User talk:Aminz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aminz is busy in real life and doesn't respond swiftly to queries.

Contents 1 Archives 2 Beware 3 Sincerity 4 Reported for 4 reverts 5 Wow, nice! 6 Slaves 7 Xango 8 Christianity (Nicene Creed) 9 Geert Wilders 10 DYK 11 Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion_.28untainted.29 12 The aspiring meat-puppet 13 Poll on every little issue 14 Islam and slavery 15 Qur'an 16 Khaybar 17 Jihad 18 The Prophet 19 Source needed 20 Mediation at Talk:Reforms under Islam (610-661) 21 Islam and antisemitism 22 nuclear energy at home [4] 23 Censorship 24 Antisemitism controversy 25 Tolerence 26 why we can not understand each other 27 Islam and slavery 28 Shia Islam 29 WP:3RR 30 Villify, Fable 31 BLP, Martin Gilbert 32 Credentials 33 Your GA nomination of Isaac 34 Agreed, as long as it isn't on Wikipedia 35 Muhammad-Barnabas entry 36 Hi 37 Safiyah 38 Favour 39 Islam and slavery lead 40 Afd: Garry Miller (Abdul Ahad Omar), please vote 41 Not logged in 42 However 43 RfA 44 Rajul 45 Islamic thought 46 Arab slave trade‎ 47 300 Edits 48 Fiqh 49 Thanks for the note 50 Grievances 51 New Article 52 Your note 53 License tagging for Image:Officer1.jpg 54 300 Edits 55 300 56 idem 57 Archiving 58 Culture 59 Tolerance 60 3RR 61 Criticism of Islam 62 Happy Easter 63 David York

[edit] Archives

/Archive 1

/Archive 2

/Archive 3

/Archive 4

/Archive 5

/Archive 6

/Archive 7

[edit] Beware

I see you're really active. But please keep in mind the WP:3rr. There are users also watching you, who want to see you blocked.Bless sins 03:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I filed an RfC on Martin Gilbert‎. --Aminz 04:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sincerity

Last I checked, there seemed to be a consensus that some appropriately-restrained version of the "sincerity" issue can be included in the Muhammad article. If we can keep this brief and non-devotional in character and stick closely to the point, without gratuitous POV quotes ("great religion"), the material will probably stick. There does seem to be broad agreement that Muhammad did believe himself to be receiving messages from the beyond; the question of whether this was true of every revelation can be avoided.Proabivouac 21:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As Muhammad is no longer protected, now would be a good time to add the sincerity material. I would suggest, "Contemporary scholars assume Muhammad to have been sincere in his belief that he was receiving divine revelations," followed by your cites to Watt, Lewis, Schimmel and whoever else has said this.Proabivouac 01:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reported for 4 reverts

[1]. Arrow740 07:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In your frustration you have revert warred and are now threatening to report me. Maybe you should just try to edit in a calm, reasonable manner like I do. Arrow740 07:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

So are you threatening me, or what? You are the one who never listens to consensus on any page. Arrow740 07:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that Beit Or did what no one else in this space was able or willing to do: ground the discussion in history.Proabivouac 09:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow, nice!

Thanks Aminz! I hate it when companies try to use WP to sell things. It's nice of you to help. Zora 10:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slaves

Did you see my question for you on Proabivouac's page? Arrow740 11:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xango

I know you just want WP to be better but the revert you did was to an older version that several people agreed was not neutral. Zora has beg\haved in a very dishonest, fashion as she hates MLM and has done her best to make that an anti-xango site. Just go through the history and you will see what I mean. She is engaging in POV pushing.Jspugh 05:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity (Nicene Creed)

I noticed you took part in the straw poll. Please visit the talk page to engage in the discussion, so we may build consensus. Vassyana 00:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geert Wilders

Please see the section I added on racism. I think anti-Muslim racism has not been properly covered in wikipedia. There is no category for Islamophobes. Sangak 10:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Also see Ben Bot. I am surprised to see such statements comming from Netherlands! Sangak 11:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 18 February 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mukataba, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion_.28untainted.29

You voiced your opinion in the original straw poll which has caused some confusion. Please do the same in a new version, Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion_.28untainted.29, which should be clear and allow us to better assess consensus. gren グレン 22:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you aminz.your idea of including the jewish pre-islamic belief doesn't sound like a bad idea at all.the reason why i want to include the gospel of st barnabas is because he is still looked at with respect from christians and he still has followers.i don't see any reason why he shouldn't be included.Wjhonson clarified my point.please help me with any tips on how to include my entry as well as include yours.thank you Grandia01

