User talk:Proabivouac/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I"m not sure where to place my comments, so I will put them here. I see you are mediating the current Muhammad picture discussin, but I am concerned with the fact that it has been going on for about three months now. This should be closed, resolved, and finished.

Ideas? Anything we can do to speed it up? Brad Barnett 00:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Are you a sockpuppet of user:Nodekeeper? --Aminz 13:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no connection whatsoever between myself and User:Nodekeeper. If there is any issue here meritting administrative intervention, it is User:Itaqallah's resort to spurious accusations of misconduct to abort a legitimate content dispute.Proabivouac 20:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
in my opinion, you seem to be a sock. this is what other editors like Aminz also think, you shouldn't take it too hard if you are not a sock. of whom, i think there is a plausibility that it may be Nodekeeper, seeing as there are a number of similarities between you two. also, please do not remove templates from your page while there is an application for enquiry. ITAQALLAH 21:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I saw that you started the discussion on Muhammad as a diplomat on the GAC talk page. this is not the right place to discuss such issues, so I moved the discussion to WP:GA/R, which is the place :D Cheers, Bravada, talk - 13:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.Proabivouac 20:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Your removal of sourced statements and legitimate sources

Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 13:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of material "sourced" to the religous tract The Sealed Nectar is not vandalism, but quality control. I urge any who might stumble upon this conversation to follow the link to the book and draw your own conclusion as to whether this book can suffice for a finding of historical fact.

Beginning with, "Beyond a shadow of doubt, the biography of Prophet Muhammad manifestedly represents an exhaustive embodiment of the sublime Divine Message that he communicated in order to deliver the human race from the swamp of darkness and polytheism to the paradise of light and monotheism," the book goes on to assert a wholly implausable account of the origin of Arab peoples, without reference to archaeology, population genetics or any other scientific methodology, but based wholly upon the Qur'an, which is taken as inalterable truth.

A brief look at these first passages alone is sufficient to demonstrate that this is a work not of academic scholarship but of religious piety, and does not constitute any kind of reliable source.Proabivouac 18:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

perhaps you should stop looking at an online version which does not include the footnotes, and take a look at the published hard copy. its credentials are already noted, it has been endorsed by reputed institutions and mentioned by academics as a notable book on sira, and you are not in a position to simply dismiss it based upon ignorance of the methodology employed by the author. any attempt to purge this source is indeed vandalism. ITAQALLAH 18:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that there is a fundamental gap in perpection which we are not likely to solve through discussion. A westerner of non-Muslim background is very unlikely to view such prose as indicative of or compatable with rational and objective scholarship, while you assert that it is merely non-Western scholarship, and as such should be treated as an equally valid alternative thereto. I believe that such an approach to sourcing, if allowed to continue, will result in the critical degradation of quality wherever it is applied. You see my conclusion, if I'm not mistaken, as ignorant and prejudiced.
Given we are not likely to solve it between ourselves, and as edit-warring is never the right solution, I propose we seek wider community review on the narrow issue of the use of The Sealed Nectar as a reliable source, which can bear upon its use in other articles as well. If the response to the book is favorable, you will have something to point to when other editors pose similar challenges to its use in other articles.
Would you agree to this?Proabivouac 19:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

i am pleased that you are interested in achieving an amicable conclusion. we had previously already opened an RfC specifically for this issue on the sealed nectar (cf. talk on battle of mu'tah article). opinions were divided. i think the most fairest opinion on this was echoed by User:Zora, that the sealed nectar may not necessarily be an independantly reliable source (although i still disagree about that), but it is notable and it is a decent representation of at least the muslim/islamic viewpoint on the seerah. for this reason, it does merit inclusion in order to attain NPOV. this is what i had tried to explain to you, that i used the source either to provide the muslim account of the seerah (which is significant and notable), or when i was providing extra information which would not be disputed by any source. i had written the article with that particular RfC in mind, and i placed significant reliance upon a number of secular sources. to adhere to NPOV, the article would need to include and document divergence of opinion on an issue wherever that occurs, which is something i believe has been done. i don't see the need to open another RfC on this issue, and i think the position which has been expounded upon above is the most reasonable position to adopt in this dispute. ITAQALLAH 19:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Might you provide me a link to this RfC?
The article does not always make it clear that what is being represented is merely Islamic tradition. Several instances were stated as fact, while Aminz' new changes in some cases merely say, "it is said".
Further, while including Muslim traditional accounts alongside western academic views may well have been necessary to achieve NPOV on Battle of Mu'tah, such is not the case with Muhammad as a diplomat, which paints a wholly positive image of its subject. Perhaps you think this appropriate, but can you at least admit that an informed non-Muslim reader might in good faith arrive at this conclusion?Proabivouac 20:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, I've looked at the history of Battle of Mut'ah. The traditional (and wholly unbelievable) account was not merely placed alongside the academic view to achieve NPOV, rather the academic view was relegated to a small "criticism" section beneath the traditional account.Proabivouac 20:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

here are the relevant discussions: Talk:Battle_of_Mu'tah#certain_point_to_mention Talk:Battle_of_Mu'tah#certain_point_to_mention_II, Talk:Battle_of_Mu'tah#RfC, Talk:Battle_of_Mu'tah#Notability_trumps_reliable. RfC discussions occur on the relevant talk page of the article, not on the RfC page itself.

sealed nectar would be relevant in providing the muslim account of events where secular sources either reject or neglect mention of a particular issue, which occurs a number of times in the article. the issue is not necessarily about the picture the article paints: almost all sources accept that Muhammad was a political genius, regardless of his claim to prophethood and regardless of his intentions. if you believe the overall tone of the article does not adhere to NPOV, in that a significant viewpoint or perspective is neglected, it is upon you to verify that by providing some sources which are relevant here. you should also consider rephrasing some passages to make them sound more "boring", as Alec put it- many times i just phrased things how the secular sources phrased them, i did not proceed to juice it up, but some of these are the statements that have come under fire. i also see nothing wrong with using the resource to provide extra information for the reader which would otherwise be unavailable, as long as the three pillars of WP are adhered to. where i did not use this source (or at least, tried not to, in order to avoid conflict) was in the field of interpretation, analysis and conclusion (except when to provide a muslim argument per NPOV) which one would generally be able to do with an agreed upon reliable source. re: your latest comment about the battle of mu'tah, i have not been involved recently in shaping that article. last time i checked, there was a significant section providing the western recollection of the incident and critique upon the traditional account. ITAQALLAH 20:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] request

i have set up a topic on the diplo talk page (Talk:Muhammad_as_a_diplomat#in_the_interests_of_dispute_resolution..) where i have requested you to organise your concerns as 1) neutrality/accuracy concerns and 2)source concerns, with the relevant specifications expected in order to help the dispute resolution process. is that OK with you? ITAQALLAH 21:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Itaqallah, that looks great. I'll have more time tomorrow to put things together.Proabivouac 05:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
If you could let us know who you are, that would be also be great. Why are you using a sockpuppet? --Aminz 00:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
You've already accused me of being User:Nodekeeper, placed a sockpuppet template on my user page and requested a checkuser to violate both of our privacy. Either I am User:Nodekeeper (I'm not), and there's nothing more you need to know, or there are two users to whom you and Itaqallah owe a serious apology (there are), along with all the helpful people at Suspected Sockpuppets and CheckUser whose time you've wasted with your reckless allegations. Didn't you accuse me of being five different users the other day? How's this: if you give me your name and home address, I'll send you the information you request. Otherwise, stop harassing me and Nodekeeper and focus on content, not contributors.Proabivouac 05:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Proabivouac, I don't want to harass anybody. Put yourself in my shoes: you see a user User:Nodekeeper coming out and accusing people of suppressing information and conspiracy theorizing which goes on your nerves. And then suddenly a new user comes out claiming the suppression of information. You are a sockpuppet for sure and you have been following discussion on the Muhammad article. I am *not* a fool. Also, you are not using a sockpuppet because of *privacy*. Anyways, you have my apology for the accusation. I hope we can work collaboratively on the articles. I'll remove the sockpuppet tag from your userpage. --Aminz 05:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. For the record, I didn't accuse you of being five users, but was asking you if you are one of them. Of course, you are not all five of them. --Aminz 05:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I hereby accuse you guys of suppressing information too, both as alleged by Proabivouac and myself. Are you going to accuse me of being Nodekeeper as well? Maybe you should take the sign that many people think you are misusing wikipedia in a specific way differently. Instead of thinking, Oh, it must be one wacko using a lot of different names, maybe you should think, Maybe they're right? Arrow740 06:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mizan

