User talk:Proabivouac: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:58, 16 May 2007

Fixing this mess

"I believe that nobody is perfect. If we have learned something it is that Islam-related articles have been a battleground between multiple parties (it includes POV pushing from both sides who lack AGF, and a tiny neutral editing). Maybe it is the right time to fix this mess."

I agree with all of this. I think the first step is to honestly acknowledge that some of us here are very into Islam in a way that alienates non-Muslim editors and that some of us are either skeptical of or hostile to Islam in a way that alienates Muslim editors, and to accept that we all have to - and should - work together despite this. We cannot wish this away. Instead, we must ask how we can channel these impulses in constructive directions. I also believe that we must stop accusing one another of being religious fanatics or bigots and correspondingly to refrain from userpage or talk posts which might used by already distrustful opposing editors to support these findings. These latter are a major cause of factionalisation and contribute little to the encyclopedia. And I believe we all must refrain from Wikilawyering, because this kills trust. I don't mean that we shouldn't refer to policy, but that we be forthcoming about our motivations in any given situation, and consistently reach out to people with whom we often disagree. The culture of this space cannot be cured by legalistic or prosecutorial measures.Proabivouac 10:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pro. I am glad to hear your message and agree with everything stated above. I think we have finally reached the core of the problem and ready to proceed.

I have a few ideas that may help us reach this objective. I'll be sending you an email very soon suggesting ways to implement them. You can give your opinion or if you already have suggestions yourselves you can email me first. I truly believe We Can Work It Out. Cheers. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very encouraging. By all means, send. It may take a few days before I respond, though; my commitment level is serious but inconsistent. I've thought very long and hard about how to implement these goals and we can discuss these (along with your potentially new ideas) as long as we can agree that this exchange in all respects is confidential unless/until we both agree that it's not (to which I agree here re your first e-mail). It's a long story, actually.Proabivouac

Lets do it, involve everyone. --Matt57 11:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the good old days when anything critical of Islam was censored out as "POV"? Have you forgotten those days, guys? Its the non-Muslim editors who've faced difficulties and they still do. The problem is this in my opinion: Most Muslim editors want articles to look like how they would like to see them - only positive views of Islam. Non-muslim editors on the other hand are okay with having both points of view. They're only always trying to say their own side (critical). Muslim editors on the other hand see their task as censoring those opinions as much as they can (explains why anything critical of Islam was termed as 'POV' in the beginning). If people decided that this is an encyclopedia which will have both sides of the story, but sourced and well written, then everything would be fine. People just have to accept that fact. Every day something critical of Islam is wrongly censored or taken out of Wikipedia. But nothing positive about Islam gets taken out and censored. This is the whole scenario, so its the non-Muslim editors who face problems. --Matt57 13:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see now, this may not be what I was thinking. Well good luck to all in resolving the disputes. --Matt57 15:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict

Not sure how this happened. If you're using an external editor you might want to double check it. — coel acan — 07:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've experienced that problem at least once, several months ago. Don't worry about it, if you can't figure out what happened. Hopefully the hamsters in the server wheels will get back on task soon. — coel acan — 08:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick ?

Hey, could you explain why you thought this entry was trolling? I can't see it, so I thought I might be missing something. It appears the user in question was bitten a little bit by someone overzealous and was asked to change their username or to ask for comments at RFCN, which they then did. There might be some backstory I'm missing here, though, hence my question. Thanks! —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a new user, but the same person who has been username trolling to prove some kind of point, or just for fun. See User:This username is my username and the username that I shall use.Proabivouac

Thanks for the background. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Matt57

Hey Proabivouac, I was wondering what your impression was of Matt57's supposed hadith quote on his userpage? (→Netscott) 04:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of its provenance, I can't see what benefit accrues to the encyclopedia, or to Matt57, by placing it on his userpage.Proabivouac 05:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prov and Netscott, I didnt see you raise objection to other people's religious quotes on their user pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aminz - this is just one, there are so many more). Please, dont single me out for applying policies. thanks. --Matt57 16:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sig