[edit] The aspiring meat-puppet

It really wasn't me. And if you're going to add to that page please read my responses to these spurious claims first. Thank you. Arrow740 23:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Among the candidates, "Arrow740,Beit Or, Hypnosadist, Karl Meier, Merzbow, Proabivouac, Sefringle, Str1977", it is certainly not "Beit Or, Hypnosadist, Merzbow, Proabivouac, Str1977, Sefringle". It is not " Karl Meier" because he is not much active. Further, I can see all the evidences pointing to you. --Aminz 00:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

i would be willing to consider this claim of innocence did i not think that it crumbled in the face of the rather obvious postings on FFI, or that your counter-accusation was anything more than a good old fashioned diversionary tactic, or that you simply refused to address the evidences head-on without falling into non-sequitur. ITAQALLAH 00:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poll on every little issue

Please sign if any of these things applies to your understanding of this issue. Please put you name under all of the options you think would be acceptable. You can sign all or none of these, I'm hoping this will give us a more-fine grained understanding of the issue. [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Futurebird (talk • contribs) 21:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Islam and slavery

I have posted some info, that may be of use to youUser:Bless_sins/notes#Islam_and_slavery.Bless sins 18:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qur'an

Salam alaykum.

I compare the current version of Qur'an article whith the last version I 've edited on November 9. I found that some parts are defected. They become biased, incomplete or weaker. What's the reason.--Sa.vakilian 10:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Khaybar

On Beit Or 11:50, 12 February, Beit Or said that Watt believes that Muhammad attacked Khaybar to raise prestige amongst his followers, and quoted the following:

"Perhaps it was on the way back from the pilgrimage manqué that the idea occurred to Muhammad of attacking the rich Jewish oasis of Khaybar. The Muslims were disappointed at the apparent fruitlessness of their expedition to al-Hudaybiyah, and it was only natural for an Arab like Muhammad to feel that virtue should not be allowed to go unrewarded. So when he set out for Khaybar some six weeks after his return from Mecca, he allowed only those who had made the Pledge under the Tree to accompany him."

However, read the next paragraph: "Even if this was one of the points in Muhammad's mind, there were also weighty military reasons for the expedition. The Jews of Khaybar, especially the leaders of the clan an-Nadir exiled from Medina, were still incensed at Muhammad. They made lavish, though no doubt judicious, of thier wealth to induce the neighbouring Arabs to take up arms against the Muslims. This was a straightforawrd reason for attacking Khaybar."

Note Watt's language. He uses the words "perhaps", and "it was only natural" to describe the first reason. And then, Watt uses "weighty military reasons" to describe the second reason and say that "This was a straightforawrd reason for attacking Khaybar". Clearly Watt favors the second reason over the first.Bless sins 20:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So what? That doesn't make Watt not agree with the one reason, any more than Vaglieri doesn't agree with Watt. In both cases the reasons aren't really contradictory - something you see clearly in one instance, but apparently not here. Even Haykal comes close to stating this, as the Qur'an itself presents the booty of Khaybar as a reward for his loyal followers who got nothing from Hudaybiyah, stating that they should not accept aid from anyone else, lest they have to share the rewards. It's a mere matter of emphasis, a nuance we don't have to capture.Proabivouac 06:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jihad

Hi, I think you are Muslim. You input is desire at Jihad article talk page. Thanks. --- SAndT^{Lets Talk} 17:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Prophet

I have put a template on Hojimachong's talk as to how we should resolve the dispute. Please leave a comment regarding this on my talk page.Bless sins 20:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source needed

Please provide a full source for this [3], i.e. name of author, publisher, date published etc. Jazak Allah.Bless sins 04:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation at Talk:Reforms under Islam (610-661)

Mediation was requested a while ago, and Ive responded. None involved in mediation has responded however. I am requesting your presence at the article to resolve any disputes. Thanks. -Ste|vertigo 01:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and antisemitism