I must say I see nothing wrong with the article. Having the article is desirable. As for 'spreading its message across Wikipedia' that is of course another matter, the article should only be linked from topics to which it is arguably relevant. dab (ᛏ) 07:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

well, again, I see nothing wrong with even 'many many' of the same. There is lots of room still in Category:Books. The problem begins when people start spamming references to books they happen to like in places where the book is not notable. This has nothing to do with Islam or even religion in particular. For example, what the hell is a reference to a stark raving lunatic title like Where Troy Once Stood doing at Cambridgeshire? I agree this sort of thing is a problem, and I'll be happy to be part of a solution. The solution cannot be to just delete the Where Troy Once Stood article, however. Citation of Mizan as 'cosmological fact' is of course completely unacceptable and should be rolled back on sight. dab (ᛏ) 08:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand: I saw your deletion request at itmam al-hujjah, which appears to be an Islamic theological concept. Of course Islamic theological literature will be relevant to explain Islamic theological concepts? Are you saying Mizan is not notable enough to be quoted as a contribution to Islamic theology? Obviously when reporting on theological dogma and the like, Wikipedia doesn't endorse one view or the other, we're just reporting on literature, and I didn't take the itmam article as anything else, hence I don't see what is wrong with it. If there are other, more notable books on the concept, of course they should be given precedence, but unfortunately I am not at all familiar with contemporary Islamic theologica discourse. dab (ᛏ) 08:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If the independence of the term itmam al-hujjah from the book Mizan cannot be established, of course the two articles should be merged. But it appears to me that the term is actually used in Islamic theological discourse (e.g. [1]) and if that is the case, we should be glad to have an article about it. I see it as an exposition in greater detail of the topic discussed at Fate_of_the_unlearned#Islamic_tradition. dab (ᛏ) 09:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sourced material

Please don't remove sourced material. Though you are not new in wikipedia, you may not know that it is considered disruption. Please don't remove well sourced material. --Aminz 07:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You are perfectly aware that we could source all kinds of well-sourced negative things about him in the intro. NPOV governs not just presentation but also placement of information; tacking hagiography onto a perfectly neutral introduction is POV.Proabivouac 08:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for moving the Esposito reference to a more appropriate place. I've added some equally well sourced material from page 37, and removed a portion of your language for which I couldn't find support in the text.Proabivouac 06:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Proabivouac, you are misrepresenting the sources. Stop doing that. --Aminz 06:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I am certainly not, as I'm looking right at it. Be specific.Proabivouac 06:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've posted my comments on the Muhammad's talk page. --Aminz 06:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please respond to my comments on Muhammad's talk page. --Aminz 06:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it alright with you if my computer crashes and it takes five minutes to restart? I hope so, because that is what happened. Perhaps you should consider giving people more than fourteen minutes (6:39-6:53) to respond before getting testy.Proabivouac 06:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If the reference says "inviting them to Islam" then it is remain same. STOP CHANGING REFERENCED Material. I will report you if you continue doing that. --- ابراهيم 08:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Faisal, might you explain to me how "inviting someone to Islam" differs from asking him to convert to Islam?Proabivouac 09:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep up the good work

It is important that people are not able to use wikipedia as a method of creating false impressions of Islam and Muhammad. There are many Muslims and, surprisingly, secularists who seem bent on allowing this to happen. You seem to have lots of sources at your disposal, and I just want to encourage you to continue doing a good job. Arrow740 06:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement. I am trying to keep things neutral around here. Too many editors - sadly, most editors in these sections of WP - approach these articles with the aim of either prosecuting or glorifying their subjects. We must not 1) dwell unduly upon "positive" information 2) dwell unduly upon "negative" information 3) suppress "positive" information 4) suppress "negative" information. Our goal must be to leave these ways of thinking behind us completely, and take a strictly documentary approach built not upon the compromise between pro and con, but upon that between curiosity and skepticism. Where you are correct in your assessments, no POV should be necessary. It is only a sad fact of Wikipedia life that we must be wary of mission-incompatible approaches among fellow editors. My advice is, don't add to the problem by becoming their mirror image; in fact to do so will ultimately help your adversaries by giving them something to point to which makes them look relatively neutral.Proabivouac 10:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
You are right. Could you weigh in on my nomination to delete The Quran and science? If it's kept it's going to take someone dedicated to make it neutral. Arrow740 23:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] everything alright?

hello Proabivouac. just in case you forgot: you were requested to document the problematic areas in the diplomat article. i wouldn't want to rush you, but i think it's been almost ten days, and i do have books out on loan which i would have to give back soon. that, and i don't believe it would really take that long to list the problems with the article were they to have been as glaring as was claimed. ITAQALLAH 00:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I've not had much time to contribute as of late. The problems are certainly nowhere near as glaring as those found in The Quran and science, a mockery of WP principles and an embarrassment to the entire community. It's a real shame to see so many editors willing to make even half-hearted excuses for it.Proabivouac 01:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

well seeing as though you have involved yourself in further content disputes (Muhammad, The Quran and science) i would definitely appreciate it if you could conclude the one you started before getting involved with any others, as i would like to renominate it for GA sometime soon, and as i won't have access to the lib. books forever, and also as the article has been slapped with a tag though there is not one justified and unanswered objection. thanks ITAQALLAH 17:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

any response? if you are unable to state where there are neutrality problems and why they are not neutral, then i will for now remove the POV tag until you are able to materialise some substantial points. ITAQALLAH 18:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I did state them; you'd just invited me to restate them in one section. That's a legitimate request and one upon which I should still follow up (I have my own library issues, it's several hours away and there's another book to arrive from the bindery any day, so I hope to visit when it has) but it's not fair to pretend that I didn't forward substantial objections, or that any attempt was made to take them seriously and find a compromise.Proabivouac 19:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
they had all been responded to, in my opinion none of them were substantial. there may or may not be POV problems in wording, which can easily be fixed without the need for talk-page debate. the kind of problems you have been alluding to however have been omission of a significant academic view of an event, and you have currently provided very few (or no) examples of those and/or not provided any supportive citations at all. ITAQALLAH 19:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Please. We both know that the Constitution of Madina didn't hold; if it speaks to anyones skill as a diplomat, it's only in lulling others into a false sense of security. The idea that Muhammad came around and solved their intractable problems is ludicruously deceptive. Your demands for citation are wholly procedural. Nevertheless, I've picked up a few sources to document this in the coming days.
There is also the issue of Sealed Nectar, which should not be used at all; it is junk, pure and simple, yet you pretend that it is a reputable academic source. LOFL.
There is the use of images of forgeries, probably to meet the "good article" quota.
There is the title itself, as others have observed.Proabivouac 03:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
1)the article already states the constitution of medina broke down soon afterwards in no uncertain terms. as for evaluations of Muhammad's ability as a diplomat, these are all cited to scholarly opinion. i could have easily cited a lot more, such as EoI's terming of him as a "brilliant political genius" and others, but i preferred to stick to more sober evaluations. you continue to present opposition because of conflicts with your own viewpoint, not because there exist any sources contradicting what is alluded to in the article, which is a main reason for me requesting sources of you which state your conclusions explicitly. that the idea of actually doing personal research before jumping headlong into disputes escapes you entirely is not my problem or a problem with the article: it's yours.
2) you obviously refuse to understand what my stance is on SN, opting to pretend you have not comprehended the previous discussions we have had on this. you may "LOFL" all you wish, you have no basis for dismissing it when it is clearly a notable muslim source. again, you cannot seem to adhere to what you espouse, and the majority of editors have been reasonable enough to consider it usable and notable. though, you don't seem quite aware of the difference between "notable" and "reliable".
3) that is rather a meek opposition. whether or not they are forgeries doesn't matter, because they still merit inclusion due to their very historicity being discussed within the article.
4) and of course, it's taken you over two weeks to bring up such an insignificantly minor objection such as the phrasing of the title. what confuses me most is that all of these had already been answered, your only response to which was eery silence. it makes me feel that you are merely filibustering until you find a real reason to oppose. anything else, Pbc? i really do hope you have some real source-based objections. ITAQALLAH 04:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


