User talk:Intothefire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome 2 Hinduism 3 Your edit to Hindu and Buddhist archetectural heritage of Pakistan 4 Kashmiri Muslim tribes from Hindu Lineage 5 Hi 6 Thanks 7 Hi 8 wikistalking and harassment 9 Hi Its Abulfazl 10 Feel Sory 11 Wikiproject or Wikiportal Punjab? 12 Talk:Rohtas Fort 13 Thanks 14 Again 15 Quotes 16 Ibn Battuta 17 Dhimmi

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Intothefire, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Xsamix 09:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism

Links for Wikipedians interested in Hindu content

Hindu Wikipedians Hinduism-related topics notice board (WP:HNB): forum for Hindu content discussions Hinduism portal (WP:HPORT) Hinduism-related Collaboration of the week (WP:HCOTW) Hinduism-related peer review, examine articles and provide ideas for further improvement WikiProject Hinduism, join the project and contribute to articles on Hinduism WikiProject Hindu mythology WikiProject Hindu philosophy WikiProject Vedanta WikiProject Saivism

--D-Boy 11:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Hindu and Buddhist archetectural heritage of Pakistan

Your recent edit to Hindu and Buddhist archetectural heritage of Pakistan (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 19:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kashmiri Muslim tribes from Hindu Lineage

A tag has been placed on Kashmiri Muslim tribes from Hindu Lineage, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. If you plan to add more material to the article, I advise you to do so immediately. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. – ipso 12:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I will soon discuss with you all the points you raised. Siddiqui 07:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi, thanks to youe comments. I could not understand which of writing made you smile. I respect all relegions and beleive that no relegion supports evil practices and these bad people exist every where belonging to all relegions and their deeds must not be taken that their trait is commanded by relegion.

I appologise if my commnets about khatris in section pre partion people of sheikhan have digusted you. But it is a tarit found every where in business class. Hope you will guide me at wikipedia. With regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abulfazl (talk • contribs) 07:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Hi

Read your comments. You are absolutely right this stereotyping is so much common that people don't think of going into depth and watch if such things really exist or not, and I have observed it my own case as being a Shia Muslim from childhood I used to here from even my closest freinds the things that had no root had I got astonished when I heard these kind of things about ourselves like shia cut the childern and make haleem from their flesh or shia Quran had 40 parts etc. I happened to view gita, Sri granth sahib and I think that these holy books also represnt the muslim beleif of tawheed and also being chadhar from chander bansi rajputs I can never be claiming any kinda arabian ancestry and beibg descended from a holy lineage can not make myself respectable unless my deeds are good enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abulfazl (talk • contribs) 06:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] wikistalking and harassment

Please do not leave messages such as the ones you did on the userpage and talkpage of user:Szhaider. It construes stalking and harassment, which will not be tolerated. You will be blocked without further warning. Rama's arrow 15:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid your desire to post that comment is not justifiable - we do not attack other users on Wikipedia or brand them one way or another. Please have a look at WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. I suggest you not add that post anywhere - the context will be clear to anyone viewing the page history. Rama's arrow 17:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The above warning was received by me in response to the following message I posted on user Szhaider s talk page . [[1]]

My refferences to his post were factual , yet he found them offensive enough to make a complaint about me . Made me wonder why he was so eager to have my comment removed from his talk page specially since I had not made any offensive or factually incorrect comment .... a bit ironic yes . [[2]]Intothefire 06:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Its Abulfazl

Read your comments about article Dulla Bhatti by the way I just created it with minimum information and other wikipedia community member aded worthful information to it. Another thing about the name abulfazl, Abulfazl was not only the writer of Ain-e-Akbari in history and not my name because of him but Abulfazl is the Kuniat (a type of name in arabic) of Hazrat Abbas Alamdar (A.S) the Son of Syedushuhda Imam Hussain (A.S). I just updated you because I felt as if you were mingling this name with the name of one of member of mughal darbar and taunting about an article being written about a rebellion of mughal darbar, by a person having such name. And If I took it wrong please ignore these lines.

[edit] Feel Sory

I feel sorry, it may have hurt you but I did not intended it. I hope you will ignore my act. Abulfazl 08:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject or Wikiportal Punjab?