I'm not sure what the problem is. I have read some about the differences between European antisemitism and its important into the Arab world. I'm not fully sure they said only through Christian Arabs... but, I don't know what's going on with that page. gren グレン 11:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think most scholars agree that Jews were treated or ill-treated like Christians in the classical times. Therefore antisemitism(as it is defined) doesn't have a root in the Qur'an. But the section starts with a section on the Qur'an making the impression that most scholars agree that the Qur'an and example of Muhmmad were antisemitic. That's what I percieve as the problem. --Aminz 11:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Look what he did to the Jews and what it says in the Quran how can you say he wasn't? I'm not talking about his "justifications" for his views, I'm just talking about his views from Medina on. Arrow740 21:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Tricky call isn't it. I guess this turns on whether we judge anti-semitism by the standards of the time or by our standards? The same question I guess is open about whether the Bible or Qur'an oppress women? Personally (at the risk of upsetting both of you) I would be inclined to include reference to this question in the article? --BozMo talk 09:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism has a narrow definition. Mark Cohen states:"most scholars concede that Arab anti-Semitism in the modern world arose relatively recently, in the nineteenth century, against the backdrop of conflicting Jewish and Arab nationalism, and was imported into the Arab world primarily by nationalistically minded Christian Arabs (and only subsequently was it "Islamized")" --Aminz 10:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's one person's view. Arrow740 16:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] nuclear energy at home [4]

Just wish to say that I really liked it. It is good to hear him in Farshi and I can understand some of it too. He looks very innocient person when talking Farshi. Kudari.. -:) --- ALM 03:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking that out. In the video, he does look innocent but also striking foolish unfortunately. --Aminz 10:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A tour with Zakir Naik may be in order.Proabivouac 00:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My question is, does he know this to be false, or has he been misled by an advisor?Proabivouac 07:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I really have no idea. He is probably talking in some obscure mosque in an obscure city to audiences who would believe in these. --Aminz 07:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

Why have you removed the picture from the top in the Mohamed article? Please explain. TharkunColl 00:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not see that Aminz has removed anything; he has only restored the image which was there before. I agree with you that it is not particularly notable; however this is a minor point in the scheme of the overall debate. It is certainly better than the uncredited clipart that it replaced.Proabivouac 00:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antisemitism controversy

I may look into this in the next few days. I still have a backlog of things to do on the NAS page, though. CJCurrie 03:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tolerence

Dear Aminz, in reference to the dhimmi article I believe that the Tolerence section should go, but that much of the information contained in can be retained in the article. I think that keeping things in context can be importaint, but having a seperate section looks like we are appologizing for what was done in the past. It seemed to me that the original section was saying "Yes, islam did this, but look at what others did." The argument is unnecissary in my mind because we have no need or business appologizing for what people did hundreds of years ago and that a simular case could be made for just about any other historical event.

If it is any consolidation, I feel that the information contained in the article is correct. However, I just don't think it fits well in the article.

If one wished to defend the honor if Islam, there are better edits that can be fought over. For instance, I know that in the middle period of the ottoman period, christians would actually bribe officials to take their children to be jannisarries (although I could not cite it.) Also, dhimmi status did not prevent minority religions from competing and even prospering in society. No european nation could say the same. However, if this info is to be added citations must be found.

Thank You.--67.175.242.13 06:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this edit summary, please don't be dense. My edit summary made my thinking clear. Arrow740 07:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your meatpuppetry, I'll just have to respond in kind. Arrow740 09:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There are good scholarly references for the fact that Christian and Jewish communities prospered in the later Ottoman period. Let me know if there is somewhere you think this is relevant and I will give you the titles. Itsmejudith 22:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why we can not understand each other

You wrote: "I don't know why we can not understand each other." I think I do understand your position, but sorry, I do not consider it valid. "Qur’anic positions often reflect disputes between Jewish groups." - so what, Christianity did exactly the same. Jesus, the apostles, gospel writers etc. all were Jewish and criticized other Jews (it is a national sport). Later on, these polemics were picked up by the Christians and we all know what followed. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Not all no. What happenened? --BozMo talk 15:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, I wouldn't worry too much about what it included in anti-semitism if I were you: it is only a word. There is a balance between the narrowness/power/usefulness of a "portfolio" concept like this and the extent to which it is diluted and undermined. These days here quite often even Jews are described as "anti-semitic" and the currency is (sadly) steadily being devalued. If all sorts of bits of history are thrown in (a lot more is available) then it turns into a PC concept rather than a really serious matter: a shame but not worth playing King Canute for. --BozMo talk 14:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