Not a problem. Will change it. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 18:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[User:Wikihermit|Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť]][[User talk:Wikihermit|(Talk)]] Is it shorter now? Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) 18:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user

uh eh So...???Albertbrown80 19:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FayssalF, whoever is behind User:Funnypop12 has opened a new puppet, User:Albertbrown80, who continues the very same disruptive behavior. Additionally, his first edit of 28 March evaded Funnypop's last block.Proabivouac 19:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pro. I tend to agree w/ you but i prefer to go thru WP:RFCU in order to respect formalities. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 21:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am against those pictures and you defend those pictures. huh Ya i have my own point and i discuss what i think you can visit Muhammad(talk). I have discussed those points which i disagreeAlbertbrown80 09:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:DavidYork71

Thank you for getting in touch. FYI, there is currently a discussion underway regarding the block on this user. If you have an opinion on the appropriateness of this content you may want to chime in at User talk:DavidYork71. Buddhipriya 08:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice removal of the swastika image on his talk page. I didn't even realize that image was offensive until I saw the descript. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Faisal

Thank you for your comment. Slacker 06:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate edit!

You may not edit another user's page, without a consensus reached in the debate. If it was up to you to decide in such a case, Wikipedia would have been Prabivouac's Dictating Encyclopedia. --Scientia Potentia 12:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My user page

The content of my user page has nothing to do with Itaqallah or any other user and I'm not in confrontation with him or any other user. I'm keeping my user page as it is. If people are not allowed to keep religious quotations on their user pages, I would like to see a policy on that and would like to see that it is implemented fairly and uniformly for everyone, before I conform to the policy as well. Yes I really have better things to do than engage in disputes with people. I'm here to improve articles relating to criticism of Islam. Also, why are you making the request from Itaqallah? Has he asked you to act and speak on his behalf? I dont understand. In any case as I said, either religious quotations will go from all user pages or they will stay in all user pages. I wont delete them from my page to just make you or anyone else happy. Again, yes I was inspired by Itaqallah's quotation on his user page becuase I thought - if people can have quotations, so can I. Its like saying if I saw someone having a certain userbox, I'll go ahead and have the same userbox on my page. And yes, lets be fair, the bottomline is: religious quotations are either ok or are not ok. By the way the sock was probably either BhaiSaab (he has been banned before for getting an offensive username before) or HisExcellency. --Matt57 22:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt57,

I'd guess the sock was an WP:RFCN troll, as I recently stated there that a hypothetical username such as User:Breien Pfeffers should not be allowed.

"The content of my user page has nothing to do with Itaqallah or any other user and I'm not in confrontation with him or any other user."

Diffs such as these suggest otherwise.[1], [2], [3], [4]

This is all very pointless. I agree that scriptural soapboxing shouldn't be allowed, and that in an ideal Wikipedia, we wouldn't see any of it. However, no one is going to make Itaqallah take that down, whereas someone may very well force you to take yours down. If you want soapboxing removed, then refraining it from it yourself does more for your credibility than does pointish counter-soapboxing. A neutral observer is likely to conclude that you have been trolling Itaqallah, not vice-versa, and it makes a lot of sense for you to stop.Proabivouac 00:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doing any trolling, P. I'm happy with that verse on the user page. I wouldnt care if Itaqallah took it down from his page. It has no connection to me now. As I said, I saw the verse on HIS page so I put one on mine too. Its like copying a userbox from someone's else pages. Is there anything wrong with that? No there's not. Can you please tell me what you mean by this? "However, no one is going to make Itaqallah take that down, whereas someone may very well force you to take yours down." -- I will not take down my verse on your direction. Are you threatening to report me for an RfC or whatever it is? Please go ahead. I will make my case there. I wont remove the quotation on your direction and if my quote goes down, I'll make sure this is made into a clear Wikipedia policy so we can get everyone else's quote removed too. Go ahead now take whatever step you want to take and I'll see you there on the discussion. Let me know when you file the complaint. I am ready for making sure everyone gets treated equally. --Matt57 01:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neither threatening you with anything nor compelling you to do anything, but only offering you advice, which you may take or leave as you will.Proabivouac 01:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've said already that I like that quotation. I might change it to something else infact if I get bored with that one. You should view things from a fair point of view. Its really simple: either all users should delete religious quotes from their pages, or all should be allowed. I dont understand why you think that people who have a favourable view of something should be allowed to express that view on their userpage, while people who dont approve of that view, should not. Its all about fairness. You should be more accepting people's viewpoints. If someone can express their approval of X in a certain way, anyone else should be just as free to express their disapproval of X. Its freedom of speech. Now again if Wikipedia tells me to remove the quote, its another matter and I will deal with that in its own way, e.g. as I said, I'll make sure everyone gets treated fairly. This is a really small matter. Lets keep our focus on improving articles, however, making a certain policy and making sure its implemented fairly for all, is also worth spending time for. --Matt57 01:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow

