User talk:Itaqallah/Archive 8

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Contents 1 DY71 sock 2 Battle of Uhad article 3 Islam - Jihad Section 4 An edit after my own heart 4.1 Another great example 5 Super happy fun chat 6 Tawrat - merge proposal into Torah 7 Award 8 Shia Islam 9 Five Pillars of Islam 10 Sorry 11 Template:Infobox Salaf 12 Muslim history task force 13 Bahira 14 Submission shot 15 WP:ANI#Bigoted comments on my talk page. 16 Template 17 Welcome! 18 Template:Muslims and controversies 19 Adoption 20 Pretext 21 Criticism of the Qur'an 22 Request for some mediation. 23 Islamic military jurisprudence 24 List of Muslim reports 25 Muhammad's Monsters 26 Fatimah 27 User:Swapant

[edit] DY71 sock

Thanks for your report of the DY71 sock or emulator. As I said to another user, I feel that the quiet blocking of these accounts is the best way of dealing with York - there is none of the drama that a checkuser request has - he is simply and quietly blocked. It's a block first, ask questions later case with York. ck lostsword • T • C 00:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, sorry. Yeah - I would say that. AIV often blocks blatant socks, and those of DY71 are particularly .... ahm .... virulent :P. ck lostsword • T • C 08:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We should look at this as a routine maintenance operation.Proabivouac 08:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you review the edits of Prester John (talk · contribs) who's re-instating all the edits of User:Ultrabias - this one for example. Edit summaries appear to indicate a sock of DY71 ([1], [2]). Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 20:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Uhad article

ITAQALLAH I thought you did a nice job on the article - don't be discouraged by what others say. While there were some issues, I still maintain you did a good job of writing it - especially considering that it is very difficult when writing of the Prophet to separate religion from history. old windy bear 21:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Salam. Thanks for your attempts to make a good article, I should remind that I've mentioned my ideas in the talk page, peer review and the article. Apparently you and the other wikipedians disagree with me. I don't insist on them now. But I wouldn't agree with making this article an FA unless you paid attentions to these ideas. By the way Jazaka Allah Khayr. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 05:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Salam bro, You can ask [wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Review#A-Class_review A-class review] for the article after improving it.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam - Jihad Section

I have posted a proposed variation for this section please let me know your feedback. Also do have access to the Djihad article on EoI? I have a concern on whether the statement "Those who do not accept these terms may be enslaved or killed." is accurately portrayed in the current version or if it is a stray leftover from a redaction of a previous version.--Tigeroo 18:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo, i appreciate that you have at least made the proposals on the talk page. i have suggested a compromise, if anything to stop the to-ing and fro-ing, and also because the discussion by Firestone has added more weight for its inclusion IMO. ITAQALLAH 13:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

from memory, yes i do think the EoI says that. ITAQALLAH 13:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I appreciate the effort. A couple of items about Jihad that I feel are missing.

1. The purpose of jihad .. godly community. The concept is Jihad fi sabilliah, its there in both firestone and Humphreys as well any numerous others sources that I can fetch if required. The forbidding of evil and enjoining of good is a fundamental tenet of the conception of jihad. It also makes clearer what struggling in the way of god means. Wether as a military, social or personal dimension, though I concede this could be take to the main page for detailing.
2. The Sixth Pillar is a very small minor minority as such almost WP:Fringe. Humphreys is better when he emphasizes it's obligatory nature on Muslims. This would be great as an intro to the Fard kifayah portion.
3. It appears that Jihad has been only declared in this article against non-Muslims and solely for their conversion. Humphreys clearly states that it has been done so for other reasons as well and infact more often. Easily verifiable examples are against the Shi'a, Umayyads etc.
4. Jihad, martyrdom and Paradise. How can you miss that when talking about Jihad??
5. It talks about a theoretical killing of polytheists which is undue weight to wether it actually went on or was sanctioned.
6. Jihad view in the present day. It focuses overly on selective past historical examples, ignoring that even in the medieval ages many jurists accepted a state without a dhimmi and jizya concept as well. Or that Hanafi and Hanbali schools accepted the possibility of a permanent truce with the dar-al sulh.
7. The existence of Modern ideological movements operating under the banner of jihad, whether military or social.