History of antisemitism shows that it is not "only a word" or merely "a PC concept". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Proof by Wikipedia :). I guess all words equally are or are not "only a word", and I respect that fact that this word is something that you obviously care about rather more than I do. At the same time, it is obviously possible to understand human history pretty well with or without the interpretative concept of "anti-semitism", as with many interpretative concepts (as for "Acts of God" for example). Whether it is useful in giving some people insight or identity depends on with how much respect the term is treated. These days the term is devaluing every time anyone tries to extract value from it for other ends. Whether it is devaluing from a Swiss Franc from a Zloty depends on for whom but the people who over-use it politically clearly are those for whom its value is very high. --BozMo talk 09:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Just to add I have had a look at History of antisemitism: what strikes me as most extraordinary is not so much that the Jewish people have been persecuted from time to time but that alone amongst 6000 year old ethnic-based religions from the middle east (of which there were many) Judaism has survived. Perhaps celebration of this element of Jewish history should be expressed more? --BozMo talk 10:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit busy now but will continue this soon. --Aminz 09:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem: sorry to continue chatting on your page... --BozMo talk 10:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely Jewish history, Jewish culture and Jewish religion are not defined by antisemitism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we agree on that. What I still don't know is how remarkable or surprising (or actually how important) antisemitism is in the context of Jewish history. There are lots of groups of people I can think of who sometimes define themselves in terms of oppression and victimisation and sometimes don't: the scots or welsh or Irish for example. Despite the article you suggested I cannot really see whether the Holocaust was a nasty anomaly (in the context of Jews being treated only as badly as other similar groups) or a quitessence of something more pervasive. Realistically people who were born a decade after WW2 now have grandchildren and defining AS in the context of the future seems increasingly important to me than the past. --BozMo talk 09:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and slavery

Perhaps you could get the ball rolling by nominating a version to revert to. Or has it been reverted to that already? regards Merbabu 00:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shia Islam

Salam alaykum. Please check my editions in this article.--Sa.vakilian 12:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

FYI: this edit was made in error --ProtectWomen 06:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Villify, Fable

Aminz, I recommend that you readd those words to Muhammad but in a "quote" style or otherwise provide some sort of an immediately verifiable reference. Cheers. (→Netscott) 14:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, I've just reverted your last edit to Muhammad. The way you introduced that text wasn't neutral. If you reintroduce that text would you kindly do so in a quote style? The way you entered just now wasn't neutral. Thanks. (→Netscott) 05:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Scott, I provided the quote was provided on your talk page. --Aminz 07:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP, Martin Gilbert

Salam (peace), A while ago we were involved in a dispute over Martin Gilbert where Jayjg removed criticism of the author saying that if there were no positive things thus there should be no negative things either. nOw, please take a look at Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais. The article is overwhelmed by the criticism of the man. What do you think should be done with this article?Bless sins 03:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Credentials

I don't know what to make of this edit.[5] Aaliyah has a doctorate in philosophy of religion, specializing in Kalam, with emphases also in Arabic and Islamic jurisprudence. That is a very big deal for this space, and I'd like to verify it. I don't understand why Arrow740 popped up and started talking about Taqiyya, and now I don't understand why you're going on about Madhabs and not sharing personal information with Arrow740. It's completely random. I'd just like to verify her credentials without her having to post information on Wikipedia. Arrow740 has nothing to do with this. If she (or you) doesn't trust me, fine, there are other trustworthy people who I'm sure would be willing to help. Unless you, like Arrow740, are determined to assume that there is something fishy about her story (and I don't see why you would,) there's nothing to get frantic about.Proabivouac 04:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to be proven wrong, and more generally I won't post my analysis of her userpage in the future. Arrow740 05:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about what sort of information Aaliyah wants to publish. Also, it is important to note that she was actively asked to provide more information about her (saying she is just a teacher is not a big deal). Anyways, it is none of my business. All I know is that she doesn't have to do it according to the policies, and if I were her, I wouldn't have done it given the special interest Arrow had to know this (which is suspicous to me). Having degrees in any subject is not important in wikipedia. What we need for any claim to be proven is sourced material. --Aminz 09:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"given the special interest Arrow had to know this" what are you talking about? Arrow740 10:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your GA nomination of Isaac

The article Isaac you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Isaac for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Good work.Proabivouac 01:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks --Aminz 04:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agreed, as long as it isn't on Wikipedia

We can do email, instant message, or whatever with which you can come up. I look forward to it. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 06:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please check your gmail. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 05:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, it says you're offline. I would like to use gmail chat to speak with you some time. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 05:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad-Barnabas entry

hi again,i'm still waiting of your would-be entry of the jewish expectation of the coming prophet from their tribes.please let me know how can we work on it.it definitely sounds interesting.hope to see your discussions soon.. Grandia01 18:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi Aminz. It's a sunny morning here and I have to go and get breakfast now. I think perhaps it's still last night where you are! Itsmejudith 06:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Safiyah

Can you tell me why you removed the references from FFI and POD here? If you say they're not reliable sources, why not? --Matt57 12:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Because we are writing a scientific encyclopedia. --Aminz 04:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Favour

Aminz,

There is one week left for final changes to the 2007 Wikipedia CD Selection. I am after a couple of people of different religious views to have a quick look through the relevant pages on Islam, Israel, Palestine etc. I have asked Arrow740 as well. I don't promise to make any changes but I will seriously consider it if you think some of the version adopted are POV.