1) "The constitution, although recently signed, was soon to be rendered obsolete"
Rendered obsolete??? Three of five Madinan tribes were exiled, executed or enslaved! And we're going to sum this up as, the Constitution was "rendered obsolete"?
I am fine with calling Muhammad a political genius with in-text attribution. It's the notion that he went around engaging perfectly diplomatic and effectively bloodless solutions to everyone's problems to which I object. Were that his goal, then in fact he failed miserably. Were his goal to unify Arabia under his autocratic and theocratic rule, who could deny that he succeeded in what would have thitherto seemed an impossible task?
"you continue to present opposition because of conflicts with your own viewpoint." And my viewpoint is? Other than that yours is not neutral? I am curious as to what you believe about my views (besides me being Jewish, of course).
2) You are right that with Sealed Nectar I admit little nuance. From the standpoint of scholarhip and reason, this book is garbage, the equivalent of Jack Chick publications, and should not be used at all except as a source for its own statements in an article about itself. Your nuanced wikilawyering stance doesn't sway me. It shouldn't be used, period.
3) "Whether or not they are forgeries doesn't matter." Au contraire, if they are forgeries this matters a great deal: they belong in an article entitled, "Forged Relics of Muhammad".
4) Wrong, the title has been discussed on talk by several editors; you've simply ignored it. Filibustering? I've actually been busy with work. You think I'm paid to filibuster on Wikipedia? A week or two seems only a long time if you are glued to the computer. Why not give me as much time as you'd give The Quran and science to be an article unworthy of deletion?Proabivouac 07:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
honestly, i am feeling a rather peculiar deja vu...
1) yes, it was rendered obselete. this was due to a perceived violation of the constitution. i could quite easily have stated "was first broken by Banu Qaynuqa' which declared enmity upon Muhammad, second broken by Banu Nadir whose chief went to Mecca to call them to arms against the Muslims in clear violation of the terms of the treaty, third broken by Banu Qurayza who plotted to threaten the security of the Medinan state by allying with invading forces and attempting to organize a coup", but in more simple and accommodating terms: rendered obselete by perceived violations of the constitution. i am also sure we agreed that you would expand upon this briefly in the article, offering a quick overview of the events with the jewish tribes.
2) he was invited by Medina to help resolve the difficulties present there and attempt arbitration. i didn't state this, i didn't even consider including it, until both Watt and the Encyclopaedia of Islam said it very explicitly. Watt thinks he succeeded in that, so does EoI.
3) i think other editors have been far more reasonable in relation to SN. its credentials, you cannot deny. its favourable mention in western publications, you cannot deny. the scholarship of the institution behind the book, you cannot deny. all you seem capable of is quoting POV from the book in an attempt to poison the well (and i am certain you will continue in this vein in future discussions), although we all know neutrality is not a pre-condition for using a publication. your real qualm seems to be the fact that it is a book written by a Muslim, as you seem to believe that Muslims are inherently unable to be objective or "neutral" per your very first edit.
4) it does not matter whether or not they are forgeries, because them being so or not doesn't negate their inclusion in the article. this is because their actual authenticity is discussed within the article, so providing pictures of the direct subject of the discussion i.e. these purported letters, becomes entirely relevant. that is why the captions say "purported letters", because that's what they are, their authenticity is the topic of debate and disagreement within the article. similarly, if an article discusses a manuscript over which the authenticity is disputed, it becomes entirely appropriate to display the manuscript being discussed, whether it is a forgery or not.
5) is a mere title the reason behind this furore you engineered? i am sure there are more pressing and important issues related to the article than a simple title, the discussion of which can be concluded relatively easily. i would agree that a week or two can go by quite quickly if one is busy. that is not the case with you: your activity over the time of the request has been far higher than prior to the request. if you had so little time, why jump into more disputes instead of taking that time to focus more on (and conclude) the dispute you yourself raised? ITAQALLAH 02:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a feeling of déjà vu..

in response to [2].

apart from criticising the book's author for being a Muslim and expressing his opinion in his work (and you have already stated that Muslims in general tend to have severe trouble being neutral, so i am not sure that the premise of your objection is appropriate), i haven't seen any sort of good-faith attempt from you to argue why it is not usable, except the general act of linking to the website to prejudice editorial opinion, especially of those who may disagree with his own analysis. i will admit that my patience may not be the greatest, but simply linking to a website and implying that sufficiently proves your point is not good enough. as opposed to spencer, the author of TSN is an individual qualified in the field of islamic studies. the work has gone through a notable university which specialises in islamic studies. the author himself worked as a researcher in the field of Sira at the university. the book has also been declared notable by a number of western publications, as you already know. i will consider proceeding to nom the article for GA again if you do not feel confident enough to engage in proper dispute resolution (although i am sure that the nomination itself will extract some kind of response from you, something that numerous requests for dispute resolution have not achieved). ITAQALLAH 07:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Response on your talk page.Proabivouac 07:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
it is designed to hoodwink editors by encouraging them to judge based upon the text alone, whereas if you were really sincere about informing editors about it you would also mention to them the credentials of the book, which far surpasses any conclusion you or i draw from merely looking at the text. perhaps you could link to a better version which includes the footnotes citing resources used by both non-muslim and muslim scholars alike.
that you have not responded to the points regarding the usability of the work per the evidences given above and others not mention (such as it being declared the best contemporary work of Sira at the MWL conference) suggests that apart from criticising the POV of the book, you have little more to say. ITAQALLAH 07:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
exactly, your claim that "one look at the text and it will be rejected by all fair-minded editors" shows that you are not interested in providing the full information about the book to editors but would rather that they reject the book on no grounds except that they disagree with the POV of the author, which by itseld is not an acceptable reason on the wiki. ITAQALLAH 08:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Not just the POV, based as it is upon the uncritical acceptance of childish medieval mythology, but the entire approach, down to the tone of every other - if not every - sentence, will prove unacceptably outside the realm of rational scholarship.Proabivouac 08:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Response on your talk page.Proabivouac 08:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

it does have significant academic backing from a notable university and has been through numerous presses, as well as several publications declaring it to be a notable biography. you clearly did not read what i wrote above, and seemingly did not pay much attention to the conclusive arguments presented on Talk:Muhammad as a diplomat, here, and elsewhere- which is primarily the reason this dispute has been drawn out for so long. ITAQALLAH 08:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And what "notable university" is that? Spell it out in full for our readers.Proabivouac 08:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The Islamic University of Medina, which hands out recognised BA's, MA's, Doctorates in the field of islamic studies. it has been declared notable by numerous independant institution (one example is MENALIB), and is perhaps the most prominent university related to Islamic studies in Saudi. it has a distinct centre for research into the field of sira, where the book's author worked as a researcher in attempting to organise and classify the reports from the classical historical sources. ITAQALLAH 08:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hands out, yes. It is an Islamic university. What discoveries, what important papers, have proceeded from this font of specifically Islamic knowledge? If I am correct, the answer is none whatsoever; it is not reputable at all. Among Saudis themselves, what is the more reputable degree, Islamic U, or a good English or American school?Proabivouac 08:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
"What discoveries, what important papers, have proceeded from this font of specifically Islamic knowledge?" - why don't you check its website? if you can read arabic that is (i am not sure how well developed their english website is). you cannot argue that it has not produced significant research through argumentum ad ignorantiam. your obsession with dismissing the institution on the basis of it being "islamic" is disturbing, and unjustified. IUoM is notable and the qualifications it hands out are recognised and accepted, you are currently failing to convince otherwise. ITAQALLAH 08:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"The main objectives of the university are, as mentioned on their website:

  • To convey the eternal message of Islam to the entire world by means of dawah, call to Islam. We aim to do this through University education and post-graduate studies.
  • Inculcating and fostering the community upon practicing the teachings of Islam and worshiping the only true God, Allah alone, with utmost sincerity and devotion."

It's not looking good...Proabivouac 08:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

mmm.. and is that a reason for a university which hands out globally recognised and respected qualifications to be deemed non-notable or non-reputable for scholarship in islamic studies? do mention the other objecives also. ITAQALLAH 08:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
"globally recognised and respected qualifications ..." Recognized by whom, I wonder. The qualification should be as a historian anyway, is that what the issue is? Arrow740 10:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
recognised by whomsoever recognises BA's/MA's/Doctorate degrees in those subjects. mubarakpuri has worked in the sira research department of the university where he was part of its organisation and analysis of classical reports and biographies related to the sira, which included his contributing a 200+ page report on the issue (arabic ref). ITAQALLAH 19:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] please be aware of WP:3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ITAQALLAH 19:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly."
As opposed to what you and Ibrahimfaisal have been doing? Yes, I am aware of the policy; thank you. The two of you have adopted a revert-based policy on that article, and in light of that situation, I felt Ttiotsw and Arrow740. whose leigtimate objections have been ignored, could use a helping hand.
Since Ibrahimfaisal is also on three, would be kind enough to give him the same friendly warning?Proabivouac 19:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
no need to, he is already aware of the rules. there is no restriction on reporting him if he violates it. being a new user, you must first have been officially informed of the 3RR rule before you can be reprimanded if you proceed to violate it. i have not been revert warring on that page, i simply re-introduced the part of the material (i.e. i didn't undo Ttiotsw's edit) that was removed on the faulty premise of WP:V when the real issue is making it conform to NPOV by presenting it as an idea from the Muslim perspective, and on the other occasion i restored the far more coherent titles previously used. ITAQALLAH 19:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay.Proabivouac 19:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content dispute

Please assume good faith and do not refer to content disputes with established users as vandalism, as you did in the edit summary [3] --BostonMA talk 19:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism to me.Proabivouac 19:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you please have a look at this. Thanks.