Please do read Humphreys (he is available on google books) and then see what and how you want to incorporate him into this section as well. Currently he appears to have been excised, and he does explore the non-military aspects of Jihad in greater detail which are the missing parts required to round-off the jihad section. The layout I suggest, start with the concept and purpose of jihad. The ways Jihad could be carried out.(Jihad of other kinds than the sword is supported even in early Muslim litreature.) Focus on the more common conception of jihad, military and detail it a bit more. Describe the role of Jihad in Islamic life.(fard whatever, though this could actually be extraneous information here.) The talk about modern interpretation ofs jihad, and it's spill over into cultural concepts. That was my outline for fleshing up and rounding of the section more completely.--Tigeroo 14:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

i'm not too confident about making substantial changes, considering the delicate status of the article at the moment. i'll keep these points in mind, and we can discuss the topic further on the talk page when things cool down a little (i.e. after today).. ITAQALLAH 14:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I will take them up again now, one item at a time and see how they fare.--Tigeroo 05:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with point five, at least, as I've expressed. As we don't have space to fully explore the issue in the main article, my proposed solution was to leave indeterminate what happens to polytheists if they don't convert. I don't much care for the "sixth pillar" business, but Humphreys definitely doesn't support its removal - he says "though not all [authorities]" which is completely consistent with the previous passage.Proabivouac 07:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care too much either way about the sixth either. The deal is the main schools of thoughts who placed emphasis on it are now dead schools of thought but were prevalent during the Umayyad and even early Abbasid period before the modern schools came in. It is currently a minority view, so I felt it is an extraneous idea for this section. Leaving it in or extricating it doesn't really matter too much.--Tigeroo 13:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An edit after my own heart

Thank you, this is exactly what I would have done sans this environment of bad-faith 3RR reports.Proabivouac 12:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you also consider restoring the Jihad section etc. from Tigeroo's unorthodox edits? I only restored Beit Or's recent edits to avoid another revert, after attempting to reverse Tigeroo's (apparently inadvertant) blanking…The Wikimedia software delay is wreaking chaos just about now.Proabivouac 13:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

will do. ITAQALLAH 13:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Much thanks. As you suggest, I just want us to deal with all these opportunistic last-minute changes in some kind of lawful manner.Proabivouac 13:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

i can only opine that the whole reason we're in such a pathetic mess is that a particular editor decided to take it upon himself to institute substantial - and frankly quite narrowly focused - rewrites of controversial sections, days before the main page appearance, and without even a care for consensus or the time spent collaborating before the article reached FA status. even now these disruptive overhauls continue. i suspect that had things been done through the proper channels, instead of forcefully, then not only would we have more of a community agreement, we wouldn't have this needless warring. ITAQALLAH 14:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem I can wait for a reasoned discussion.--Tigeroo 21:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo, i wasn't referring to you. ^_^ ITAQALLAH 00:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I do think it at least as applicable to Tigeroo's edits, and I can't see why you wouldn't.Proabivouac 03:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

At the same time, the sections they replaced were, in retrospect, uninformative and unfocused. It may be impossible for any informative section to gain consensus, I don't know. Some editors plainly don't much like mainstream orthodox doctrine, and insist that Islam be presented as if it agreed with them, rather than with Sunna. At the same time, to lead with controversial points (e.g. re women) has a plainly critical intent. I believe the solution is to remove the appearance of indictment, not to compound the problems by adding irrelevent "exculpatory" material such as, "however, Islam is better than Christianity" or obscurantism to the point where "jihad" can mean picking one's nose with righteous intent. I've tried to do this where I can, but it takes time.Proabivouac 23:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