The 2006 CD has an estimated circulation of over 50,000 so its worth getting as good as possible. The most recent viewable copy is at : [6]. Changes planned are listed at Wikipedia:2006 Wikipedia CD Selection in terms of (1) articles currently included to exclude (2)articles to add (3) articles to update because the version listed is vandalised (4) sections to exclude (mainly on appropriateness to children) (5) string deletes and spelling corrections (to UK English) (6) redirects of common article names to the main article. Navigation and search pages are being sorted separately. Please let me know of any issues if you see any. Thanks. --BozMo talk 13:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC) See especially: Muhammad, Palestinian territories, West Bank, Israel, Lebanon, Jew, Judaism, Islam and any shocking omissions? --BozMo talk 15:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes...fair point, I am reviewing what we can include. The main problems with references and footnotes are (1) on an offline version we cannot include links (although we could quote the URLs) (2) children don't really understand them and (2) unlinked lists are very boring. I am not sure about whether to put them in or whether to just refer everyone to the online WP as the source. I will update the articles you mention to a more recent version--BozMo talk 20:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and slavery lead

Dear interested editor:
Please visit here: [7] in the next few days and give your vote and your proposals on how the lead may be reworked and reformed to meet GA criteria before next nomination.DavidYork71 04:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afd: Garry Miller (Abdul Ahad Omar), please vote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Miller_(Abdul-Ahad_Omar)

User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 11:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not logged in

Why, I wonder? Arrow740 19:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You've been the incivil one recently with your vague aspersions. Arrow740 21:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You made an accusation on the Muhammad's talk page and I asked you not to repeat your rude comments. Now, I can see you are posting that on Itaqallah's page. --Aminz 21:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no accusation. I pointed out that you took a quote and reported the second half of it as the whole truth when the first half goes against your POV. That's an unfortunate choice. Arrow740 21:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Which part went against my POV? What are you talking about? --Aminz 21:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"when Muhammad encountered contradiction, ridicule and rejection from the Jewish scholars in Medina, he came to adopt a radically more negative view of the people of the Book who had received earlier scriptures." This indicates that the Jews rejected Muhammad because he clearly a fraud, and he got angry at them, and subsequently exterminated them. You only included "he was concerned that they were being stupid." Arrow740 22:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, where did you got the quote:"he was concerned that they were being stupid." Did you just made it up? I don't remember I added such a thing.

If you read further, you can article says: "Many Medinans converted to the faith of the Meccan immigrants, but the Jewish tribes did not. Much to Muhammad's disappointment, they ridiculed and rejected his claim to be a prophet. Their opposition "may well have been for political as well as religious reasons". On religious grounds, the Jews were skeptical of the possibility of a non-Jewish prophet, and also had concerns about possible incompatibilities between the Qur'an and their own scriptures."

You can see all three elements: 1. ridiculed 2. rejection of his claim 3. incompatibilities between the Qur'an and their own scriptures

Please stop your baseless accusations. --Aminz 22:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] However

However is a perfectly valid word to use. However, as I and at least two other editors have noted, you use it too much. It should not be used to connect phrases that not closely related, and it should not be used to produce a run-on sentence. Arrow740 07:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My point was that the source used that to explain the sentence further. I think it is not proper to stop quoting the source at that point. --Aminz 07:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, Lewis quote seems to be word by word. So I think it should be placed between " "s. I am refering to the Lewis's quote "The Qur'an was promulgated in Mecca and Medina in the seventh century, and the background against which Qur'anic legislation must be seen is ancient Arabia. The Arabs practiced a form of slavery, similar to that which existed in other parts of the ancient world. The Qur'an accepts the institution, though it may be noted that the word 'abd (slave) is rarely used, being more commonly replaced by some periphrasis such as ma malakat aymanukum, "that which your right hands own." The Qur'an recognizes the basic inequality between master and slave and the rights of the former over the latter (XVI:71; XXX:28)..."

