User talk:Sampharo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Hi, Sampharo. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. The tips below should help you to get started. Best of luck!  Chzz  ►  08:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

ようこそ
  • You don't need to read anything - anybody can edit; just go to an article and edit it. Be Bold, but please don't put silly stuff in - it will be removed very quickly, and will annoy people.
  • Ask for help. Talk to us live, or edit this page, put {{helpme}} and describe what help you need. Someone will reply very quickly - usually within a few minutes.
  • Edit existing articles, before you make your own. Look at some subjects that you know about, and see if you can make them a bit better. For example, Wikipedia:Cleanup#2009.
  • When you're ready, read about Your first article. It should be about something well-known, and it will need references.

Good luck with editing; please drop me a line some time on my own talk page.

There's lots of information below. Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Wikipedia!

--  Chzz  ► 

Getting started
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

RE:Umar[edit]

A while ago I tried to sort out the article on Umar with you, but you felt I was being biased and did not have WP:good faith in me. I decided to step back for a while, and things have continued like they are before. Unfortunately, it seems most of the senior Sunni editors are not around and have been unable to help you. If once again, you can please, take my help, it would be good for both of us. I don't care what you consider me or my faith, but our job, for every person who at least considers themselves Muslim, is to strive for truth. The Holy Qur'an asks mankind, "Beyond truth, what is there but error?" I have worked hard to improve articles on Sunni Islam, in fact, I was the person who created Template:Sunni Islam (if you don't believe me, check at the bottom of this page). I am also the person who have been asked to redesign it by two Sunni editors (the same way I designed Template:Islam, Template:Shi'a Islam, and Template:Ismailism, so that it can be as beautiful as them).

Please, please take my help. We can fix things. Before I tried suggestions and obviously you disagreed with the suggestions, but you shot me down before allowing us to come to understandings. So please, I've been watching the situation and suggest the following:

  • All information on Umar at Fatimah's house is confined to the section on the Shi'a view of Umar. Reason: WP:UNDUE
  • The article is locked from new editors and anonymous editors. Reason: WP:VANDALISM
  • You and I go through the article and delete objectionable material, or add material that is important. This requires you have WP:GF that I will try my best to make the right choices for this article.

So, please, give me a second chance. I have never meant harm, even if my views disagree with you, I don't worship my views; worshipping ourselves and our pride is shirk. Please, please, let's do this together. --pashtun ismailiyya 06:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

RE:Umar page[edit]

Salaam `alaykum,

Don't worry about most of the concerns you have; the way I acted was probably the way you'd act if a new Wikipedia member came and started massively deleting information. I acted conservatively, you've been an editor for a while now and I will have WP:good faith in your edits completely now (I did before but it was too limited). In hindsight I should have kept in mind that even though 90% of the new editors who come and mass delete information and get banned have no idea what they're talking about, there is the 10% that do, and I shouldn't be quick to making the process hard on them to improve the article. Still habibi, let me go through your points.

1. We can't use primary sources of history on Wikipedia, see WP:RELIABLE. User:Itaqallah (head of the Sunni Islam task force) also defends the fact we shouldn't even use older secondary sources, for example, Tafsir ibn Kathir; we should use contemporary sources instead. You had an issue with the book I was using called “Introduction to Shi'a Islam.” It wasn't published by a religious publisher, nor was it a polemical text necessarily. You did however feel its content was wrong (which I am not arguing against). See, it wasn't a polemic text, it was a secular text published by a secular publishing house. For all intensive purposes, there isn't anything in Wikipedia guidelines that would find fault with it except if we have a large body of secular sources countering it, and that this particular book may be unreliable. If it was still named the same name and still published by the same publisher, we generally would assume it to be a secular work without bias. But, since you have pinpointed issues in it, we should look for another source. We will consider the Yale published “An Introduction to Shi'a Islam” unreliable and not worthy of being used as a source, not due to its name or its publisher, but the fact we have isolated incorrect facts within the book itself.