Please help me on the Quran and science with itaqallah. He's nagging and whining and rewriting quotes. Arrow740 22:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well you seem quite occupied with other projects. But please check up on it from time to time. Arrow740 02:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am, but I will check up as you suggest when I have the chance. Glad someone's on it, at least. As there seems to be some debate about the quality of Itaqallah's sources, you might also consider this book The Sealed Nectar which he has used in other articles, as discussed above. Please do take a look; it's all online and it shouldn't take long to get the feel of this work.Proabivouac 03:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems to be an apology for Islam and might qualify as self-published. The author got an advanced degree from an institution of questionable academic standing. When a "historian" explains events by saying "Allah himself ordained it" and says that anyone who disagrees with the Sunni line is a "hypocrite" spreading "propaganda," you know he is not objective, and it's not much of a stretch to guess that he is not a reputable historian. If you need help getting this stuff excluded let me know on my talk page and I'll get further into the matter. Arrow740 03:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you should have a look at the pictures in the article new anti-semitism. Cheers, --Aminz 08:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

They are more like a magazine article than an encyclopedia article.Proabivouac 08:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

But it looks cool. Doesn't it? --Aminz 08:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose it does. It gives it the feel of on ongoing debate, which makes some sense on New anti-Semitism.Proabivouac 15:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Proabivouac thanks for undoing the ANNOYED template on Talk about Muhammad.Opiner 05:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Hello, just letting you know that mediation has begun at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation for a case filed here. You were mentioned as someone whose input would be valued. If you would like to participate, please visit the mediation page and sign up. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salafism

Thanks for getting involved. I'm going on almost an entire month of reverting every day with Islami. Cuñado - Talk 05:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry I've not had too much time to monitor the situation, but I'll check in when I can.Proabivouac 05:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks Proabivouac. I noticed that the Syrians and Egyption Christians belonged to a different sect than Byzantium and so were discriminated and sometimes persecuted. So, putting together (Lewis 1984 p.18) and Esposito, Indigenous could also mean "native". But thanks anyway. --Aminz 06:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category for articles created

Considering my contributions, i wonder if it is ok to create a category for adding the talk pages of articles i have created, much in the same way as Category:Medieval warfare task force articles, possibly naming it "Category:Articles created by User:Striver"? --Striver 17:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PLease helping the cactus

Maybe look at WP:ARCAID I think Rosetta Stone and Cactus are worthy of our support. Can you BELIEVE we not have good article on Rosetta Stone or the cactus yet?Opiner 10:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look if I can find time.Proabivouac 05:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constitution of Medina

have posted something on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad#Constitution_of_Medina_.2F_Historical_view_of_Muhammad

--Aminz 05:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look.Proabivouac 05:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Hi Proabivouac,

There is a dispute over the reliability of sources mentioned here [4]. I think they are reliable but Opiner thinks they are not. I am trying to form a consensus. Would you please let me know what changes should be applied to this section[5] so that you agree with its addition (to *reformer* section here or to some other article). Thanks very much. I would like to chat with editors individually and when a consensus is achieved, request them to comment on the talk page that they agree with the section. --Aminz 22:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reforms under Islam (610-661)‎

Dear Proabivouac, I know youre being busy but if you have time plase look at this new article. Aminz and Truthspreader now attracting the helpful reverters including Nielswik with the anti-Semitism history and undoing all my edits. Needing more neutral involvement for the NPOV.Opiner 09:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the Quran

This is a somewhat new article that we're having problems with. Help with it would be great. Check out the history to see what's going on. Arrow740 00:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do I know you?

Proabivouac, just tell me that? Okay? please!!! please!!!--Aminz 07:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

please! :P --Aminz 07:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad as a slavemaster

That would be good. Maybe Muhammad as a slaver. Arrow740 12:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad as a diplomat

You've dropped out of the discussion over there. Arrow740 21:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Meccans were not the only enemy. In the battle of dith, many tribes participated including the exiled Jewish tribes. I'll change it to Muhammad's enemies. --Aminz 01:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ezekiel 14:9 refers to Muhammad?

In your revert to Muhammad, you referenced Ezekiel 14:9. Where's the connection? It seems to me that it's a statement of what a prophet is rather than a prophecy. Frotz661 08:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dhimmitude

Hi Proabivouac,

Can you please help with that article. I would like to add this to intro [6].

My argument is that WP:Lead says: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any."

Thanks --Aminz 03:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I opened a voting on Talk:Dhimmitude. Please join in. --Aminz 03:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Proabivouac, since you have reviwed the RfC, would you please join the discussion on Antisemitism. Please see this [7]. --Aminz 00:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Please also note that most of the sources on Antisemitism, if they talk about Islam, just say a sentence or two that it wasn't there or wasn't much (please see [8] ) --Aminz 00:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pic Vandals

Hey I think maybe User:203.124.36.30 is the same as User:Funnypop12. Theyre using the same edit summary.Opiner 08:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if it's time to start the process of banning Funnypop12. Frotz661 08:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

They are also proceeding from the same location. Yes, they should certainly be blocked. They are not only vandals, but also sockpuppets of another user.Proabivouac 04:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I tried to get things rolling on a ban, but the admin who fielded my request called it a content dispute rather than vandalism. I disagree. Would you like to try? Also, when you reverted yet another of Funnypop12's deletions from Muhammad, you missed a pic, which I put back just now. Merzbow seems to think this is a new addition. Frotz661 08:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, thank you. As Merzbow, who is spiritedly arguing on behalf of the aniconists in mediation, has not undone my reversions of Funnypop12 and other anons and socks, I feel obliged to hat tip him in return. I'd guess he does not wish to be associated with the disruptive mode of editing adopted by Funnypop12 (almost certainly the sockpuppet of a banned user) or the anon swarm. However, you are correct in point of fact.Proabivouac 08:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antisemitism

I'm assuming good faith and thereby assuming you aren't calling me a meatpuppet, which I could easily understand from your last edit. Please don't remove POV tags added in good faith where there is clearly a POV dispute. This is not generally an accepted approach. Palmiro | Talk 21:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments. Since things seem to be looking up, I think I'll be taking the article off my watchlist, with a feeling of relief. Palmiro | Talk 00:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad images

If you go to a Museum which has Muslim world art you will see tons of calligraphy, images too, but rarely of Muhammad: the Royal Academy of arts "Turks" exhibition, The U.S. National Gallery of Art's exhibition housing material from the V&A when it was under renovation, the Freer and Sackler galleries. Most of the art is religious, some of courtly which is usually mixed with religious imagery. You also get some Shahnameh type stuff and old legends. But my point is the galleries have tons of earthen ware, glass, with just patterns and calligraphy. Just as there is a big difference between Byzantine and Roman Catholic painting there is a difference between Magribi script, kufic script, etc. I am not saying that we need to find Muhammad written in script and throw them willy-nilly. But, the fact that it's unusual to have a tradition with different forms of text and patters as representation (and, in fact, a whole lot less representation) does not mean that we should go with image if they don't represent that tradition well. Thinking pictures are more informative is not justification for using them. Do these pictures represent the important trends in representation of Muhammad? If calligraphy does then then we must use it. As I've repeated I'm really not sure. There is obviously the trend of iconoclasts trying to downplay that Muhammad was drawn. But wouldn't you agree that to have a page of Muhammad speckled with pictures would give the impression that he is oft represented with images just like Jesus is? This impression would be very misleading. I just want people to start researching how Muhammad is represented and argue based on that. I talked to a professor who said that: there are more pictures of him than one would expect--except (aside from Shia tradition) you never find them in mosques, on walls--only in books. Sunnis have at times represented him (often without a face) in books. I think that's important. Therefore, I think it may be useful to show more a whole pookpage with his picture on it to better contextualize it. Then readers will associate images of Muhammad with being in books--rather than wall paintings like with Christian tradition. In this way what we show will not mislead them as to the tradition as a whole. These are the things that I feel are being missed in our discussions. gren グレン 09:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Badr

Palm dogg, whatever disagreements we might (or might not) have on Wikipedia - and thank God are free to have - I am deeply grateful for your service to our country. I also appreciate that you have contributed the only featured article in this Wikipedia space, and will in the coming days attempt to maintain the standards of quality you once set.Proabivouac 07:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. (Thanks are ALWAYS appreciated!) Just let me know how it goes, and I'll try and free up some time later this weekend to review your edits. I apologize for being a little rough on you. As it now stands, the Badr page is incredibly biased and definitely POV; if I had just seen it for the first time myself, I would have also had some choice words about it. Palm_Dogg 09:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tag