I don't understand what you're saying. "The Qur'an recognizes..." clearly starts a new idea, the discussion of important verses. Arrow740 07:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Thanks for the nomination, but I'll have to decline. I like just being an ordinary editor. - Merzbow 16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rajul

I can't read it where I am, can you tell me what that Arabic word is in the fifth line of the EoI article? Arrow740 03:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be pronounced as raqiq(k with a dot inside it i guess is pronounced as q in quran) but I don't know its Arabic meaning. You might want to use some Arabic dictionary. --Aminz 07:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Arrow740 07:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic thought

Salam. I want to gather some issues in one section in Islam#Islamic thought and literature . These are teology, philosophy, Erfan nazari(Sufi cosmology), ethics and litrature. All of these issues make Ulum Islami which want to describe the universe and nature. Now what should we do with some other issues comprising historiography, ethics, natural knowledge or science and socio-political thouth. We can make a separate part instead of Islamic thought and literature and call it Ulum Muslemin. It can't translate Ulum correctly because Science and philosophy are more specific and on the other hand knowledge isn't specific. I use Muslemin instead of Islam because they don't necessarily Islamic. What's your idea? Is it correct to gather all of them in Islam article or should have another article (e.g. Culture and civilization of Muslims) . I got confused.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arab slave trade‎

Aminz, would you and Itaqallah keep an eye on this article as well? David York appears to be editing with the notion that if something is Arab then it is by default Islamic... Thanks. (→Netscott) 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam was the political system of the Arabs until the 20th century. Arrow740 18:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 300 Edits

I wanted to let you know that i removed your edits to the 300 article. You added a paragraph to the lead that was unnecessary; the Lead, as per the MOS is supposed to be an overview of the article, and forego specifics. As well, the grammar and flow of your resultant edits regarding the criticism section was a bit shaky, and I thought it could be corrected easily, but I kept running into more issues, so I reverted the section prior to the edits. I know that makes me seem like a jerk, and I wanted you to know that I did not do it to be mean or arbitrary.I know you meant well. I have found that, as an article approaches qualification for GA or FA status, that that process is aided greatly when the editors discuss their changes on the article's discussion page before making them. This helps to cut down on bruised feelings and edit wards while fostering a feeling of concensus and teamwork. If I can answer any questions you might have, please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to hearing frm you in the Discussion page when you propose some changes. Cheers! -Arcayne 05:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's continue this on the discussion page. I have started a section on the discussion page. Thanks. --Aminz 05:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There was one line in there that I thought was particularly memorable, I wonder if you can guess which one? Arrow740 22:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately since I am not familiar with the Buddist literature, I can not connect and appreciate them as one is expected to do. --Aminz 03:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean the movie 300, have you seen it? Arrow740 03:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have neither watched it nor have the plan to watch it in the future. --Aminz 03:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought your decision to edit the article was in reaction to the movie. Arrow740 06:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have read a couple of reviews of the film. --Aminz 08:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fiqh

If you get the time, can you help fix this article?--Sefringle 02:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the note

That wikilinktool is cool isn't it? See you. (→Netscott) 09:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grievances

No big deal: see Wikipedia:Administrators#Dealing with grievances. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think I made a mistake while performing an admin action, please point it out to me and I'll be happy to reconsider, correct or apologize if I was wrong. If you took it upon yourself to ask some other/all admins to renew their adminship, please be so kind to show the diffs of such requests. Otherwise I will assume that you decided to harass me because of content disputes. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what your grievances have to do with my adminship. Looks like you are trying to get rid of an opponent in content dispute. Please review Wikipedia:Harassment. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and initiate my recall. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that normal editors are no different from admins. As a matter of fact, I agree with those who favor retitling WP admin into WP janitor. In that light, since you have not shown which my admin action you are so "concerned" with, I still do not understand why my adminship bothers you. Frankly, I value my time more than that, but your harassment is duly noted. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The other half of this talk: [8] --Aminz 01:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, you're out of line and bordering on harrassment. This is clearly a matter of one editor with personal grievances and has nothing to do with admin functions. If you have a specific dispute, please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for proper avenues of seeking resolution. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but how do you know the view of the majority of the community? And my point wasn't personal grievances. I think Humus sapeins is not sufficiently familiar with the wikipedia policies. He edit wars; and has a strong POV. All these are points of concern.

If you are certain that the dominant majority of the editors support his adminship, then why are you showing this re-action to my request? Isn't it true that admins are no different from normal editors except that they have the community support? --Aminz 08:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to recall the adminship of your opponent is not the way to deal with a content dispute, particularly when it has nothing to do with admin functions. It appears you're making this personal with him, instead of handling it in a reasonable way. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I object your usage of the word "opponent"? opponent in what sense? I have come to understand, yes through a content dispute, that he is not sufficiently familiar with the policies (or alternatively ignores them). This would affect the dicisions he is going to make in the future. My concern is not about that specific content dispute. --Aminz 09:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Opponent...you are on opposite sides of a content dispute. I think you've been asked and as yet have not provided specific examples of where you believe he has misused admin functions in the dispute. Can you demonstrate where exactly he, as an admin, has enforced policy that you believe shows lack of familiarity? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not reviewed his past admin actions but I "personally" believe that he does not pass the usuall standards applied in the process of "request for adminship".