what's the point in participating on the talk page to generate proposals and consensus, if others are just going to make a mockery of it and decide to change what they like and to the extent they like? that's not WP:BOLD, that's WP:OWN. there is at times a distinct air of selecting juicy tidbits and stitching together a narrative that might very well be completely factual, but the focus and slant is palpably bitter - even if only subtextually. similarly, text that looks like it's offering an apology, comparative analysis, or rationalisation shouldn't be here. there may have been problems with the previous versions of sections (such as the Other religions sect), but one thing that was good about it, and the article in general, was that it was carefully worded. the correct way to make it more informative would be to propose passages on talk to alter or include, and then implement it post-feedback, as opposed to surprise (and ultimately contentious) overhauls followed by stubborn reversions. it's anything but collaboration. ITAQALLAH 00:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of this, except for the contention that previous versions were carefully worded. Sentences such as:

Regarding religions other than Judaism and Christianity, Islamic law states that unless there is a pact between members of these religions and Muslims, they are to be fought and compelled to accept Islam.

aren't just mediocre, but positively atrocious. By "careful" we can only mean that they passed the POV committee, and even so, I'm not sure this would have - it's the rewrite which drew attention and scrutiny to this section.

The social missteps here - that these rewrites were introduced without collaboration or discussion - are real and should be addressed. While any change is liable to be met with charges of bias from all directions, this approach inadvertently contributes to a environment of edit-warring and POV paranoia, regardless of the value of the material.Proabivouac 00:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another great example

This sentence

The process of divorce in Islam is known as talaq, which is more easily initiated by the husband than by the wife.

is unsourced, vague and poorly written (passive language again!) Consider Beit Or's replacement:

The process of divorce in Islam is known as talaq, which the husband initiates by pronouncing the word "divorce"(ref).

Accordingly, I've reinstated this improvement.

See Talk:Islam#Review of Beit Or improvements, where I've addressed these "disruptive" changes in their entirety.Proabivouac 20:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment: it can be initiated by the wife as well though not as easily and is then known as "khula".--Tigeroo 05:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That's worth mentioning.Proabivouac 07:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super happy fun chat

Salam 'alaikum bro, do you use AIM or MSN? I swear i'm not trying to stalk you. MezzoMezzo 15:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

you should enable your e-mail address through "my preferences", then you can e-mail me and we may exchange details privately. ITAQALLAH 16:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tawrat - merge proposal into Torah

This proposal is currently on the table here. Not sure if you have a view you want to make known. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks. ITAQALLAH 00:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Award

		The WikiProject:Islam Barnstar
		You worth is for your major works on the article Islam , have a nice day Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 11:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shia Islam

Is it worth putting this forward for RFPP as I don't envisage the anons stopping the reverts or attempting to engage in discussion? → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 14:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd opt to wait and see how things go for today/tomorrow before making a request, but if you don't envision a cessation in the reverting then feel free to take it to RFPP. ITAQALLAH 14:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If another revert is done by an IP without an edit summary or talk page discussion, then we should file for RFPP (semi, 1 week). → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 14:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Got declined. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 00:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, so far:

Diff 1 Itaqallah

Diff 2 Itaqallah

Diff 3. AA

Diff 4. Itaqallah

Diff 5. AA

This is now semi-protected for two weeks. But no sooner had it been done, a user pops up to revert it back again - as his 2nd edit. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 15:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I see similar tactics to what is occuring on Rafida, where new accounts are made, then lay dormant for several days to evade semi-protection restrictions, and then start reverting. who knows, the two users involved on these pages may be one. ITAQALLAH 16:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I had considered filing a Checkuser case against User:Amoooon for voilation of 3RR (combined with the anon edits) but decided to warn him first. If there is a distinct pattern, then a RCU might be necessary. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 16:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Five Pillars of Islam

Salam Bro. I've nominated this article as a good article. Please check it and put it on your watch page.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 01:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Sorry about reverting your edit it was an accident. It was my mistake meant to revert something else. Xecide 16:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Salaf