Proabivouac, if I had added those tags, I would have been accused of tag-abusing. Anyways, please find sources to bring NPOV back to the article. we will surely let the tag stay for awhile. --Aminz 08:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The relation between Islam and science

I've struck your {{unencyclopedic}} tag on this article, not because I necessarily disagree, but because I think it is inappropriate to tag large articles like this without leaving something on the talk page to make your case. Your edit summary "this article is an embarrassment on so many levels" doesn't do that. There's a lot on the talk page indicating that a lot of work has gone into this article, and other editors deserve to have something to respond to. Cheers, MARussellPESE 18:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your note; I've replied on your talk page.Proabivouac 19:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for not noting your — quite valid — observations on the Talk Page.
I think the topic is interesting, but poorly presented here. However, I think that taking overly literal readings of scripture will lead anyone to tortured logic.
I've added specific points and other content flags. I doubt I'll participate in cleaning it up, but will monitor it to see if the tags get pulled down before the issues are resolved. I hope that that goes in the direction you were intending.
Couldn't agree more with the plethora of junk here on Wikipedia. MARussellPESE 05:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] L&H

Sure, ill see if i find something... shouldnt be to hard. Thanks for the message, ill get back not too soon. --Striver - talk 20:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Bro, how about the secondary sources i added to the afd? Peace. --Striver - talk 12:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Academic sources

Don't you think NPOVing the articles should be done through finding more academic sources? Doesn't this sound familiar to you? Sigh--Aminz 06:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The dispute on Muhammad article is probably not going to be solved this way. Do you have any suggestion for dispute resolution. --Aminz 07:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

An RfC? Would it be good to invite a neutral third party admin? --Aminz 08:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You have already passed 3rr but I am not going to report you. So, please take some rest. Cheers, --Aminz 08:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, if I add them, I really believe they are neutral (meaning that I haven't seen scholars (not editors) disputing them). I believe I am editing in good faith. --Aminz 08:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please point to the addition which you believe is most problematic. --Aminz 08:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, the view of Muir (a 19th century scholar) is outdated by new scholarship, I believe. Per WP:RS#Aspects_of_reliability. So, if you could find a modern source saying the same thing as Muir said, we can include that. If you can do so, then you have proved that at least one of my sources is flawed. Proabivouac, these scholars don't say "we believe Muhammad was sincere" but that "recent scholarship has shown that Muhammad was sincere" or "Modern historians have concluded" or that"Modern historians must accept Muhammad's sincerety". These is far more forcefully than "To my mind, he was sincere". Neutrality in wikipedia means presenting all scientific POVs with due weights. --Aminz 03:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, I don't want to(and can not) prove that Muhammad was actually sincere. I only want to prove that Modern historians think so. In order to do that I merely need some sources which establish that. You can very well disagree with them for good reasons of yours. --Aminz 07:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of thinking about Islam for yourself, you find biased scholars and take their interpretations of Islam as the truth. So yes you are trying to prove it. You are trying to prove it to yourself. Arrow740 07:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Funnypop12

I have requested that an Admin should now take action and do something about the behavior of our "new" friend. I believe that what he is doing is entirely unacceptable, and that he has already been warned sufficiently about continuing this nonsense. FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Funnypop12_and_the_Muhammad_article -- Karl Meier 10:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It now seems that Aminz is stepping in to support Funnypop12, who he apparently consider to be his "Wiki-friend". -- Karl Meier 10:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:Hadith of... (cf. List of Muslim reports, Category:Hadith)

i concur. the fact remains that most of these "Hadith of" articles fork out the clearly apparent underlying sectarian dispute (pretty much all of them are related in some way to differences existing amongst sunni/shia). certainly there must be other articles where the technicalities of this divide can be addressed in detail. i am unconvinced that having "Hadith of..." articles for simply any hadith stimulating one's interest is the way forward: it has the potential to spiral out of control (to an extent, it has). alternatively, if some notability guidelines for inclusion can be established, effectively setting a limit on the volume and kinds of "Hadith of.." articles (for example, Hadith of the Verse of Rajm is probably more notable and a better foundation for academic discussion than Hadith of the ship), then i'd prefer that avenue. ITAQALLAH 13:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From User:72.88.146.173

Wikipedia editors don't give much attention to anons who "speak." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.146.173 (talk • contribs)

Is my username User:Wikipedia editors? The real issue is, if you don't participate on the talk page, but only revert, people might assume you're somebody else trying to game 3RR by not signing in. You can help win an edit-war in the short term, but you can wind up discrediting the faction you support. By not joining talk, you stand no chance of convincing me of the merits of your point of view, but only make me wonder (rightly or wrongly) which editor is using your IP.Proabivouac 05:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq

please check out the Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq discussion reply to your edits --Leroy65X 18:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The anon

Thanks for your msg. The anon has not contributed anything since, so no action for now. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aminz' quotes

Please bring your quotes from modern academic scholars, not general comments please, in response to the many quotes I've provided here [9] from scholars of Islam. Thanks. These scholars of Islam have dedicated their life to closely study Islam. Their arguments is that Muhammad was deeply a religous person, that without honesty and such unshakable belief his extraordinary success wouldn't have happened, that his sincerety "alone makes credible the development of a great religion." You can agree or disagree, but in wikipedia, we are concerned with the question of what modern historians think. Please bring a source reflecting what historians think. If you are an historian of Islam, please let me know. --Aminz 11:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Arguments from these people would be more interesting than statements of their opinions. Arrow740 12:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, I find your section header vaguely offensive (thus I've changed it). Why don't you be a man and read the Muhammad article? If you do, you will find several of these opinions represented and duly cited to your sources. I have seen this pattern on several articles: somebody takes your lengthy POV quotes, which you typically dump at or near the top of any given section or article, summarizes them and moves them to a more appropriate place. Your typical reaction is to restore this material in full as if nothing had ever happened, ignoring all discussion of topicality, informational value and neutrality in favor of repeating, "It's sourced!"
Let us address the quotes from Lewis and Watt:
  • Lewis: "The modern historian will not readily believe that so great and significant a movement was started by a self-seeking imposter."
Lewis finds dubious the notion of Muhammad was a "self-seeking imposter." There is only one place on Muhammad where this view is presented, by Lewis himself, who is quoted as writing, "After the reformation, Muhammad was conceived as a cunning and self-seeking impostor," and it is clear that he is not endorsing this view. This is immediately followed by, "Such criticisms have become less common over the last two centuries," cited to Watt. I suppose we might cite the final sentence to Lewis as well as Watt. Would that make you happy?
  • Watt: "He believed that he could easily distinguish between his own thinking and these revelations. His sincerity in this belief must be accepted by the modern historian, for this alone makes credible the development of a great religion."
Your proposed language reads, "William Montgomery Watt says that the Modern historian must accept Muhammad's sincerity in his claim of receiving revelation." This substantially misrepresents Watt’s statement. Read carefully: "this belief" refers to the previous sentence, thus, Muhammad sincerely believed that "he could easily distinguish between his own thinking and these revelations."
And lo, what do we find on Muhammad?
"Muhammad was confident that he could distinguish his own thoughts from these messages," cited to Watt. If anything, this carelessly characterizes Watt's opinion as fact.Proabivouac 21:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, please see my reply to you on the Islam talk page. Let me also say the patterns I've observed: You do have clearly a POV, but pretend as if you don't have one. When you re-write the sentences, sometimes you consciously drop some points. To be more frank, you remove the end part of "Such criticisms have become less common over the last two centuries," that is "by many of the old prejudice still linger on" and then complain why it is reverted. I understand the reason behind it but when I see your insistence on adding the pictures of Muhammad, I see double standards. On the Islam talk page, among all those quotes, you picked Lewis because he is only addressing and refuting a weaker statement. But that is the closest quote I've found of him. Watt's position is clear: The messages didn't come from Muhammad's conscious mind: why? because he made a claim from the very beginning that he can distinughish between his words and the words revealed to him. Thus Watt says they were not from Muhammad's conscious mind. The point that Watt says that there are 3 options, not one was stressed. "Muhammad was confident that he could distinguish his own thoughts from these messages" is not exactly the same thing.

Having said all these, of course the stuff I've added were rewritten (and in many cases for better) and there has been instances that I have missed to see that, because I thought in that compression process a point was missed, but later understood that the point is actually there.