I contacted User:DaGizza about creating a project for Punjab or possibly even a portal. He approved so I am asking more people now. The project is to be a collaborative effort between Indian Punjabi and Pakistani Punjabi and other non-Punjabi people, this should hopefully also generate good feeling between Indian and Pakistani sides. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 09:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, see Portal:Punjab :) — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 21:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Rohtas Fort

Hi, I had deleted the WP:India tag previously added by my bot as the article seemingly has nothing to do with India. You have undone the deletion and reinstated the tag without giving any reason. Can you please let me know how the fort is connected with India? — Lost^(talk) 10:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Request please explain what would constitute " related to India " in terms of the logic prevailing on wekipedia with regard to the shared heritage of India and Pakistan .The tag was not originally instated by me ,however I was surprised to see it removed . Intothefire 11:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The tag was instated by my bot. It picked up all articles within relevant categories and tagged the talk pages with the India project tag. Today while assessing, I saw that the fort has no connection to India except for perhaps its name. Hence I removed the tag. The tag simply means that the project team takes care of the maintenance of the article and hopefully helps it reach featured status. — Lost^(talk) 12:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Your response does explain to me the technical aspect with regard to the tag ....however you do not seem to have responded to the larger question you raised viz "Can you please let me know how the fort is connected with India?" and my request thereof to you to please explain "what would constitute " related to India " in terms of the logic prevailing on wikipedia with regard to the shared heritage of India and Pakistan " , await your response Intothefire 12:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I always maintain that we should not get too caught up in the nitty-gritties of a situation. Very simply put, as a member of the India project, would you be willing to devote time on this article to make it better so that information about the article and about India is better transmitted to the wikipedia readers? If yes, go ahead and add the tag and assess it for the future editors. If not, do not add the tag. Spend your energy making another article better. Hope that explains my point of view. Do let me know if you have further questions — Lost^(talk) 14:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding to my response, if an article is about a place/person who was related to India pre independence but shifted to Pakistan later on, the India tag can be added and there is a pre=yes parameter to address such situations — Lost^(talk) 15:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I had heard this word hussaini but really did not know whats the background thanks for informing me, and such informative knowledge information from you is always welcomed. Abulfazl 07:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Again

Again Thanks for your support but I dont how revret the table of household goods which has been corrupted by Tuncrypt. Abulfazl 08:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

LOL. If I knew about the topic I would have helped. As a reader I am saying is that there are too many quotes in section, I hope you agree to that. Wont do any harm if we move the quotes to wikiquote or possibly a new article. or the section can be turned into a narrative with few quotes and ref. At the moment the section is a quote farm by definition. --Webkami 19:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• corrected title of my comment --Webkami 19:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ibn Battuta

Can you cite any evidence of him being a slave? I did a search of the page and found the word slavery only twice (the two slavery categories).Bakaman 15:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In relation to this edit.Bakaman 18:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Here let me be more straightforward. I looked at the slave categories while viewing the page, I found no evidence or even mention of the word "slave" before I saw those categories. Since you quickly undid my edit, I was wondering what evidence you had to suggest Ibn Battuta was ever a slave.Bakaman 14:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, but if there is an article on his writings, then that would probably be a relevant category.Bakaman 19:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dhimmi

You can find the attribution to dhimmi here and here at the site. It appears the target site has been upgraded and the links now redirect elsewhere. I can't recall which article the quote is now in, I would happily go back and fix/improve the quality of the quotations if you can remind me where you found them.

As far as dhimmis go historically society has been bigoted and stratified. The indians had their caste systems, Persia had the Aryans and non-aryans, Byzantine had greek and non-greeks, the colonials had the Europeans and the natives, similarly the Umayyads had Arab and non-arabs the list goes on. Take a society, take a history and even further take a period within that history and you will find a "superior social strata" always, especially between conquerors and subject peoples. Among Umayyads the non-arabs were further politically segregated as dhimmis on the basis of religion. What that meant differed according to the differing imperial monetary and political milieu, the definition of what constituted a "loyal citizen"; so it is a mixed bag that we can take up in a more detailed discussion if you prefer. Coming around to the last part of the argument, I would definitely prefer being a dhimmi compared to a colonial era slave and if i was an Iraqi and my nation had to have been conquered by someone I would be happier that the conquerors were the Americans and not someone else. It's all relative to the historical period. I do however agree that "granted" is an inappropriate term in this case and tender my apologies.