2. I agree here, we can't give these beliefs about an individual undue weight, see WP:UNDUE. Most of all, Umar was a political and military figure who had a large effect on the world. The only religious group that dislike him are Twelver Shi'a, but since disassociation (tabarra) from him plays very strongly into Twelver beliefs, that is important to note. It is similar to how Judas plays into Christianity, except in this case Umar also was a world changing historical figure. The story of Umar at Fatimah's house is of no personal concern for me as the Ismaili Imams have taught Umar was a pious man; I wanted the Twelver point of view to be defended. I believe it should be mentioned in the article since it plays strongly into the belief of the 200 million Twelver Shi'a, but should only be mentioned in passing and briefly, and should not be given more than a paragraph of space and a sentence in the beginning explaining that dislike of him plays strongly into the beliefs of Twelver Shi'a, much like one would with Judas. No military figure has changed the world as much as Umar, in my opinion at least; Genghis Khan and Alexander's empires left little to no trace, and both Hitler and Napoleon were defeated in their own lifetimes. The most important thing this article should focus on is Umar's political and military influence in history, with the religious views including the Sunni and Twelver Shi'a views mentioned only briefly, confined to a sentence in the introduction and to their respective sections.

3. I have faith from this point on whatever you say about these books is fact, WP:GF!. The initial reason I reverted you is as I explained before; I saw a new editor coming and mass deleting information claiming that it isn't found in the books. I decided to look through Sahih Bukhari first since I had that in hand and it has the Musnad ibn Hanbal in completion, and as soon as I couldn't find anything (confirming your suspicion) I deleted references to it (except one which I missed). Whatever statements you say about Sunni religious texts I will believe completely, without a second opinion or without me checking myself.

I hope that sums it all up! --pashtun ismailiyya 03:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

RE:RE:Umar[edit]

Let me begin with WP:OR (the actual link I should have used, not WP:RS)!

Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.
Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.

First, the letter of the rule. To quote WP:Reliable: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." To you that excluded the old history books and proven references of actual incidents and I do not see at all how you arrived at that?!

I used the wrong link here, I should have used Wikipedia:OR. It states, 'Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.' You stated elsewhere that primary source material would be written by Wikipedia editors, but here it clearly states that there are primary sources already in existence (for example, The Diary of Anne Frank). You can use primary sources in order to clarify a point, but not to make one!
This isn't just established by User:Itaqallah, almost every article that dealt with this issue has a similar understanding. I can't use Twelver hadith alone to prove this about Umar, or Sunni hadith alone to prove this about the Prophet. When I said we didn't like using older secondary sources I meant Tafsir ibn Kathir for example, which bases its information off hadith and cites them. There is no set Wikipedia policy that I know of against using old secondary sources like Tafsir ibn Kathir, but there is a rule against using primary sources like hadith literature.

Second, what exactly is the definition of a secular reliable source according to you? Would that require a non-muslim non-Arab, or would a non-cleric be enough? If it's the first then what would make an Asian or Western writer any more credible? If it is the second, I would understand if that was referring to for example, extracting history from a reliable secular source rather than a biblical one for example or a priest, using interpretation from outside the church. Islam and people following the Sunnah however have no church or clerics, and a Sunni scholar means scientist and researcher.

A cleric can write in a secular context, the point is that the purpose and tone of the work is secular in nature, not as apologetic material which would by its nature be intrinsically unreliable. For example, we can't use Shi'a or Sunni apologetic material to build up their respective articles; we should use sources from the academia. So, it's more so the content of the work than anything else.


1- The books mentioned, Sahih Al-Bukhary and Mosnad Ahmed and Ibn Taymeyya and such in their nature are historical accounts and not preaching gospels. They are as authentic and neutral as it gets, for example they contain negative events with integrity like the assassination of Uthman Ibn Affan by a group and the involvement of Abu Bakr's son in it, or the battle between Ali's forces and the prophet's companions.

Indeed they are historical accounts, but as you know, in secular scholarship today there is much criticism of these works, and then issues between Sunni, Zaydi, Twelver, Ismaili, Ibadi version of events make it much more convoluted. Hadith literature itself has contradiction about how the Prophet prayed. I am actually going off on a tangent here; these works are primary sources and as I said earlier contradict Wikipedia policy.