It is very uncivil to refer to another user by "Allah" [5], [6]. Arrow's refusal to admit that is even worst. To suggest the theory that Arrow used to call that user with this title is nothing but a whitewash (please note that in Arrow's reponse he says I have called him by "God"; and not "Allah"). That theory has no support and it seems that you want to defend Arrow for his incivil comments. Incivil comments are to be avoided in wikipedia. What is worst is covering them rather than facing them. --Aminz 07:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect that I "want to defend Arrow for his incivil comments," which, as you say, are too be avoided. Like you, I would like to see Itaqallah addressed by his proper username, see this edit, and undertook initiatives outside of WP space to ensure that this occured. If, after attempts to resolve the problem, a disputed behavior continues, then we might consider a block to prevent its recurrence. What I do not much like is allowing disputes to compound in order to build a case against an editor. Our goal should be to improve behavior of "allies and opponents" alike, and to remove problematic edits before they've the chance to lead to unnecessary disputes. Arrow740's conduct has greatly improved in recent months, and this should be recognized, even as we rightly ask for further improvements from him as well as from ourselves.Proabivouac 08:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request?

Are you asking for semi-protection on your talk page? IrishGuy ^talk 09:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if that is possible. I aim to run a clean shop over here, and do not like disreputable usernames appearing in my history. If there were a way to allow anons to post, but bar new usernames, this would be ideal, but I am not certain that this option exists (though it should, as there are many conceivable applications for such a distinction.) I recognize and appreciate your unusually prompt attention to the concerns I'd expressed on WP:ANI.Proabivouac 09:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I gave you only one day at this juncture. If you would like a longer stretch (which isn't something that is regularly done as an anon may wish to speak with you about an edit of yours) you should probably make a formal request at WP:RFP. Of course, if you find yourself dealing with vandalism, feel free to drop me a line or go to WP:AIV and semi-protection can be thrown on in no time. :) IrishGuy ^talk 09:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks --Aminz 10:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your warm gesture... incivility and trolling are indeed an issue which must be addressed. the problem i find is that on some pages where tensions may be rising, there is too little spontaneous and pre-emptive intervention by the community. a lot of the times, when editors know that their contributions are being watched by the community, they are far less likely to behave inappropriately. a strict line on trolling, harassment, and incivility are certainly necessary on those areas of the project where topics are contentious. permission to counter this in the appropriate manner, wherever it is on Wikipedia, should not be required. ITAQALLAH 22:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Respect!

I do respect wikipedia policy. I dont edit before getting approval from other user, thats why always(sometimes) goes to talk page before everything because i respect wikipedia policy and other user. What I did was reasonable and quite fair to all user and wikipedia. Im sorry for the inconvenience. With respect --Towaru 13:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and that thing on my /notebook, im sorry about that, other user might considered that as a very sensitive issue. it's from somebody who vandalize some wikipedia article.--Towaru 13:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sprotect request

Hi Fayssal,

Since David has access to a floating ip address and creates new accounts, would you please sprotect the articles he has been active in for some time. It discourages him of making new accounts. Thanks. Here are the list of some articles: Terrorism in Australia,Homosexuality , Islam and slavery, Women in Islam, 1926 Slavery Convention, United Nations 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, Child servitude, 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Thanks --Aminz 20:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do so, as this the only practical way to stop him from violating his block.Proabivouac 21:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure guys if that would be the appropriate action to take. I suggest you just revert his socks on the spot for now. If it gets worse then we can sprotect them. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of your name

Do you have an answer for this edit? -♥-ProtectWomen 06:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Najd

crude is correct... seeing as though there are differing opinions as to where the najd refers to, it seems rather inappropriate for the image to favour a particular view... although i am not quite sure if it does as per the different pre-modern boundaries of Iraq, part of the highlighted area may have been part of Iraq (i don't know), while the Hijaz refers only to a part of SA. or maybe i am reading too much into it. i don't like 'Hadith of...' articles, because on their own they don't merit inclusion, and if they are part of a wider topic then their mention should be in that respective article (i.e. Dajjal). if it's just a proxy for polemic (which a number of them are), then it doesn't merit inclusion either. ITAQALLAH 20:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can see why POV tag was necessary on that article

