a Prophet). We could still show that same event if Muhammad face is not shown. The ORIGINAL picture could be placed in someother article like dipiction-of-Muhammad article (which already exist with lots of pictures) and its modified alternative form in this article. --- ابراهيم 20:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

(unindenting). I agree that a large number of Muslim's believe that depictions of Muhammad are offensive. In my opinion, the Wikipedia guideline does not concern itself with whether those who find the depictions offensive are Shia or Sunni, or even if there is a large Muslim population that does not believe that depictions of Muhammad are offensive. I also agree that the image is not realistic of Muhammad. It is true that the image is already present on other pages. I also agree that the same story could be illustrated without depicting Muhammad's face. I personally would not be bothered if the face were blanked. However, I think a more important question is whether the Wikipedia community would find an altered image to be a "suitable alternative". My feeling is that most Wikipedia editors would not find it a suitable alternative. I am not sure that I can articulate why, but that is the impression I have. Perhaps it could be expressed as a sensitivity toward altered images as somehow unacceptable. I might be surprised about this. There are often news programs in which the faces of individuals are "blanked" for privacy reasons, and perhaps the Wikipedia community would accept such an approach as a "suitable alternative". Do you know of any images on Wikipedia which have been altered to obscure a face? --BostonMA talk 20:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW I respect you a lot and highly appreciate your good intentions. I respect each person who is unbiased and try to deal things rationally. You know I get lots of abuses on wikipedia as well as in my daily life being a Muslim. It is inseasingly getting difficult to openly say that one is Muslim these days. Anyway, no I do not know personally any images whose faces had been changed but I believe that there will be many images which are altered to be used on wikipedia. For example the this image I uploaded . was colored but made black & white. Similarly if I spend time then we could find many such images (even face hidden for example in case of nude pictures). --- ابراهيم 21:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ibrahim, (may I call you that?) Thank you so much for your kind words for me. It grieves me to hear of the difficulties you and others face. I am also a minority where I live, and although I do not usually receive direct insults to my face, I have overheard others often enough to know that racism and bigotry are all too common. Although I have lived in the same city for 20 years, a few months ago, I was walking in a neighborhood on a beautiful day, and was questioned by a woman about my ethnic origin, and she informed me that the residents were undoubtedly looking out their windows wondering what business I had in that area. I am sure that I do not experience difficulties at the same level as you, but I definitely can appreciate the sorrow it must cause.

Regarding the images -- again, I personally would not have a problem with blanked faces. However, my big concern is that the consensus of most editors would find that unacceptable. It may be possible to persuade the community, but I would not put too much hope there. I think matters stand differently between the two images. I am happy to argue the case for the removal of the image of what looks like Muhammad speaking to a number of holy people. I have done so here and here, as well as having to defend myself here. However, I do not forsee arguing for removal of the Black Stone image for the reasons I have given. I hope you will understand, and I am always willing to listen further on the subject. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 17:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Jizya article

Please stop inserting original research into the Jizya article, especially when it is disputed. Jayjg (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of the information in that article seems well sourced - except for the original research you keep inserting, of course. Do you have any issues with the other information in there? Reverting the insertion of one sentence of original research is a pretty minor edit. Also, if you wish to actually discuss article content, please use the article Talk: page for that; you have been conspicuously absent from that page, despite reverting the article many times. Jayjg (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"People like me"? What do you mean by that? Jayjg (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:V is one of the three fundamental Wikipedia content policies; why is it a "shame" you have to follow it? What did you mean by "people like you"? Jayjg (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Which people are "like me"? Please respond. Jayjg (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think maybe hes meaning people also like me?Opiner 16:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ibrahim, I don't have Tafsir handy. Merzbow, I know, does have it. If you would like to know my personal opinion, I **think** that Jizya is determined according to the amount of crop, but the amount for Jizya was fixed in gold. I may be wrong (not sure at all). So, I can guess that Jizya might have been easier to pay for rich people. BUT not in general. It is also "possible" that there have been times and places where Jizya has been easier to pay. But not in general. The Muslim jurists however insisted that jizya shouldn't be burdensome. I think that would be a much easier way to proceed, if you would like to show that it was good. The tax in Muslim lands was lower than that in other lands. Salaam--Aminz 22:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
No according to what I have studied it was symbolic and was not at all higher. --- ابراهيم 22:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


Some sourced material: From "Islamic Perspective on Ethnicity and Nationalism: Diversity or Uniformity?" Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, Vol. 23, No. 1, April 2003 by MUHITTIN ATAMAN.

"Non-Muslim minorities pay a tax that is called jizya (a poll tax). Many consider this as an additional tax on non-Muslims, but jizya is never an additional tax. Muslims have to pay zakat and non-Muslims have to pay jizya to the Islamic state. Thus non- Muslims, as ‘protected minorities’, will not be required to pay additional taxes, but will pay taxes similar to Muslims and other communities on an individual worth basis.36 One of the most prominent jurists in the history of Islam, Abu Yusuf, specifies the following rules to the economic relationship of the Islamic state with non-Muslims: non-Muslims do not have to defend the state and thus become soldiers. They are not all burdened with the excessive jizya and land revenue. Jizya will be paid by rich non-Muslims, not by the poor, the blind, the old, women and children, who have to be supported by the state. Non-Muslims do not give zakat. No one can use force on non-Muslims.