2- The very heart of the subject was what those Sunni books contained. That alone should nullify the requirement of a secular source considering that it is specifically a quotation. For example it is completely right for a wikipedia page on christianity to quote the bible if a writer is going to say "According to the bible, Christians believe Jesus is God and he is their salvation". To use a pamphlet written by a modern author that analyzed how Jesus is just a man, and says that the church knows that, then it is a corruption of accuracy and truth if a wikipedia page on Christianity says "Christian church believe that Jesus is just a man". Notice here that I chose an example which actually has truth to the fact (that Jesus is a man) based on secular findings and OUR beliefs, yet it still shows clearly that it is inappropriate to suggest that in the Christian page. In the case where we had the argument however, The Shia view was being shoved in the middle of a majority Sunni article and the event that Umar is said to have done has been attributed to false unverifiable sources. So EVEN if you usually don't accept early books as sources, considering that they are the ones quoted, their own verifiable testament should have been dominant.

It is not correct to use the Bible as a source on Christian articles, this is actually extensively prohibited. A while back, a user was banned (several times) for putting primary information in Discrimination against atheists. He kept citing Qur'anic verses to prove the point that violence against atheists is promoted. You cannot say, “Christians believe in” and then use the Bible as a source. These sources are heavily up to interpretation and even the clearest of verses you are using some bit of interpretation. We especially as Muslims are able to read large portions of the New Testament without seeing how it differs significantly from tawhid. I do agree with you saying however that there should be no WP:UNDUE weight in articles. For example, Sunni editors kept noting that they don't believe in Muhammad al-Mahdi (the son of Hasan al-Askari), and I had to keep deleting it because it was just as silly as me going to the article on every Sunni caliph and saying Shi'a deny their legitimacy!

3- Bias is a problem. Secular sources though are independent, many were made with supportive or malicious intent. An example is the crusades book by Robert Spencer, which is nothing but twisted drivel against the muslims and complete contextual alteration of the crusades and what happened in them in an attempt to confuse the conceded agreed upon historical records present in books both Western and Eastern, Muslim-written and secular. If as per your statement to me: "Any attempt to disprove a reference is WP:original research", that means that bias is impossible to dispute unless the source reference was important enough for someone else to care about publishing a book to disprove it. Naturally, that means the more eccentric and outrageous a biased book is, the harder it is to remove its references from a wikipedia page considering that nobody would bother to publish a book about it, since it's outside mainstream acceptance anyway. It is clear that following such an imposed rule would give power to the more eccentric sources, and eventually it corrupts the wikipedia original rules of reliability.

Secularism is not synonymous with correct, I agree with this and Wikipedia agrees with this. Biased works are not WP:RS! You can never use a Robert Spencer reference here because he has been heavily criticized by the mainstream academia as unreliable, and most of his works are as polemical as religious ones. I understand that lots of these intricacies might be difficult to see for those who haven't been editing Wikipedia for a while, and it upsets me that I'm one of the last editors who is active on Wikipedia from WP:Islam that I can't explain to you how all these rules work. Once again, it shouldn't be complicated at all. User:Itaqallah is not active enough to invite to this conversation.

1- WP:Gaming The System: This approach of not accepting any corrections made to information because that information survived early relaxation that may have been influenced by bias or lack of knowledge, and allowing only measured amounts of correction that satisfy your own rules violates this wikipedia policy. This approach uses one policy against the other, and creates an endless debate on which policy passes. Additionally, it directly violated the WP:Verifiability policy, where you called my checking of the references as wp:original research, when all I did was verified it and found it false.

This position was actually wrong of me; the reason I had taken it was because we had a similar situation on Sikh extremism where Sikh editors tried to disprove Sikh extremism existed by using WP:OR in order to show that the BBC and many other respected publications were wrong. You weren't doing what they were doing, I apologize for my initial way of treating you.

2- WP:Reliability: The older books of history are much more reliable and unbiased as per the consensus of the global scientific community when it comes to Islamic history, and they are used as reference of articles in encyclopedic content and historical reference by muslims and non-muslims alike. To say you don't like using them is going against the very fabric of encyclopedic writing of verifiable information and against the established practices of universities around the World. On what basis do you expect such an unusual approach by the wikipedia community?