--Aminz 08:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you why you removed the text which was written after much discussion on the talk page? --Aminz 08:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning of these scholars is that the judgment was not based on the Qur'an. F.E. Peters also says that Muhammad's treatment of the Jews of Medina was "quite extraordinary", "matched by nothing in the Qur'an". Now, they conclude that Sa'd judged according to the Torah. If they say so, that's their POV. Can you please explain why you removed it. --Aminz 08:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hajjah Amina Adil, another Muslim scholar, states that Muhammad saying that "This was judgment of Allah" was refering to Torah. Adil says that Muhammad often ruled in accordance with the previously revealed Holy Scripture, if he recieved no specific revelation. --Aminz 08:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary fabrications by Ghamidi are no more relevant than arbitrary fabrications by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson or any other religious ideologue. Unless someone's opinions are noteworthy apart from their reliability - for example, if Ahmadinejad or Bush were to refer to the Banu Qurayza in a major speech, despite the notorious unreliability of these sources - I can't see the justification for inclusion. That Ghamidi pops up everywhere is only an artifact of User:Truthspreader's efforts in this regard, most likely in contravention of WP:COI.Proabivouac 08:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(EDIT CONFLICT) It is not arbitrary fabrications of person of Ghamidi. Mahdi Puya also says that and he is a shia so there shouldn't be a close connection between these two. It is not only these two, we also have Hajjah Amina Adil [7]. It is a POV.

I tried to provide a summary of their arguments. They think the judgment of Qurayza is not based on the letter of the Qur'an (to which Peters agrees). They make their case by putting together Muhammad saying "This was judgment of Allah" and that he often ruled in accordance with the previously revealed Holy Scripture, if he recieved no specific revelation. It is not thus an arbitrary fabrication. --Aminz 08:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that there is no basis for this in the Qur'an is obvious enough, but alleging that Sa'ad considered the Torah is arbitrary fabrication.

"Muhammad saying "This was judgment of Allah" and that he often ruled in accordance with the previously revealed Holy Scripture."

Besides the total baselessness of this claim, I recall that we have been hearing for some time now that Sa'ad reached this conclusion on his own, without being influenced by Muhammad.Proabivouac 08:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proabivouac, after Sa'd pronouned his judgment, Muhammad confirmed it saying it was in accordance with God's judgment. To explain what I mean, in NT Peter says that Jesus is the Messiah and Jesus says that God revealed that to you. It might be a similar scene in a sense.

But in any case, we don't have to convince each other about the truth of something but only to explain what these scholars think because they are notable. --Aminz 09:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, they are not academic scholars. Second, I am not clear that they are all that notable. A look through the contributions of User:Truthspreader shows that he created Ghamidi-related articles at the same time that he pushed Ghamidi's opinions onto a number of other articles. Were it not for that, I'm not certain that there would be anything to discuss.Proabivouac 09:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. Yusuf Ali also says that. Notes 3703, 3704 on Qur'an 33:26 "Sa'd applied to them the Jewish Law of the Old Testament, not as strictly as the case warranted." --Aminz 09:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proabivouac, I think Muslim scholars are representative of their view and western academic are representative of theirs. --Aminz 09:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this assertion of equivalence: the natural analog to Islamic ideologues is Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Christian, Baha'i etc. ideologues, just as the natural analog to academic scholars who happen not to be Muslims is academic scholars who happen to be Muslims.Proabivouac 09:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are not equivalent but there is a point. Western academia encourages critical thinking because in long run it increases our understanding. I think it is too aggressive and hence biased. --Aminz 09:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely wrong to treat academic scholarship as the Western answer to non-Western religious screeds, for the west has no shortage of like-minded thinkers. The question is really if you think that the statements of religious ideologues, whether Western or non-Western, merit treatment as potentially reliable sources. I am certain that the West's religious ideologues would be the first to tell you that their viewpoints are basically ignored in academia.Proabivouac 09:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I think it depends. The Muslims have the very right to "interpret their own scriptures". As historical facts, it is different. --Aminz 09:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<reset> Yet another Muslim scholar Dr. Jamal Badawi: " The people of Banu Quraizhah chose their own arbitrator and former ally (Sa`d), who determined their punishment according to the law of the Torah, which specifies killing for treason." --Aminz 09:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of Muslim scholars believe in the veracity of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; Hamas has even included a reference to The Protocols in its charter. However, it would be a violation of NPOV to say that "according to academic scholars, THe Protocols are a hoax, but such and such Muslim scholars believe The Protocols are genuine." Beit Or 09:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if they believe so, though shameful but it should be mentioned that such and such Muslim scholars believe The Protocols are genuine. --Aminz 09:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it should be mentioned, the question is where. Beit Or's example showed the folly of treating such ideologues as the mirror images of academic scholars.Proabivouac 09:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

would saying "A Muslim scholar" make that clear? --Aminz 09:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beit Or's example already specified this.