Said Hawwa, the leading figure in the Syrian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Fathi Yakan, a prominent Islamic scholar from Lebanon, point out that the jizya is abolished from those who accept to serve in the army.38 Some leaders of Islamic movements even go further and claim that jizya is irrelevant in today’s world. Al-Ghannouchi explains that ‘jizya is associated, primarily with the question of military service. It is not compulsory upon non-Muslims. That is why some Muslim jurists call it “protection tax”. However, in our contemporary world this whole issue has become irrelevant’.39 It was a balanced economic system constructed between Muslim and non-Muslim peoples of Islamic states."

Hope this would be useful. --Aminz 22:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ibrahim,
My concern was not with the length per se, but rather with the zakat passage's general inclusion. While I'm sure you don't mean it as such, it seems that its inclusion merely provides some kind of a "minimisation," which really doesn't belong in the WP:Lead. Cheers, TewfikTalk 00:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Your request re:Irishpunktom

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom#Log of blocks and bans. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

talk:Muhammad

Hi Ibrahimfaisal, it would be helpful if you would comment on the talk page of Muhammad regarding the image you removed. --BostonMA talk 12:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have already talked about it a lot. Now feel really useless to talk any more. But if you say then I will post there again. --- ابراهيم 12:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I understand that it may at times become tiresome to repeat oneself. However, I do think it is important in this case. Thank you for taking the time. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 12:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem sir. You are fighting for thing that does not make any difference for you and picture does not make you angry. Then I should also do whatever you wish me to do. --- ابراهيم 12:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The Quran and science afd notice

Fixed. Sorry about that, I forgot there were two. Yomanganitalk 13:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Irishpunktom

Hi, I see you posted a notice about Irishpunktom on the Muhammad talk page. That page is really not the appropriate place to discuss such issues. I have not checked to see if Irishpunktom had reverted an article three times in a week. He may have, or may not have. However, if he did, then the block is something to be expected. Due to previous edit conflicts, and a resulting Arbitration Committee decision, Irishpunktom's right to revert articles has been restricted to 1 revert per week per article. If he should, through accident or forgetfulness, make more than his limit, the best course, in my opinion, would be for him to revert his own revert, and then report his mistake to Arbcom. This would demonstrate his good faith and willingness to abide by the decision, in spite of his mistake or forgetfulness. If you or I should notice such an instance of a mistake or forgetfullness, in my opinion, the best course for us is to suggest the above course of action. Whether or not the ArbCom decision was right or wrong, it will undoubtedly be enforced. The best that can be done, in my opinion, is to minimize how harshly he will be treated. This is my opinion, but I am always willing to listen to your opinion. --BostonMA talk 11:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I only write there to tell others that what is his view about Muhammad picture on Muhammad article. His revert shows his view clearly. --- ابراهيم 12:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please vote

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/October/16. It seems that some people want to remove any reference to Palestine. --Palestine48 15:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Miraj2.jpg image

Hi Ibrahimfaisal, From August of 2005 till August of 2006 there was an image on the Muhammad page place there by User:Zora which represented Muhammad depicted with a veiled face. I would very much like to know your opinion regarding that image. Would you support that as a suitable replacement to the current image or images? --BostonMA talk 21:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not really like that image but I can tolerate that one. I did fight for removing it too (you could see the history of talk page) but then later I compromise on that one. It is much better than existing TWO images. However, you know let me say according to my experiences they want images to irritate us and they know it was not irritating enough for us . Hence I believe that they will not agree on that one. Once again thank you for your efforts. :) God bless you. User:Zora is a good soul. --- ابراهيم 07:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation and for your blessings. --BostonMA talk 14:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

My views

Adaab Ibrahim, My issue with Islam is the violence. All over the world we see Muslims killing in the name of Allah; in Kashmir, India, Chechnya, Indonesia, Israel/Palestine, Iraq, the US, Great Britain, and other places. This is sanctioned by prominent Islamic scholars. However, if you are a peaceful man and pass on a peaceful view of Islam to your children, then I am happy for you that you have the comfort of faith. Arrow740 00:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not like to discuss these thing here. If you email me than I could try to answer to this one. Thanks for Adaab but we do not use it in Pakistan. I have seen it only in old indian movies though :) :). best regards. --- ابراهيم 07:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Archiving?