This isn't necessarily true. For example, Sirat ibn Hisham is accepted by almost no secular source on the life of the Prophet (AS) in its entirety. If all was needed was primary sources with no criticism, there would be almost no literature on Islam in the West by the secular academia. Wikipedia uses a method that is used in universities throughout the world: either you are synthesizing information from primary sources (original research like a thesis) or you are quoting other authors (secondary sources). Hadith literature is a primary source, just like the Diary of Anna Frank or other writings by historical figures witnessing events.

3- Interpretation and enforcement: Simply put, you seem to believe that your approach you arrived at with Itaqallah as you mentioned, and your own interpretation of wikipedia rules to be enforcable somehow or authoritative. I realize of course that an established working system should not be monkeyed with by every newcomer, but in this case like you recognized newcomers need to be introduced to the approach, not enforced. After all, Wikipedia itself says WP:Ignore all rules if it makes things better.

No, it isn't personal interpretation. This has been proven again-and-again through arguments from Sikh extremism to Discrimination against atheists. Once again, I apologize if this seems difficult, let me make this as simple as possible: hadith literature is a WP:primary source, and Wikipedia does not allow the use of primary sources to make points. When I mentioned that Itaqallah disliked older secondary sources I meant ones like Tafsir ibn Kathir, which synthesized its information from hadith, it wasn't all just hadith itself.

4- Old is gold: Your approach allows older written material to have more weight and practical shield against new editors despite new ones being much more knowledgable. As earlier explained, a biased reference to a biased book will endure as your approach and new rules renders most of their efforts useless considering any attempt at clarifying it is biased will be blocked due to it being WP:original research and removing it will be vandalism.

This has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, this was a fault on my part I apologized for earlier. It had nothing to do with a flaw about you or Wikipedia itself.
In conclusion, it might be best to ask an administrator yourself about hadith literature being a primary source. I think that would make it easiest for you to understand. --pashtun ismailiyya 06:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

RE:RE:RE:Umar[edit]

It might be tempting to label Sahih Bukhari and other books of hadith as a good source to use, but generally there is still a degree of interpretation involved. It's arguable whether it is valid to use just Sahih Bukhari, but generally WikiProject Islam has not developed any articles by solely using hadith literature, and there are users and I believe administrators who are actively against it; they want contemporary literature that looks at the traditions; modern secular academia.

You can never use the Bible ever to make a point on its own. I can argue the New Testament is a secondary source because the Churches decided which books were accurate and inaccurate about the life of Jesus Christ and in fact this was mostly settled by the time after the schism between the Western and Eastern churches and they came very close to the same definitions despite being separate. A Muslim might have the opinion to say this was inaccurate and that scholar X and Y were more accurate when not everyone agrees nor is this necessarily provable. Therefore, supposedly I could use it to build articles about Jesus and argue that since the book is a historical document (the earliest extant copy of the Gospel of Mark is only old as 30AD) which has had its veracity checked by the two larger and oldest churches in the world and accepted by hundreds more, that they are much more accurate than what Muhammad 600 years after stated Jesus actually taught.

You state that the only thing wrong with Sunni hadith literature is that it is too conservative. Ismailism does not have much of a hadith tradition, however from my studies of Twelver Shi'a Islam, the issue is the opposite; they believe Sunni narrations are not conservative enough in their approach, and differ fundamentally with how Shi'a understand hadith (especially after the Usuli movement which destroyed the notion that Shi'a books of hadith were completely valid). For the sake of avoiding debate, I won't go into their views. So, we can't argue that Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari are 100% accurate according to every Muslim and every non-Muslim and the entire secular academia, and that whoever disagrees is just being a biased angry Shi'a. This is why Bukhari and Muslim hadith literature wouldn't necessarily be a good source to use: it's primarily accepted by Sunni Muslims and generally Sunni Muslims alone. Orientalists, even after Edward Said's famous book, still are hesitant to use these books as infallible sources.