Salam. I made a new template for salaf on the basis of Template:Infobox Muslim scholars and I used it in Salman the Persian. please check and improve it. Thanks.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 16:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim history task force

Salam again. I've made a new task force(Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Muslim history task force) in WikiProject Islam and I invite you to participate in it because you active in relevant articles like Muslim history. God bless you.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bahira

As you have access to the EoI, could you see if the Bahira article can be expanded (since it's main source is the EoI) - when you have time :) → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 16:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Submission shot

Dont remove this image again. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

it is quite clearly inappropriate to include a non-free image in an article to which it is vaguely relevant (at best). this is what the closing administrator also determined. ITAQALLAH 21:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I hadn't noticed this battle going on over this image I uploaded (cleared my watchlist a while back). Do I understand you correctly that you object to it's use in Submission (film)? JACOPLANE • 2007-07-19 23:58

I think I get what this is about. Someone placed it in Criticism of the Qur'an, which is not the article I uploaded it for (I wanted to include it in the film article). I can see how fair use would not apply there. JACOPLANE • 2007-07-20 00:02

regarding the use of the non-free image on Submission (film) - i don't object to that, as it would appear to meet fair use criteria. its use in Criticism of the Qur'an, however, doesn't comply with our fair use policy i believe. the image was put up at IfD, where it was determined that the screenshot's use should be restricted to the article about the film itself. ITAQALLAH 00:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ANI#Bigoted comments on my talk page.

Itaqallah, as you've had some contact with this user, I'd appreciate your review of this report.Proabivouac 07:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in, this is getting to be quite silly. MezzoMezzo 14:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Hello Itaqallah. Thank you for your message. I would regrettably have to disagree with you, I beleive that Islam and Slavery and Banu Qurayza are very much related of Criticism of Islam. Personally I think that Slavery and Islam is overwhelmingly a question of criticism of Islam, but that is not really the point. Templates are put on when an article is a part of a series, which these are. Several articles are part of several series, because being in a series does not imply that the series is the only interest in that article, which seems to be your argument. I would be happy for a wider debate with other users if you disagree, however i think you will find that if an article is relevant to a series, then a template is considered appropriate. The template does not have to be shown to be the "main theme", as you suggest. N-edits 22:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

At least that is my understanding of it, but as i say a wider discussion would be completely appropriate if you wish. N-edits 22:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly "much of the article deals with slavery in Islamic thought, jurisprudence, and history, as well as apparently modern instances of it" but this doesnt mean that it is not criticissm. you claim "there is very little in terms of criticism in the article" but in any western society the article is understood as criticism since slavery is considered abhorrent. On the Criticism of Islam page, the criticism simply states that islam has slavery, and that is already a criticism in most countries. In addition I completely disagree that "very few" scholars criticise this aspect of islam, i have read much criticism of it.

I am afraid I still feel as I originally stated and I am really very unlikely to change my mind. I still feel you misunderstand the point of a template, and i am surprised you do think a reader of the article will not understand it as criticism unless they see the template.

If you wish to insist on your point, we will not agree, so I think the only solution is to put the matter to other editors.

Regards, N-edits 22:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think that {{Muslims and controversies}} and {{Criticism of Islam}} are rather redundant? JACOPLANE • 2007-07-19 23:52

i think {{Criticism of Islam}} is redundant, because a) most of the articles listed discuss little or no criticism proper, and b) it is a repetition of what is in {{Muslims and controversies}}. the latter template has a stronger case IMO, but the term "controversy" itself is unfortunately quite vague and subjective. ITAQALLAH 00:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about the deletion suggestion. Unfortunately I was too busy and missed the debate, but the links can be in the other template I suppose. N-edits 16:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

[edit] Template:Muslims and controversies

Does everybody else agree on the current version or are willing to discuss changes without edit-warring? It looks to me that the banned user was the only one with a problem. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk)

OK. I removed the protection. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing them out. There were quite a few unblocked. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk)