I am sorry if you find the header vaguely offensive, but I am still waiting for you to produce a source. --Aminz 00:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A source for what?Proabivouac 01:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A "late 20th onwards" historian of Islam who disagrees that Muhammad really thought of himself as God's instrument; that he was not a deceptor; that if in some respects he was mistaken, his mistakes were not due to deliberate lying or imposture. --Aminz 02:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is a "late 20th onwards historian of Islam" superior regarding this? I think it's time to dust off the Muir. Arrow740 04:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It is pointless to include Watt's opinion as he does not back it up with anything! The quotes from the Islam talk page are just baseless assertions. Arrow740 04:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and Modernity

A new development. Arrow740 11:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamist democracy

Another strange article. Arrow740 09:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam in China

Wikipedia operates a NPOV policy, if you carry on deleting the references and sourced demographics based on your ASSUMPTION that the figure is absurd, then it will be duely recorded as evidence of your repeated vandalism. 81.178.217.233 00:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It is you who are vandalizing Wikipedia by repeatedly inserting material which is unsourced and transparently false. Additionally, you've engaged in personal attacks. Feel free to "duly record" this if you like.Proabivouac 00:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pizza farm

I reviewed the references to the article Pizza farm. The concept is a strange one, but the references are verifiable. USA Today is a national newspaper in the United States, and HGTV is a television network. In short, the article does not appear to be a hoax. In light of this, would you consider changing your vote to Keep? --Eastmain 09:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The fact that someone's claims are covered in a newspaper doesn't make them accurate, and the only material I could find on google was either this same tiny handful of claims or mirrors of Wikipedia. Even if one or two sites do operate "pizza farms," it's not notable.Proabivouac 09:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Always?

Proabivouac, were you always removing the sourced material which you thought would bring POV to the articles? Or you were asking others to get their hands into finding reliable sources? Please let me know. --Aminz 10:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, do you want time to find sources? I tried to find more sources (which wasn't easy) making my position firm. I would be happy to see just one single quote from yours supporting your view. --Aminz 10:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"I tried to find more sources (which wasn't easy)"
Does that constitute an admission that you are desperately cherry-picking sources? It would seem that you approach the source policies as a sort of game. Don't misunderstand me; it is good that you use verifiable sources; perhaps this is why you're not often met with this particular criticism. That does not mean that you are well-advised to ignore the heap of other criticisms various editors have offered. Your evident aim to demonstrate that Muhammad was the last prophet of God is well and fine as your personal belief, but it is unacceptably tendentious to insert this view into mainspace, under any pretext. I am personally committed to ensuring that Wikipedia neither glorifies nor derides Muhammad on any of the articles in which I'm involved, and your edits are consistently falling on the wrong side of that. We are obliged to maintain a neutral tone, and you are either miserably failing or not trying.Proabivouac 10:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

So, you think that during my search, I have seen some quotes saying Muhammad was insincere and neglected them? I have never seen such a source, and this doesn't have anything to do with my beliefs. My belief is that the consensus of historians today is that Muhammad wasn't a deceptor. I believe in this statement and I also believe that the consensus of historians is that the Qur'an is not God's infallible words, not because I have seen it anywhere but because of they way they discuss the history of Islam. --Aminz 10:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to ask if you will revert my edits if I make them again. --Aminz 08:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"My belief is that the consensus of historians today is that Muhammad wasn't a deceptor." That's not what they say. Many of them say that we have to accept that he believed he was receiving visions, or that he believed he could distinguish between the visions and his own thoughts (though I'd like to see an argument for that), etc. What we need to realize is that if you believe something, telling it is not a lie. Muhammad gradually came to believe that he was chosen to be a prophet, so in his own mind this justified his actions and words as supported by God. I'm going to try to summarize Muir's view on this. Arrow740 11:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Beit Or/Rfc

I have started a draft RFC. Please take a look if you have anything to add. Beit Or 20:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I shall take a look, thank you. As you see, I've not been too active today, but off the top of my head, there are certainly some issues I'd like to address.Proabivouac 06:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in but have you guys raised the issues really nicely with him before going public on them? It sounds silly but it often does work going to a user and saying "listen, we want to work together but it would help us if you were a bit less aggressive in some of your edits". Not in blunt warning quoting policy, but as a personal approach. I can see quite a few signs of reasonableness with A and also some signs of distress at what he considers POV etc. Editors who care can often be brought round. Meanwhile I should butt out... --BozMo talk 14:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reply

What exactly would you want me to change about my signature? All of the links and color differentiations are important in order to signify the different links. Also, I don't know what you are referring to as "religious commentary". Do you mean the green heart? Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 23:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam

You might want to post your view here [10] for the editor who will be reviewing the case. --Aminz 23:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Sealed Nonsense

Could you weigh-in on that piece at Banu Qaynuqa? Arrow740 16:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please check your email, I sent you something they might call "trolling." Arrow740 23:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hello

you restored a sentence without providing an edit summary [11] so i'm not sure about the rationale for the change, i have provided the specific passage on talk and argued why the change i made was appropriate. i would invite you to restore the previous sentence. ITAQALLAH 07:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You are asked to explain yourself: [12] Arrow740 07:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

that's ok. could you please reinstate the previous sentence? ITAQALLAH 07:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, please read the thread of discussion on the talk page before removing the consensus on talk page. --Aminz 08:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What POV problem do you think the article has? Please explain it on the talk page (last section). --Aminz 08:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, why are you removing my edits. Why Islam can not have a subsection on Islamic ethics? why? --Aminz 09:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, it is disruption to remove the section unilaterally. Please discuss it on the talk page. I am using an academic source. Encyclopedia of Ethics. --Aminz 09:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, let me be more frank. I have spent at least 3 hours on this. I am using a reliable source. I get disturbed to see my edits are unilaterally removed. --Aminz 10:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me be frank: stop inserting your religious convictions into mainspace, under any excuse, including appeals to source policies. Please desist, and reflect upon what we should rightly be trying to accomplish here.Proabivouac 10:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am only inserting Islamic view of ethics. An academic topic and an important one. That's it. And through this process I am learning myself. --Aminz 10:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You might only like to learn from sources with a bias but the general public should not be forced to. If you cannot also find a source which discusses the deficiencies of Islamic ethics (which are plain to see) then that section must be cut. Arrow740 20:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr

You have made 3rr's on Islam. --Aminz 10:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

So have you. Although, unlike me, you may find someone to blind revert for you. Your section is plainly ridiculous on too many levels to fully analyze here. Apart from the more general objections, I found this unsourced claim especially rich: "The notion that the supreme goal of a life from performance of the deeds that would make next generations remember it was replaced the notion of "returning to God" as the supreme goal of life..." which I suppose is precisely why Muslims don't waste too much time recounting the deeds of Muhammad and his companions?Proabivouac 10:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not unsourced. That shows the depth of your evluations. I suggest you submit your complains to Encyclopedia of Ethics instead of me. Thank you. --Aminz 10:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV edits and deletions

This is a formal warning regarding your systematic bias and POV pushing re your deletions of sourced material. Please behave and stop your personnal attacks on muslims as you did above. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 10:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have restored tendentious junk to Wikipedia.[13]Proabivouac 10:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do not use ironic statements and enhance the content instead of revertinge dits massively. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 10:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
"Formal warning?" FayssalF, I ask you to substantiate your otherwise vacuous allegation of "personal attacks on Muslims." It sounds rather like a threat to abuse your "mop."
Similarly, "POV pushing" - might you point to any edit of mine which advanced a POV?Proabivouac 10:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
which I suppose is precisely why Muslims don't waste too much time recounting the deeds of Muhammad and his companions? is an inflamatory and unnecessary comment to respond and to attack one of contributors. Deleting sourced content that you don't agree w/ just and saying that it is unsourced in your edit summary is considered vandalism. Actually your POV edits are all revert warring or random tagging like this. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 11:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