Additionally, Imam Bukhari was born in 184AH, around 200 years after the events at Umar at Fatimah's house. I note this because you kept stating that the hadith itself cannot be found in books till around 200 years after; a Twelver would probably rightfully make the argument that hadith books themselves weren't a phenomena for a while throughout the Muslim world, and especially in Shi'a Islam that was still being led by the Ahl al-Bayt so had little need for it. Ibn Hisham was I believe born some years before Imam Bukhari. Ibn Hisham's work, considered mostly recycled from Ibn Ishaq was contemporary to Imam Bukhari's and I've heard (though it does not make much sense to me considering the contents of both their respective works) that Imam Bukhari complimented his sirat.

Last habibi but not least, I agree we have to clean up the articles on the Sunni caliphs in order to present a better view. Unlike the Shi'a Imams (with the exception of the Fatimid Empire), their religious achievements are almost nothing compared to their political ones for the non-Rashidun. --pashtun ismailiyya 04:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

RE:RE:RE:RE:Umar[edit]

You misunderstood me; I wasn't suggesting 10% force 90% to do anything. Let's just cut this short: we're in agreement. I can't imagine us wanting to write a very different article on Umar at this point. We want to focus on his military and economic achievements on a massive world level, with small parts dealing with his religious significance.

So, solutions? We begin rewriting right away. Let's not depend on anyone else to help us out, even if they said they would help rewrite. Are we in agreement about rewriting the article on Umar? As soon as you respond, I'll make the page. If you don't mind, I'd like to make it in your sandbox because if people see it is an "Ismailiyya" sandbox they will assume that I am bashing Umar and claiming that the Aga Khan is Allah. --pashtun ismailiyya 07:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Help needed[edit]

{{help me}} Hi, I need some help here

I would like to know how to do a user page, add to it with these graphics and banners that I see around the other editors, and do the same to my signature, ie customize it.

Also, what is a sandbox and how do I access it?

Thanks --Sampharo (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Samphoro, I can answer most of these questions ... more shortly. Trafford09 (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, as for your User page. Well, I see you've already started one, & it says Under Construction.
Now, graphics and banners - well, it depends which ones you want. Firstly, take a look at WP:Userboxes for now, while I get you info. on signatures. Trafford09 (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Signature[edit]

For an explanation of how to change your signature, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences.
However, there are rules and guidelines to follow. These are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CUSTOMSIG#Customizing_your_signature. There, on the main User Profile page, you'll find a box called 'Signature:', where you can type in the code for your desired signature. Also a box called 'Raw signatures', which you'd need to then tick.
Once you've had a read of these, please have a go at editing your signature.

If you need further help here, please either add another helpme template, or talk to me on my Talk page.

Graphics and banners[edit]

Now, graphics and banners - well, it depends which ones you want, as I said earlier. Can you give some examples of the ones you'd like to copy, i.e. list here the names of the Users, or their URLs, for the pages you've seen? In any case, what you can do is go to the talk page where you've seen them, Edit the page (carefully), and Copy the parts that you like the look of, onto your own page, & then modify them there. Hope this helps. Best regards, Trafford09 (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox[edit]

A WP:sandbox is a test area, where you can practice any designs you have, for text / articles / whatever. There is one sandbox which everybody can use, but it's better to use your own really. Just create a new page, by hitting this: User:Sampharo/Sandbox. It's currently in Red, as it doesn't exist. However, when you click on it, it will give you the option to edit it. Just enter any text (like 'test') and save it. Then, you can edit it just as you please, within reason. As ever, talk to us if you need any further help. Trafford09 (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Caliph Umar[edit]

Asalamualikum, as you may know, i tried to go with User:Frank1829 but his response is very disappointing, i will rather prefer a sensible User:Pashtun Ismailiyya to User:Frank1829 for working with us in making article more "neutral" and agreeable to both shia and sunni. My article is in its last stages, it will be completed with few days, infact if i didn't had indulged my self in useless discussion with user:frank i would have completed it by now. You can check it here [1]. I will provide you a separate link of this article to my sandbox, where you can help in improving it by rather expanding it or copy edits etc etc before being pasted in the actual article of Umar. Waiting for your response, Regards, الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: your comment on my talk page[edit]