[edit] Adoption

Though I understand your motivation for editing the way you have in our recent dispute, I call your attention to 33:40, which is the source of the negation of treating adopted sons as real sons in every respect. Arrow740 00:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

what motivation of mine is it that you believe you understand? i'm not sure how 33:40 (you might want to try 33:5 actually) relates to our dispute. the story of Muhammad falling for Zaynab is usually not considered authentic for various reasons, as Watt says. ITAQALLAH 00:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Muhammad is not the father of any man among you" including his adopted son. Arrow740 01:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pretext

Regarding your edit summary here, what is really needless is to trivialize the broad consensus found in the works of those western scholars that I found. Those scholars who display "evaluation presuming authenticity" in doing so indicate that what debate there is about the subject doesn't bear mentioning. This is very important to know. "EoI summary of dispute is quite fine" no, Welch is giving the background as a prelude to his own analysis, which is in agreement on the actual fact of the satanic verses. "is rejected by most Muslims as a later invention" is irrelevant, this article is about history, not biased opinions of it. Arrow740 03:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Welch displays an irresponsibly superficial engagement with the issue, as Tabari's account begins as follows:

The prophet was eager for the welfare of his people, desiring to win them to him by any means he could. It has been reported that he longed for a way to win them, and part of what he did to that end is what Ibn Humayd told me, from Salama, from Muhammad ibn Ishaq, from Yazīd ibn Ziyād al-Madanī, from Muhammad ibn Ka'b al-Qurazī.

Arrow740 04:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

instead of source mining to find all those secondary sources in agreement, we can quite easily relate what a reliable tertiary source has already evaluated, i.e. that most European biographers accept the account - instead of having to rely on your research. whatever you personally feel about Welch's arguments is inconsequential. Welch doesn't agree that there were any "satanic" verses, nor any actual incident as related by the primary sources. ITAQALLAH 15:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The name is just a name. Of course they are not "satanic." As regards the rest of your argument, the other scholars are clear enough that we don't need to use the one reliable (tertiary) source you can wring something out of. When the overwhelming majority of western scholars accept something that is only disputed by one western scholar and Muslim apologists (this is Rubin's word, see the talk page) we state it as history. Arrow740 01:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

the name depicts a significant factor of the story. in response to your other point, Welch says most European writers accept it. not all, and not the overwhelming majority. even Welch denies the histority of the event most other accept (that is, the traditional account). the fair resolution is to portray the dispute as Welch does, not how you want it portrayed. ITAQALLAH 02:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That Welch denies the story in Tabari is true is a red herring. We're not mentioning that. All western scholars will reject all stories about Allah, Satan, and miracles. We're not here to portray a dispute, but history. Welch accepts two details as historical, henotheistic verses given then retracted. That's all we say. We don't say Satan made Muhammad do anything, and don't mention the time period. I found about ten reliable sources saying it happened. You have yet to find one (except Burton whose argument has been dismantled by Hawting, and who is the exception who proves the rule as such). Arrow740 08:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

yet the bits about Gabriel and Satan aren't what Welch is restricting his rejection to. there's only one reading of the Welch passage: he rejects its histority; not, however, ruling out the possibility of alternative theories (and certainly not accepting them). please read his passage more carefully, he only considers the "possibility of historical kernel", stating that "It is possible" that historical telescoping is a more viable interpretation, he doesn't even personally endorse it. as for the list of names you provided, i've already commented on a few of them, the rest i'll take a look at too, though i know Peters, Watt and Rodinson accept the historicity. i also thought i'd check some other biographies like Tor Andrae's biography (i haven't been able to find the incident related therein yet). ITAQALLAH 18:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Where have you commented on them? Arrow740 06:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

see the talk page. the CHI entry is written by Watt, not Lambton/Lewis/Holt (who are the compilation's editors). similarly, Erickson says nothing about the historicity of the incident, his literary review is analysing, amongst others, the work of Salman Rusdhie. ITAQALLAH 21:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the Qur'an