FayssalF, your threats do not impress me. It is a fact that you've the tools to block, but you've no basis to do so. The only result of this exchange has been, besides the fact that you've just restored tendentious junk to mainspace (has it crossed your mind, incidentally, that you may not both involve yourself in a content dispute and also issue a "formal warning"? p.s. getting a friend to do it doesn't change that), that I have lost some measure of respect I'd had for you as a erstwhile reasonable editor. You ought to know better.Proabivouac 11:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Note that i am not the one who would block your account if you persist in your POV pushing, personal attacks and tendious editing. Note also that what you call junk (which is you personal view) which you removed is sourced and encyclopaedic respecting wikipedia policies and guidelines. Restoring and fixing that junk doesn't mean i am into a content dispute. Please behave and assume good faith. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 11:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Pretty weak, Fayssal F. "An essay is an essay; it is neither "POV" nor "random" to observe this. Whereas if we were to compile a list of Aminz' POV edits, it would span many pages. So are you going to block me for tagging an essay as an essay? Do me the favor, at least, of allowing me to discuss this with you on WP:ANI before it happens, shall you? Something tells me your proposed block cannot survive the light of day.
"...saying that it is unsourced in your edit summaryis considered vandalism."
That's a joke if I've ever heard one. Good faith edits aren't vandalism, period. My tendentious editting? The essay tag, is that the best you've got? FayssalF, I have no tendentious editting, as you have just proved.
"Note also that what you call junk (which is you personal view) which you removed is sourced and encyclopaedic respecting wikipedia policies and guidelines."
At least the second half of it appears to be wholly unsourced, as you'd be aware had you read it before reverting.
"Note that i am not the one who would block your account if you persist in your POV pushing..."
Well, who would be, except someone you asked (by e-mail, IRC, etc.)? It's not as if there is some wildfire grass roots sentiment against Proabivouac. Yours is the first such threat I've heard, so if some random admin were to come around and do it, there'd be little doubt as to who would be behind it.
"Restoring and fixing that junk doesn't mean i am into a content dispute."
LOL!Proabivouac 11:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It is all sourced to Encyclopedia of Ethics. The sentence right before the five points ends with *:* and there you can see it is sourced. --Aminz 11:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, if I wanted to see you blocked, I could done that from the very beginning you know ;) --Aminz 12:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, I prefer to send you an email. You might not know the policy I am refering to. I didn't contact FayssalF in anyway. He himself observed the situation. That I assure you. --Aminz 12:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Proabivouac, you are going too far. In my view he was quite right. Thanks him. --Aminz 12:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course he is right, he blindly reverted to your POV screed. You and I can agree on this much: whoever reverts to our POV screeds and threatens to block whoever challenges it is right. Of course, I have no POV screeds...but, you know, if I did...Proabivouac 12:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, I need to get some sleep as you probably do. In case you could stop by some library, please check out the article I was summerizing. That might change your views of POV. --Aminz 12:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, I said what I was sure to be right. --Aminz 23:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Proabivouac. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 14:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF has presented plenty of false and misleading "evidence" in that RfC, and I intent to make some comments on that unless he removes it. See my comment on his talk page, where I pointed out just one of the more grave and clear examples. Frankly, I feel quite upset by such attempts to mislead me and other readers of that RfC. It's really sad and also pretty revolting to witness that kind of behavior from someone that the community has invested some degree of trust in, by making him an administrator. -- Karl Meier 20:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I have pointed out more examples of Islam glorification and Jews-bashing that you removed from Wikipedia. Beit Or 20:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
He's open to recall, so let's recall him. Arrow740 21:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. Now, how do we do that and what are the requirements? -- Karl Meier 21:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I think Proabivouac has posted to a couple admin pages. We'll see what he says. I don't know anything about it. I know this admin has abused his power with me before. Arrow740 21:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, it was never my intention to see any RfC filed against you. But your comments like "Alright, I accept that he's made an ass of himself on his own; shame on him", "Scratch that, thanks to a revert and some unseemly bullying from User:FayssalF on your behalf, you can do that. Shame about the encyclopedia" and also your direct accusations on the two admins page, was among reasons we see this RfC filed. It is something which you started, and it will inevitably get tense. At this moment, I will be telling whatever I think is true. That's the way I have always at least tried to be. --Aminz 07:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, if those posts are indeed the basis for the dispute, how is it that Fayssal's purported "attempt to resolve the dispute" predates them? Strange that you claim to have had no hand in this RfC-as-harassment, yet are confident in representing the reasons why it was done. If you are correct, then FayssalF's "attempt to resolve the dispute" is consciously fraudulent, so if you will be "telling whatever [you] think is true," you might start there.
"Unseemly bullying?" You bet.Proabivouac 08:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do not misinterpret me. These are not the basis for the dispute but an explanation of myself. --Aminz 08:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Muhammad/Mediation

Just to notify that mediation has renewed at the Muhammad article, after a delay due to Ars Scriptor's leaving, in case you still wanted to participate. I'll be the mediator, but I may call in help from someone more experienced later. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 13:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indent

Dear Pro, Aminz has pointed out to me that what I criticized in his posting, the messing up of the indent, was done by you first. Now, I don't care who did it first but for the sake of fairness and better readability I would like to ask you to be more careful. If you have no idea what I am talking about, please read Aminz' talk page, where I have explained the problem at great length. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 11:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. This habit was only acquired due to spiralling "dogfights" that terminated in lines with only a few words each. On occasiona these were subsequently refactored to have no indents at all. What we really need is a shorter tab (:).Proabivouac 11:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False evidence

FayssaIF, why do you present basically false and misleading "evidence" to the readers of the RfC regarding Proabivouac? One example is this diff: [14] which you in the RfC present to the community with the words "Misleading edit summaries using the term "moving" while the action was "removing" sourced material.". I find it pretty hard to assume good faith and believe that you don't knew about the next edit Proabivouac made three minutes after, readding the quote in a new place on that article? There was nothing misleading about his edit summary, and I think you know that. Now why don't you do the right thing and remove the false evidence and strange "evidence" that you have included in that RfC, and apologize about this to the readers there? -- Karl Meier 19:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF, why have you not answered Karl's inquiry? Have you no regrets at all for having misrepresented the evidence (knowingly or not)? I am quite certain that, had I done this, I'd have stricken (not deleted) the contested comments. How many endorsements of your summary were based upon uncritical acceptance of your veracity? It is one thing to have made a mistake; it is quite another to refuse to admit it, even when you are aware that you've unjustly stained another's reputation.Proabivouac 10:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I've just seen the message Proabivouac. I've stricken that at the RfC and explained that at its talk page. My apologies for that. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 11:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Appreciated, but please strike the diff at issue. I would never lie in an edit summary.Proabivouac 11:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Welcome. I see it now. Fixed. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 12:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and Slavery

If you have a couple minutes please see what's going on over there. There are a few issues in contention. Arrow740 02:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TSN

i relocated my comments here as i didn't want to clog up the article talk page.

i do understand where you're coming from. does the work advocate a certain view? yes. that cannot be the sole reason why we relegate it to a lower status, as we know that every scholar has their own view which they project in their work. the distinction you may make at this point is that western academics adopt a more "secular" approach, in that their personal convictions do not affect their scholarly analysis. that's a legitimate point. however, i question the claim that the views of the author have impacted upon the historical veracity of the work. of course, there will be some episodes he considers factual whilst some other may not consider it so. and of course, we cannot forget that it is from the Muslim point of view. does that mean we cannot use the source? no, it just means we should employ attribution. the Muslim account of Muhammad's life deserves a significant role in any article about Muhammad. i think we're agreed upon the point that we may use it along with relevant attribution. i would also request that it be utilized in areas where POV does not come into play. that is, facts, figures, and the like. Battle of Uhud, this date. Battle of Khaybar, that date. Treaty of Hudaybiyya, happened here, on such and such date. this kind of stuff is agreed upon. one of the reasons for requesting that is simply the fact that TSN is a widely available resource, and for some it is the easiest available. this is an appropriate approach IMO; and it is what i interpret from WP:RS and its directive on 'religious/partisan' sources, though i haven't yet ascertained if it correctly fits in that category.

one of the reasons for that (and i am going off at a tangent here) is that we must address the wider issue of Muslim/Islamic scholarship. this is something not covered on WP and very poorly on metawiki. it isn't like Muslim scholarship is bereft of scientific approach, it has been in the business of historical verification for centuries. analysis, corroboration and conciliation of varying reports upon which they build narratives. take for example al-Muqaddimah of the geographer and historian Ibn Khaldun. or the magna opera of Ibn Asakir, Ibn as-Subki, Ibn Kathir etc upon which academic historians still place heavy reliance. and it's not like such a scholarly discipline is now extinct, there are plenty of scholars today practicing these same sciences and disciplines. to dismiss it or to disparage it amounts to an affront to Islamic scholarship. i don't believe wikipedia subscribes to western-centrism. sure, wikimedia is what you'd call "secular," in that there is no religious governance. however, as an encyclopedia it should surely recognise and appreciate scholarship of all colours. maybe i'll talk about this more some other time. the pressing issue pertains to the use of the sealed nectar. ITAQALLAH 14:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This kind of message is really appreciated. I shall think about all this a bit more.Proabivouac 01:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmf. Arrow740 05:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Arrow740, I don't agree with everything Itaqallah is saying, but the conversation is becoming both more civil and more honest.Proabivouac 01:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm waiting to see what you guys end up agreeing to, if anything. You have both examined that work more closely than I. Arrow740 07:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Accepting" christianity and judaism as monotheism