To take an example from Earth: "The Earth formed around 4.57 billion years ago" should definitely not be changed to "According to scientists, the Earth formed around 4.57 billion years ago, but creationists believe that the Earth was created by God roughly six thousand years ago."Proabivouac 10:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the job of historian to say that Muhammad judged according to his will or according to Torah? or is it the job of theologeans? --Aminz 10:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Muhammad was a real person in history, not a speculative construct of theologians.Proabivouac 10:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but is this question in the area of expertise of historians or theologeans? --Aminz 10:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)of[reply]

Theologians (at best) have expertise in the history and philosophical underpinnings of their own religion's speculative traditions. Here, we don't even have that, for there is no tradition to this effect.Proabivouac 10:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. To theologian it matters whether an act of a prophet is religous or secular. If say Muhammad walked fast, was it religous or secular? Same goes with here. They say there are evidences that Muhammad's judgment was religous not secular. It was not based on the Qur'an --> It should have been based on Torah (and they might be other arguments as well). I don't think historians get an expertise on this matter because they are not expected to be jurists. --Aminz 10:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [8], you want to discuss. Okay. Let's discuss. Please let me know how it can be improved. --Aminz 09:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not pester me by reposting duplicates of your last message, as you did;[9] I already made it clear how I think it can be improved: by removing it and the rebuttal to it, for the reasons I've given above. Were there a real tradition to this effect, of course it should and would be included: the entire article is based upon these traditional histories, which you will note also includes justifications for the judgement. Random contemporary speculations from unreliable and partisan sources and rebuttals thereto are wastes of space.Proabivouac 23:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf Ali is a partisan source? --Aminz 00:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have Yusuf Ali, Jamal Badawi, Ghamidi, Mahdi Puya, Hajjah Amina Adil. Aren't these people notable enough? --Aminz 00:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen all these quotes. Besides Ghamidi's on the talk page, the only one I saw was a serious mispresentation of Farah, and Yusuf Ali's above:

"Sa'd applied to them the Jewish Law of the Old Testament, not as strictly as the case warranted."

Will you share the context surrouding this statement? Is he actually claiming that Sa'd considered the Torah in his judgement?Proabivouac 00:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<reset>

Yusuf Ali:' (Source: The Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Footnotes # 3702-3704)

The Banu Quraiza (see last note) were filled with terror an dismay when Medina was free from the Quraish danger. They shut themselves up in the their castles about three or four miles to the east (or north east) of Medina, and sustained a siege of 25 days, after which they surrendered, stipulating that they would abide by the decision of their fate at the hands of Sa’d ibn Mu’az, chief of the Aus tribe, with which they had been in alliance.
Sa’d applied to them the Jewish Law of the Old Testament, not as strictly as the case warranted. In Deut. Xx. 10-18, the treatment of the city “which is very far off from thee” is prescribed to be comparatively more lenient than the treatment of a city “of those people, which the Lord thy God gives thee for an inheritance,” i.e., which is near enough to corrupt the religion of the Jewish people. The punishment for these is total annihilation: “thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth” (Deut. xx.16). The more lenient treatment for far-off cities is described in the next note. According to the Jewish standard, then, the Quraiza deserved total extermination- of men, women, and children. They were in the territory of Medina itself, and further they had broken their engagements and helped the enemy.
Sa’d judged them the milder treatment of the “far-off” cities which is thus described in the Jewish Law: “ Thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: but the women and the little ones, and the cattle, and al that is in the city, even al the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord they God hath given thee” (Deut.xx.13-14). The men of the Quraiza were slain: the women were sold as captives of war: and their lands and properties were divided among the Muhajirs.”