I posted on Talk:Umar about sourcing in general, and I glanced briefly through your discussion with Pashtun. I don't know about the specifics of your debate with him, but I did see some mention of sources. First and foremost I'm not the head of any task force, I'm just a regular contributor to Wikiproject:Islam. Secondly, I think we'd all accept that the source texts (Qur'an, Hadith, narratives) are primary. These should only be used in conjunction with a reliable secondary source. We then come to publications from Muslim scholarship. This has always been an issue of contention, especially with regards to older texts. Of course, nobody doubts the scholarship or quality of the authors. However there are several issues to contend with -

  1. Sources on Wikipedia should be easily verified by the average reader so that the veracity of the claim or attribution can be checked. Access to older Arabic texts isn't the easiest thing for most people, let alone translating them to verify that the source has been honestly represented. You know as well as I do that polemical websites often take advantage of a reader's ignorance of source material.
  2. There has been debate over whether old secondary sources should be seen as primary. Yes, in their time, these sources might have been secondary to the material they cited, but so long down the line it's generally the case that these sources themselves must be assessed by scholarly eyes, the contradictions, conflicts and divergences in varying historical narratives must be presided over, and so on. Which is why most modern day scholarship - Muslim or Western - often quote, analyse and interpret these books of tarikh as well as the initial primary sources. So these sources themselves need a degree of care in handling. Perhaps it can be argued that attempting to collate a coherent narrative from these older sources can amount to original research.
  3. Most of the better academic sources today will relate the majority of what has been recorded in mainstream historical literature, so there's not much missed out. You'll find that most of the Islam-related featured/good (WP:FA/WP:GA) articles rely almost entirely upon high quality reliable academic sources. Modern day standards of peer review, reputed publishing presses, academic qualification and so on are all factors which help to ensure that sources and the content they support are verifiable and reflective of current understanding in that area.

I think that given the considerations above (and maybe other factors which I might have omitted) the issue is rather sensitive and there are several things that need serious thinking about. That's all I'll say for now. ITAQALLAH 03:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments concerning the state of some of the Islam-related articles. As I have made clear in the past, a number of these articles are unduly Shia-centric which is not appropriate given the nature of the topic, its overall significance, and source distribution. Too often articles are overwhelmed by Sunni vs. Shia polemical battles (with the infamous "Sunni references" copy-pastes a common feature) rather than relating the facts and leaving opinions and perspectives to be handled separately and with due weight. It is simply a case of working on one article at a time, scrutinising the sources and assessing their value, and producing content which is clinical and professional. And I am happy to help anyone in dealing with such issues pertaining to neutrality, due weight, reliable sourcing, and so on. ITAQALLAH 17:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The new article of Umar (r.a)[edit]

Asalamualikum, i had pasted the new article of Umar (r.a) on 31st may. It may need copy edits and check for tone in some places, as i haven't revised it yet.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

wikisilam[edit]

asalamualikum, hi i asked the moderator and he gave me this !


The site have nothing to do with wikipedia. it only uses wiki which allows it to be easily edits. Its actually just an other anti-islamic site, a propaganda site, and the difference is that as it allows an easy edits so its in other words a joint "front" against Muslims and Islam, by almost all non-muslims who hate islam. Avoid it its just an other anti-islamic site. Perhaps muslims should make a site to counter it as they did with answringislam.com by making answeringchristianity.com


الله أكبرMohammad Adil 14:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. WikiIslam uses the MediaWiki software, which anyone can use, however it is not related to the Wikimedia Foundation that runs websites such as Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and so forth. WikiIslam is owned by Faith Freedom International which is run by the Persian Muslim apostate Ali Sina. On his website he has several points, that if anyone can refute, he will take down the website and give them a large sum of money. Unfortunately, while these points have been refuted, he either ignores or states they have no been refuted to his satisfaction from my knowledge. Seeing websites like this is very upsetting, but there are many websites out there to counter them. I once even saw a wiki dedicated to just Hanbali fiqh! I myself am working on a website called Muslim-Answers. So, don't worry too much; it has been taken handle of by the Ummah and her people. --Afghana [talk] 23:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)