That's what you did. You removed sourced criticism (and much less apologetics) and replaced it with material that it related to the issue, but not to criticism of it. So you are providing the response. That is original synthesis. Arrow740 01:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

don't you mean i "removed poorly sourced criticism"? try not to overstate the replacements i made in order to tar my excision of unreliable, devotional Spencer material. i am aware you virtually wrote these sections, but you don't own the article, and you shouldn't try to obstruct others from salvaging some kind of encyclopedic credibility from it. ITAQALLAH 02:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Red herring, Spencer is of the utmost reliability for Criticism of the Qur'an. Arrow740 02:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

as for claiming that i am conducting original research by presenting alternative views on the same topic, well you don't exactly make things easy by employing material from unreliable sources- i don't believe most academics even give Spencer the time of day. or perhaps that's the conveniency behind selecting Spencer... making us utterly dependant on having to draw responses from Ali et al? whatever the case, you shouldn't act so surprised by my edits, you were well aware i had proposed this over a week ago, and i am sure given your recent comments on Armstrong and Muslim scholars that you concede Spencer is not a reliable source. claiming he is a reliable source for criticism doesn't make sense. ITAQALLAH 02:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Red herring, Spencer is of the utmost reliability for Criticism of the Qur'an. The article is about ... Criticism of the Qur'an. Arrow740 02:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

it would be helpful if you could try to prove that assertion. we don't have one standard for criticism articles, and another for everything else. ITAQALLAH 02:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an article about history, the subject is criticism. You admitted on the talk page months ago that Spencer is a reliable source for criticism. Arrow740 02:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

kindly demonstrate how Spencer complies with WP:RS. ITAQALLAH 02:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam isn't an academic discipline. You once indicated some level of understanding of that. Arrow740 05:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

so you mean to say Spencer does not comply with WP:RS? how, then, can you assert he is reliable? i suppose we can say Naik, Armstrong et al. are reliable too? what's with the shifting goalposts? ITAQALLAH 15:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS#What_is_a_reliable_source.3F Arrow740 02:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

i don't see how Spencer conforms to: "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." yes, the standard of reliability is the same across all topics, and on Islam-related articles the standard for what makes a reliable source are uniform. polemicists don't become reliable on a topic about polemics. else, we could also justifiably use Naik, Armstrong, Deedat on topics of their speciality, as well as in response to the likes of Spencer. ITAQALLAH 02:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If you just don't get it, that's fine. I'll say it one last time. The subject at hand is not Islam, but criticism of it. What article do you think we're talking about here? Spencer is certainly a trustworthy source for criticism of Islam. I'm not proposing using Spencer in a non-criticism article. Anyone reading this page can see that. Arrow740 03:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam is an aspect of the Islam article series. all i am asking is that you substantiate on what basis Spencer complies with WP:RS. our content guidelines certainly don't say that nationalist writers become RS on articles on nationalism; or that Nazi writers become RS on Nazism; or that critics somehow become RS on articles about criticism. as such, we need to be reporting what reliable sources say about the topic (which also demonstrates the critique is notable). reliable authors will vary across different article subject, but our standards in determining reliability are the same. ITAQALLAH 16:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Itaq, you'll have to defend all your edits. You cant just reduce the article by 11Kb like this. All of that was sourced text. Please take it to the talk and discuss your edits, starting with the first one, for example this one. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"You cant just reduce the article by 11Kb like this" -- actually, given the poor quality of the material, yes i can. i had proposed cutting down the section on talk quite a while ago. ITAQALLAH 02:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You can start by defending all the edits one by one, starting with the one I linked above. Thats sourced information from multiple sources. Continue defending your edits on the talk there. If its deleted where should it go? Should we make new sub articles e.g. Islam and violence? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"If its deleted where should it go?" - onto a Spencer fansite, where it belongs? ITAQALLAH 02:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually it should go into every textbook so people can know more about the religion. Well there you go. You wasted all your edits for nothing. You can still take it one by one if you want on the article's talk page. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

i took it to the talk page over a week ago. i didn't see you there, and i didn't see any real objection to my proposals which stood unchallenged. ITAQALLAH 03:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'm checking it now. Which edit do you want to defend? Explain the one I highlighted above. That was information sourced from multiple sources. All the other edits were valid too. I say lets create a new Islam and violence article or something like that. There's so many reliable sources on this topic, it shouldnt hard.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for some mediation.