P.S: Assume good faith.--Tigeroo 20:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"It may indicate" is his take on the interpretation of what a singular piece of evidence, the usage of "burxan", could imply and only a precursor to two more paragraphs where he offers further supporting evidence of why he beleives that this was indeed behind the concept of "burxan". Also note that this period is the Ghaznavid Period, a couple of centuries after Qasim. From the time of Qasim through the two semi-independent arab states later this status had been institutionalized and this status which I think your query was about can be verified easily from many other sources if that is your concern. Evan as late the Mughals, Dar a shikoh is documented as considering the "upanishads" as one of the books. Reading the source and my sentence again though I see a second issue and a need to restate the sentence vis-a-vis Burxan, my earlier interpretation and understanding seems to have been a bit flawed on it's relevant import.

Just a pointer however, dhimmi started as a means of defining rights of the inhabitants of the state. The criteria applied for regulating citizenship was alleigance to the Islamic ideals and character of the state. i.e. "subjects who live within and are therefore protected by the state (rule of law, force of arms etc.)" but not a part of it. This itself grew from an intial tribal Arab-centric definition. The various forms of interpretation it took is a story of "social evolution" in itself defined by political, social, economic and ideological circumstances. I see no reason to defend any concepts of "social superiorities" wether based on religion, race, creed, language, ideology or sex; those we are better off growing out of in the course of social evlolution. However, it is also a natural tendency of people to "differentiate" and label among themselves wether in some manner. I am afraid looking at "social stratification" in simplistic terms such as denigration or demonization is also not adequate. Even within a monolithic and uniform society divisions are drawn; today it is "nationalism", "border controls", right-wingers left wingers and what-not so we need to be ever vigilant that our egoistic need to assume, or feel that we somehow better/ different from everyone else is carefully managed.

As far as the Kaffir and Momin things goes, I think it is not really a rejection of their heritage or it's acheivements, but a sense akin to that one may feel for the stone age man or a mistake you made in your past. You get enlightened and grow up and then you are better for it. Yes, it is a value judgement on the past but it's much more nuanced that the way you put it. It is equally problematic to view historical ages as some form of utopia. Afterall they were human too, prone to the same frailties and needs and prey to the same vices that the human society is continously evolving to deal with under changing conditions.

My apology was tendered if the sentence construction in the article and the misuse of "granted". I agree with your reasoning for it being inappropiate, that's all.--Tigeroo 08:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we have a fundamental problem with a central theme of your last post. The Kaffir and Momin was simply a statement to orient my paragraph on idiomatically and to respond to your comments on the concept you put forth vis-a-vis a view of the past heritage stated as "Day before yesterdays Kafir or Dhimmi is yesterday Momin....degenerate..demonize.." and not really oriented as a blanket equation of kaffir=caveman as you have put forth.

As for the past, yes there are mistakes that were made in the past and that I believe should not be redone today. You would not go back to monarchies, feudal lords, slavery, casteism, serfdom, de-industrialization, burning witches and what not the list goes as human society grows up. So yes, it does entail that you understand your past and gain knowledge of what they got right and what they got wrong. Learning from the mistakes of the past is important if you don't want to repeat them. If your forefathers made mistakes I think it would be extremely ignorant to repeat them. Understanding their mistakes is important as seeing what they got right. Moreover more than one of our grandfathers was indeed a caveman, and calling him that is not disrespectful. Nor is passing a value judgment on them wrong either, i.e. a lot of "grandfathers" in the sub-continent, much closer up the family tree, married really really young girls, and so no believing they were wrong would not be disrespectful either.

All of these things are unfortunately value judgments. Yes, I believe a lot of things that occurred in historical society have no place in modern society. You need of course remember that in a caveman society using flint to start a fire was the absolutely correct way to do things. Would you do that today?? Everything is relative and needs to be accounted for in the proper social, economic, ideological and technological context.

As for ideological value judgments, we make them everyday by choosing a particular religion or even rejecting religion we are saying those who ascribe to a different set are wrong. Consciously and sub-consciously by what we choose to do we make value judgments whether it is capitalism or communism, free society or autocratic rules. Even by emigrating we are saying our country is worse than the others no matter how much nationalistic jingoism we may throw up. Making moral/value judgments is human. The difference between it and bigotry is that you have a sound reason upon which you base that decision rather than a generic disdain. I am sorry, but yes I do believe some people have got it wrong, but it would also be equally insane interpret that statement as I believe that I am perfect.

As far the Saudi, I believe they are wrong too but for a different reason than the one you imply or deduce from my previous post. Simply because by erasing the past you have erased the lessons that can be learnt from them. If it is a mistake of your past, you do not erase it. If you believe it is an improvement then that would at least be justifiable. The fundamental question and shaper of human society has always been "How do you deal with those who you do not agree with?"--Tigeroo 17:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)