Can you explain with rational arguments to a non-Islamic crowd how this statement is necessary? I don't see in Christianity stating anywhere "Christians think that Mohammed was never a profit of any sort" or anything similar. For the obvious reasons, what one religion believes for the other is not to be examined at such an oversimplified level. Saying something along those lines: "Islam, like christianity and judaism, is a monotheist religion", is comptely different to "The Islamic faith accepts (or distinguishes) Christianity and Judaism as monotheist religions", a blatantly muslim POV which underestimates the intelligence of non-muslim readers. Miskin 01:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Because the development of Christianity predates Muhammad, he plays no role in its doctrine. The better analogy is between Christianity and Judaism - it is impossible to explain Christian belief without reference to Judaism. Similarly, here. If you think Islam presumptious in this regard, it's not the fault of the article.Proabivouac 01:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe "considering" would be better than accepting. --Aminz 06:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anon

What is his account? Probably one of the last two banned? Arrow740 05:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

He's wikistalking me, please see Criticism of the Quran too. Arrow740 05:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please

don't make sweeping wholesale removal of sourced material again. You just removed sourced material from Encyclopedia of Islam, Patrica Crone, Encyclopedia of the Qur'an. --Aminz 05:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, please do not remove section-POV tags without discussion. --Aminz 05:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Anon, when not engaged in anti-Jewish trolling, is reverting across a number of articles. I will revert him until he begins to engage in discussion. It's not right that content is determined by his behavior. There seems to be a growing number of this type of user. If you wish to revert, by all means do so. I have no opinion on the content at this point, only about anon's behavior which must not be rewarded.Proabivouac 05:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think blindly reverting him is the proper way. You might want to ask some admin for help. One thing, if he reverts something, at least he has a reson to believe it is better, and in the minimum I expect you to have some content reason when you revert him. Just reverting, I don't think, would be a good response. At least, please don't do it to me. Please.--Aminz 06:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert you. Re anon, what is a good response?Proabivouac 06:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I dunno. You might want to ask some experienced admin. If you can identify the user based on his/her edits, and if you know that the user is banned, you can go for check user. Otherwise, you can ask about it. --Aminz 06:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW, do you have hard evidence that the user is anti-Jewish antisemitic? --Aminz 06:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've asked an admin, I hope he'll advise me on how to proceed tomorrow. Arrow740 06:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I know you're busy but I need your opinion on that possible eventuality you mentioned. Arrow740 08:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apostasy in Islam

Can you please have a look at [15] and help us towards writing the apostasy section in the criticism of the Qur'an. Thanks --Aminz 01:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be glad to do so in a bit. Have you found the author of the Encyclopedia of ethics material? If so, we can add that to Islam.Proabivouac 01:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I was pissed off by Arrow's aggressive comment [16].
I'll find the author (the library is close now, but will find it very soon). I had just a few points , I need to run now but we can discuss it tonight. Cheers, --Aminz 01:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
It is an aggressive comment, but who am I to talk? I agree with his assessment; however, I believe my rewrite on talk RfC fixes these problems. It's a matter of keeping it brief and emotionally detached. To write about something as if it's a good or bad thing is natural, but violates WP:NPOV. It's not quite obvious that it's a moral improvement to replace loyalty to family with loyalty to religion, or that tradition should be changed according to Muhammad's autocratic pronouncements, and I found myself having to keep my own language restrained to avoid making my misgivings clear. If one can discern the feelings of the writer towards the material being discussed, we've failed. Though you're hardly the only offender, I believe your own contributions consistently fail this test. Recognizing and addressing this problem will make it much more likely that your material will be accepted.Proabivouac 02:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
See, I haven't paid anything to the author to write the article in that way. My sentences are at least faithful to the article if not proper for our encyclopedia. I don't think this can ever justify aggressive comments, or outright removal of the text. Sure, the text was in bad english but it wasn't rubbish or junk. That's incivility.
"Islam aims to mandate good and forbid evil, as they are defined by the Qur’an and Sunna, in all aspects of life" well, actually that is not the root. If someone does good and forbids evil but yet is a polytheist his works are ruined. Submission to God is the centeral theme and the direction one should move. Islamic ethics, the article says, should be understood in the sense of a community which is there to accomplish the mission of submission to God's will. Bidding good and forbidding evil is only meaningful in this context.
And your summary of the five reforms are sometimes ambigious and not exactly to the point made by the source. --Aminz 02:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, Allah -> God per the manual. --Aminz 02:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the key to resolving this conflict and to others you've had on Islam-related articles - and this may already be happening - is for you to realize that there may be good reasons (in many cases, at least) why others are objecting to your edits, and to address those problems directly. Example, if someone is saying you're edits are biased, don't come back and point out that they're sourced - how can you convince anyone if you don't address their objections directly? As you correctly observe, the fact that a source has a bias doesn't mean that we have to reproduce that bias in our writing.
"Islamic ethics, the article says, should be understood in the sense of a community which is there to accomplish the mission of submission to God's will."
I still don't understand what this is intended to impart.
"Submission to God is the centeral theme and the direction one should move."
Don't you think the article has already made that entirely clear?
In my rewrite, what are you saying is ambiguous or unfaithful to the source? Keep in mind that we don't have to capture every nuance; in fact we can't, or we will violate undue weight.Proabivouac 07:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Please abstractly define "bias" for me through an objective statement. One definition which is not probably the one you mean is that scholars disagree on some point. Scholar X says A, Scholar Y says B and A~=B. I want to have an abstract & consistent definition of bias. --Aminz 08:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
If you want one, I encourage you to develop one, for yours would be the first.Proabivouac 08:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I am serious. When I add anything that some editors don't like, they say it is biased. For example, I doubt that any knowledgable person disputes that Muhammad was a reformer. But some editors consider it biased. Well, to me it is not. --Aminz 08:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Even it is not clear how we should look at Muhammad. Claude Cahen and Jean Sauvaget (the great Claude Cahen), in the book: "Introduction to the History of the Muslim East: A Bibliographical Guide" writes :"Needless to say, whether one subscribes to the Muslim faith or not, one should study the life of Muhammad with the sympathy due all great and sincere ... " but I couldn't read "..." in book.google.com. Is Cahen biased? It is not clear since he has an argument for his approach. Really arguing that something is biased is really hard. Without any detailed analysis, I see the word as a rather negative cheap term to dismiss other views. --Aminz 08:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey BTW, Cahen, to you, should be utterly biased because he is using the words "great" and "sincere"... --Aminz 09:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The article in Encyclopedia of Ethic is written by [17] (the sermon writer you were refering to). Cheers, --Aminz 02:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Countries you don't like

I am keeping my own Views regrading these countires.Sorry to say i would not my page on ur request.anyways thanks for comments.

Khalidkhoso 09:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


"Khalidkhoso, I ask you one more time to remove this provocative material" ?.There some coutriz count HizBullah as Terrorist but some do not(that means they are not),i think every one does not have to agree with ur studiez. i am waiting for it.i think i am right and i would not remove Flag,2nd thing you are threating me now.i will ask admin take action aganist You for threating me. here r more user who are same point as me (User:Szhaider)

Khalidkhoso 09:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bring User:Szhaider's page to my attention. It is even worse, in that he names still more countries. I shall attempt to resolve this with him.Proabivouac 09:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

2nd thing i am not attacking any country.i am wiring what countriez are

Khalidkhoso 09:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC) c history of my page ,u will find Pakistan in it(due some iusse i could not keep it for long time)

HAHA Proabivouac!!! IRAN is not in Szhaider's list :P --Aminz 09:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that makes it all okay.Proabivouac 09:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
No. But still Iran is more popular :) I am of course not serious. I am not in the mood of being serious tonight. --Aminz 09:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

still not done.check this out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Expatkiwi.

sorry to say Aminz ur country is in list.check it out

Khalidkhoso 09:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, User:Expatkiwi seems to be on the other side. That user comes from California. I can see what Iran is going through! :) --Aminz 09:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
No, he's from New Zealand. We've got to put a stop to this. Any users you can identify who are doing this, please let me know. Ideally, I would like to bring this up as a matter of policy, rather than of individual conduct. Otherwise, we are looking at several user RfCs, which I'm happy to open based on these diffs alone, if they decline to take them down, and if you'll join in certifying. The very worst that can happen is that a whole bunch of people disagree and we've taken a noble stand on principle - princple which others will come to respect and accept in due time.Proabivouac 09:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I stated my view on Khalid's talk page. --Aminz 09:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just have Glance on this(many other topics in wikipedia) http://www.intifada.com/

Khalidkhoso 09:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Proa, please do not remove RfC's without discussion on the talk page. Thanks --Aminz 10:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)