As to our dispute, I think Humus sapiens is not aware of the usage of primary sources in wikipedia. In this diff [9], he is restoring something which is backed up by primary sources. I posted a comment about this on the talk page to the effect that the quotes attributed to Muhammad and the very early literature of Islam are primary sources. Further, it would be original research to take some quotes from primary sources and draw conclusions from it. In any case, he hasn't joined the discussion. He has done 3 reverts so far in a day and I can show you many other examples of this (no comments on the talk page; 3 reverts in a day). I tried to neutralize the original research [10] ...--Aminz 10:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Article

Hi Aminz -- I think you may be more qualified than me to discuss the creation of this article. Best, Mackan79 22:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

Hi Aminz, I would have no problem to perform any consensual edit while the article is protected for editwarring. If you can point me to where all parties have clearly endorsed a proposed edit, I'll be glad to help. Crum375 12:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the various parties are making progress on reaching some compromise version. Can you just join their thread and ask about your proposal? I would prefer to have a clear cut mandate from all the editors letting me know what they agreed on. Also, if there is total agreement now among the regular editors to collaborate constructively, I'll be glad to unprotect the page. Crum375 22:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, please do. I didn't realize there were more than two sides involved, but however many sides there may be, they should all be accommodated. Clearly we can only have a single version in the article, so please try to find an acceptable common ground with all sides. Thanks, Crum375 00:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the suggestion. Arrow740 02:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Officer1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Officer1.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 300 Edits

Please do not make changes to the article ntil it has achieved a concensus within the Discussion page. this means that other editors get to weigh in on the merits and disadvantages of your proposed change. This is why there are notes in the edit page of each section to discuss the topic first. Discuss, not notify. I realize that might seem a fine distinction, but the article has achieved GA status based on its current state. It is in everyone's best interest to make changes that everyone is going to agree with. I will not immediately revert your edits, but I am guessing someone else will for precisely the reason I have stated above. In the future, please bring your proposed edits to the group before making them. Arcayne 07:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think I only applied those changes I considered to be least controversial. But we can discuss those as well on the talk page (I have already made mentioned them on the talk page). sorry anyways. --Aminz 07:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No problems. I really do appreciate you understanding. The article has seen wave after wave of POV edits, from blanking the page to adding so much cruft about historical accuracy that the film just bloats. I know you are thinking clearly about your changes,and I welcome them. Just find out what the concensus was, like you did before, with the Farokhe discussion. I look forward to talking this stuff out on the Discussion Page Arcayne 10:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Despite what you may have been told, I like to help out. :) Cheers! Arcayne 08:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 300

While restoring the archive, you inveterately deleted a bunch of comments by me and others. Please restore them. --Mardavich 00:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll restore them soon. --Aminz 01:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] idem

Hullo, I just wanted to thank you for your civil tone and willingness to discuss on 300, and to apologize if I was a bit sharp with you at the start. I'm confident that we'll be able to work together to develop a text that accurately represents the response to film. --Javits2000 08:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

Maybe it would be better if we both did it this time, but show the process. Involved. Since Nader has indicated that I am the Big Bad Wolf who is disrupting all the pov editing (insert wild laughter at the absurdity of that), my archiving is goiing to be challenged. You select the topics to archive, and I will put them into the archive. Arcayne 05:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I am learning, the little possé is currently under the microscope by ArbCom. To get their attention, you have to screwing the system rather big time. Sounds like karma is bringing home the bacon.

Your plan to archive seems good. When you pulled the old stuff from archive, did you remove it from there, or was it just copied back to the main page? I ask, bc we don't need to duplicate the posts. Arcayne 06:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You archived the Farrokhe 2 before i could respond to your statement that westereners wouldn't react well to making fun of their religious icons. I wrote the following in response:

I would submit that Dogma, The Prophecy and innumerable comedy skits and comics that make fun of Jesus and Christianity or paint it in quite a dark light, up to and including equating the resurrection with the reanimation of a vampire (no kidding) - all of it with nary a bleat of anguish. the reason why is simple - they are recognized as not being real, and therefore not attacks on current ideas. The Herodotus account makes the persians look bad, and Miller went a step further and made them look bad. the film is widely complimented and acclaimed for its faithful reproduction of the comic. I would further submit that people need to grow a thicker skin:

Peter: As we all know, Christmas is that mystical time of year when the ghost of Jesus rises from the grave to feast on the flesh of the living! So we all sing Christmas Carols to lull him back to sleep.