Salam 'alaikum akhi, I can see that you're quite busy improving on articles mashaAllah. I do have a small request, though. Recently, User:Chubeat8 has made a number of erratic and suspicious edits to the articles on Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz and Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee. He has done so with both the above account and also the following IP addresses: one, two, three, four, and five. I know these were his as some of his comments on the respective talk pages were left by these addresses as well but signed off as "chubeat8"; sometimes he logs in to respond, sometimes he uses one of these various addresses. You can review Talk:Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee and ESPECIALLY Talk:Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz for some background on the issue; the talk page for Bin Baz specifically is where I call him out for posting intentional misinformation. I also believe that he is guilty of both "Excessive lengthening" and "Sneaky vandalism" per the official Wikipedia:Vandalism policy.
I'm not necessarily asking for any direct involvement (thought that would be welcome), just that you could brush up on what's going on and monitor the articles and talk pages so there's no more funny business. This guy has been warned repeatedly by both me and others and doesn't seem to be giving up. Any help you could give would be much appreciated, jazak Allah khair. MezzoMezzo 20:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone has created a "user support log" for Chubeat8. Like Chubeat8 and Swapant, this uss-cool guy has only seemed to show up for this, as this is his only edit so far. That, coupled with all the different IP addresses, makes me a bit suspicious. I've tried to assume good faith but honestly it seems like some anonymous user tried to edit and when I called it out as inappropriate, is now rounding up some friends just for this. Maybe i'm out of line, but it seems that way. I know i've already asked for a favor, but would some input from you on the Bin Baz talk page be alright? MezzoMezzo 18:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic military jurisprudence

Asslamualaykum,

Are you familiar with the procedure to produce a good article or even a featured article? Basically I want Islamic military jurisprudence to be evaluated by some experienced wikipedian and give suggestion as to how I can improve this article until it becomes a "good" one. Please advise on my future steps.Bless sins 03:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Muslim reports

I intend to go through this list and nominate the listed articles for AfD as Wikipedia is not a textbook but would be interested in your views before I go ahead. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 11:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Hadith of the stroke is apprently a famous hadith but has a cn tag on it. → AA ^(talk) — 11:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad's Monsters

It's not a "vote", so a 4-2 count isn't overly relevant. Similarly WP:BK is a guideline, not a command. Legitimate arguments were made in good faith on both sides by very established editors who with one exception (not a "keep" voice) have literally thousands of edits on Islamic topics - neither side of the debate's position was so overwhelming so as to demonstrate that the community's consensus was to delete or keep, hence "no consensus". Although not raised as in the debate there is a tendency to keep compilation works where the contributors include several notable people: when two or more notable musicians collaborate on a project/album/song or as here, a book with essays (chapters) by several independently notable contributors. Again, I could see no obvious consensus to either keep or delete. Carlossuarez46 02:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fatimah

If you can assist in the rewrite of this article (being attempted at Talk:Fatimah/sandbox) please do so and/or keep an eye on Talk:Fatimah to voice your opinion in moving it into mainspace following the re-write or in gauging consensus. → AA ^(talk) — 17:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - please expand with info from your sources. → AA ^(talk) — 09:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Swapant

Just to give you a heads up, you accidentally made an article User Swapant instead of going to the userpage. I've moved it here accordingly. -WarthogDemon 01:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I knew something seemed fishy about all those near-identical IP addresses coming straight out of the same city, using the same broken English. The question is, where do we go from here? I've honestly never dealt with disruption of this magnitude before. MezzoMezzo 03:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, patience usually pays. Thank you so much for helping out as well, you really cooled things down with your comments. MezzoMezzo 04:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)