Hi, perhaps you would consider archiving your talks? You can learn how to archive your talk pages at WP:ARCHIVE. Goodluck :) ! -- Anas Salloum 00:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Quran and science

I see that you deleted a section of the article. It's good that you reverted it. Aminz added that in and he and I had a discussion about it on the talk page. More work needs to be done on that section but we agreed it's OK for now. In case you don't already do so, please consult talk pages before making drastic changes to articles. This is just standard etiquette. Arrow740 18:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

Thank you for the message-- my first one! California is pretty wonderful...I like San Francisco, too, but I'm stuck in the southern part of the state. As for the Muhammad article, the only changes I wanted to make were grammar related...rewording some sections to make it sounds more encyclopedic. I just wanted to check with the people who have been editing that page before I changed anything, because I don't want to inadvertently hurt anyone's feelings. I'm trying to avoid editing on any pages that I have strong opinions about, because I really don't want to get in any fights. The reason I came to the Muhammad page in the first place is because I was interested in his personal life...I saw a documentary on him recently, and it only mentioned the first wife, Khadijah, who I found fascinating. Anyway, I think I'm rambling. -Randomglitter 19:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

Ibrahim, people keep asking me to try for adminship and I keep turning them down. I'm curt with people and I have a great many enemies. Many many enemies! The RfA would be a horrible brawl and I would just as soon stay out of it. When it becomes something other than a popularity contest, then I might consider it. Zora 20:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias

Hey Ibrahim, 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 04:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

Hi, I notice on the Articles for Deletion for Mahound you voted:

Delete A single variation of Muhammad name, which is also not well-known by most, does not deserve to have a separate article.

I do not know if you are aware, but during the Mideval period of Christianity, there were some very wrong and bizarre opinions by European Christians of Islam. For example in the famous epic Song of Roland, Muslim's are potrayed as idol worshippers, worshipping three gods, one of whom was named Mahound. Moving from the medieval period to the present, Salman Rushdie also used the name Mahound in his Satanic Verses. Neither of these stories is true, but they are both very famous.

There are many things in an encyclopedia that are not well known to the average person, but which are well known to people in a given field. I believe this may be true regarding the name Mahound. The average person does not know, but those who are familiar with European history or European literature or Salman Rushdie, these people would know.

It is my opinion that the facts regarding how European Christians and others have used the term belong in an encyclopedia. Not to villify Muhammad, but to give accurate testimony about the ignorant and mistaken beliefs of mideval European Christians.

I would very much like to know your views on what I have written. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 14:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have read those things too in the Muhammad article. Anti-Islamic groups have been abusing Muhammad and giving him names since beginning (even in his life). May be a general article about ALL those abuses could exist but an article only on Mahound does not make much sence to me. It means we will create many other small articles about other abusive names against my beloved prophet that you could find in history book? Later on a category may be, whose each article will have ONLY few sentences in it? No please. Furthermore people abuse Bush and other leaders I do not see articles for them? --- ابراهيم 15:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I am not aware of other abusive names for Muhammad, and they have not appeared in the Muhammad article. Nevertheless, I understand your point of not wanting many small articles, one for each abusive name. Would you vote to rename the article to something like Pejorative names for Muhammad or something similar? Rather than delete? What I would like is for the Muhammad article to be about the prophet of Islam, and not about names he has been called. However, students who wish to do research on the historic villification of Muhammad should also be able to find facts in the encyclopedia, but, in my opinion, under a different article. Patstuart also supports possible renaming and including other terms as well. With regard to Bush, there are separate rules for living persons, see Biographies of Living Persons. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 16:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sulayman

Please express your opinion about renaming Islamic account of Sulayman into Islamic view of Solomon, which was made unilaterally by user:Striver without any previous discussion, who now refuses to discuss the name claiming that "Solomon" is "English name". Mukadderat 16:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

Eid Mubarak to you too. I am too much burdened with my studies these days, I think I won't be able to actively edit articles as before for a while, atleast. But thanks for reminding anyway. Cheers! TruthSpreaderTalk 09:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacking

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Opiner 07:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all where is personal attack? Secondly when did your warned me with {{npa2}}. Lets keep it there for your happiness. --- ابراهيم 08:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks. That user is on a mission to defame Esposito it seems. That information probably belongs on a page about the foundation (which i guess doesn't exist) and not on Esposito's page. However, if it has to be there, it should be accurate and NPOV. Thanks and best.PelleSmith 12:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Signature

I would be grateful if you'd please change your signature so that it is written in normal letters instead of squiggles. I was trying to read what you wrote and I had to look twice at the screen because I thought I'd sneezed all over my new LCD!DocEss 17:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, I recommend you just disregard this request... there's absolutely nothing wrong with your signature. (→Netscott) 17:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't read it --- that's what's wrong with it. This is an English-language website. Be sensible, please.DocEss 17:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I see, funny how these all lead to something on the English Wikipedia. : Radovan Karadžić, الله , Mạc Đăng Dung. Move along please. (→Netscott) 17:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Explain, please.DocEss 17:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Every one of those non-English language links lead to articles on this English Wikipedia. (→Netscott) 17:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Ya but I can somewhat decipher two of those ones. I know - perhaps we should Anglicise them too. Look - I (and others) can't read squiggles and I'll never be able to.DocEss 17:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


Talk page length

Your talk page is becoming very long and large (147 kb!). Please consider archiving. -- ßottesiηi (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I will do that soon. --- ابراهيم 13:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)