Bob: Outrageous, How dare he say such blasphemy. I've got to do something.

Man #1: Bob, there's nothing you can do.

Bob: Well, I guess I'll just have to develop a sense of humor. -A Very Special Family Guy Freakin' Christmas (1)

Maybe you could also archive the Lead stuff as well. :) Arcayne 06:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

More bits:

• Accurate historical Images: Summary of the content: inclusion of the following pictures in the article should read Summary of the content: inclusion or exclusion of the following pictures in the article Arcayne 07:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Not semi-historical, fictional per producers of the movie: Summary: Should the lead says: the move is a "semi-historical", a "semi-fictional", "according to X it is 90% historical and according to Y it is fictional" or other variants. Should instead read: Summary: Should the lead says: the move is a "semi-historical", a "semi-fictional", "according to X it is 90% historical and according to Y it is fictional" or that the such evaluation is immaterial Arcayne 07:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

by the way, aside from what I said above, I appreciate you stepping up to archive. Have a good day! :) Arcayne 07:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

and thanks for your kind words during my enforced little sabbatical. This is what I get for expecting admins to get the point about article stabilizing. Clearly, admin is not synonymous for smart. Just a little bitter, but I'll get over it, and protect myself a little better in the future. Again, thanks for being able to debate a point politely. :) Arcayne 15:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Culture

Is the culture in which you were raised the same culture as Saudi Arabia Zanzibar or Indonesia? Of course not. It never was. The Umma which is a single "Islamic culture" is an aspiration of political Islamists, not a historical fact.Proabivouac 21:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to that on the Islam's talk page. I hope that clarifies it. --Aminz 21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tolerance

This works for me.[11] Thank you.Proabivouac 01:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As Merzbow suggested, I would also like to add a short summary of that to the section. Please see my last comment on the talk page. Thanks. --Aminz 01:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You miscounted. Maybe you should get some rest. Arrow740 08:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Islam

Salam, please see my comments on Talk:Criticism of Islam. Compare Criticism of Islam with Antisemitism and Criticism of Judaism. Major double standards and patronising attitude from other editors who reject any objections from anyone opposing their anti-Islam POV. They are promoting people like Pat Robertson and Bat Ye'or - vicious anti-Muslim bigots - as "legitimate critics" of Islam! Why aren't Muslim editors doing something about this???? Khorshid 11:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Salam, well he called me a troll and then pasted something sarcastic about "being easily offended" all over the place, so that is not right. For this edits, I posted them here on admins page [12]. The problem with people like Bat Ye'or is that they are promoting a conspiracy theory not a criticism, and same with Pat Robertson. I raise such concerns and then they tell me I am easily offended and that my opinion is garbage. Wikipedia is not here to satisfy anti-Muslim fervour in the name of "criticism". I try to avoid these topics because I get very angry when I come across prejudice. Their attitude is very patronising - by their logic, Wikipedia should entertain Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites as being "critics"! Its insane. Khorshid 05:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Easter

Happy Easter, Aminz.Proabivouac 08:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy Easter to you too, Proabivouac. I wish you have a nice following year. --Aminz 08:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David York

Hey Aminz, thanks for your message. I don't really think that David is gaming the system because he has demonstrated that he has absolutely no regard whatsoever for the fact the system even exists! As far as his block goes, I agree he should be indefinitely blocked, but I feel it should be done by way of a community ban. I currently regard his month block to be reset each time he creates a new sockpuppet and so I guess if he continues creating sockpuppets, he will be effectively indefinitely blocked. However, I think a community ban proposal would succeeed and I think that is the step we should take. A community ban on the person operating the DavidYork account would be of much more help than a single admin indefinitely blocking his account. If we have a community ban in place, it will be much easier to obtain checkusers on any future sockpuppets since "evasion of community-based bans or blocks" is one of the criteria for a RFCU. Thanks for your work keeping on top of the sockpuppets and for letting me know when you need sock blocks. Cheers, Sarah 10:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi FayssalF,

User:DavidYork is gaming the system by creating sockpuppets and violating his block. During his block, he has so far created at least 10 socks(7 users + 3 IPs) blocked one after another by a couple of admins; has also further used these accounts to votestack for the Hitler article to be chosen for the GA article drive. Please see my suggestion here: [13] . Thanks --Aminz 09:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Aminz. Has any of the socks been created after my last warning at his talk page? Please provide me w/ facts. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)