Jamal Badawi (a professor at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada where he is currently a cross-appointed faculty member in the Departments of Religious Studies and Management) says[10]:

Referring to this incident, many say the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) massacred the tribe of Banu Quraizhah, but this is a distortion of the historical facts. In fact, it was not a sentence by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). The people of Banu Quraizhah chose their own arbitrator and former ally (Sa`d), who determined their punishment according to the law of the Torah, which specifies killing for treason. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) simply agreed with his sentence, but it was not the sentence of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in the first place. A scholarly article by W. N. Arafat questions the exaggerated estimate of the number of fighting men who were punished, which is found even in some biographies about the Prophet’s life, like that of Ibn Ishaq. His argument is compelling and well researched.

Can I add the quote now?

P.S. I have found an abundant number of websites written by various people all saying the same thing. --Aminz 03:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose if it really is that widespread, it merits inclusion. However, I'm curious as to how this all started. That this fabrication has gained currency is certainly interesting. Who was the first person to say this? Is there any particular person that people are citing?Proabivouac 03:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know its history but it is widespread. Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in their Review of Religions (1905) also mention this (p.245).

And one last point; it seems that the story has been traditionally of interest to Muslims alone: Prof. Blankenship says: "This story is found only in the Muslim biographical tradition of the Prophet; the Arabian Jews are unknown to the surviving Jewish tradition... the matter exists entirely in the Muslim tradition which the Jews historically have not used or commented much upon." --Aminz 03:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read that. I would guess these to be associated phenomenon: the story being held up to the scrutiny of others made traditional explanations seem inadequate.Proabivouac 04:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It might be. Can I please add back the quote because of its notability (not its truth)? --Aminz 04:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have convinced me that it is widespread enough to merit inclusion on the ground of notability.Proabivouac 05:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David York

This is interesing [11] --Aminz 10:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad

If you search for the sentence :" Many, but not all, scholars accept the accuracy of these biographies, though their accuracy is unascertainable." in Muhammad article you will see it is already there. So, I don't know what your accusations are. --Aminz 10:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

On wikipedia, please do not post anything on my talk page. In hereafter, we will be all standing before God. --Aminz 11:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good heavens, what are you talking about? If I post on your talk page, I will be called to account for this serious transgression in the afterlife? Aminz, I don't know much about God, but I'm pretty sure that he isn't here to settle our petty scores; else he would have settled them before they started (remember, he is all-powerful, not the astral sequel to ArbCom.) Wikipedia provides you with a talk page to communicate with other editors, including those with whom you disagree on one point or another.Proabivouac 11:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will a lion roar in the forest, when he hath no prey? will a young lion cry out of his den, if he have taken nothing? Can a bird fall in a snare upon the earth, where no gin is for him? shall one take up a snare from the earth, and have taken nothing at all? Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Arrow740 20:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem FAC

Hello. In trying to get the article to FA status, we have been working hard to satisfy the many conflicting opinions on how the article should look at the FAC. What do you think of the current version? Also, the offending statement "Jerusalem is considered important to the three major Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam." has been removed. nadav 03:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		For precise reasoning and edits of ultra-high quality to the Islam article space.Merzbow 08:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to move this to wherever you want. - Merzbow 08:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which work?

I did some legwork and found where the particular text was inserted. I gave up and didn't try to see if User:Aminz was reworking some previous text into that form. (I'm just a WikiGnome and don't know such things) Maybe following the refs could help? Shenme 22:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salma Arastu

Proabivouac,

I have posted the following comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salma Arastu under your delete vote:

"You should in good faith consider striking your vote because even if you are correct you cannot consider deleting an entry based upon an editors motivations (however frustrating those motivations may seem)".

This is just a good natured suggestion. Cheers.PelleSmith 12:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maududi

The main article had been deleted because the entire text copyright violation. It has been since rewritten a bit. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 17:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I missed your answer to this

The reason no one could have asked me about whether I minded changing material on my userpage was ... ? BYT 19:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one who removed it. I asked you not to restore it (and thank you for not doing so, this saved everyone from pointless controversy.)Proabivouac 19:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should someone have asked before removing it peremptorily, in your view? BYT 18:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If asking an editor to remove inappropriate is followed by its removal, that is ideal. The downsides are that the editor might not be around to respond or might be led to believe removal to be more optional then it really is, leading to further troubles.Proabivouac 22:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

Per [WP:CIVIL], incivility is 'personally targeted behavior .. etc', so we may refers to organisations, philosophies, movements, and religions in our own words reflecting exactly how we see them.203.49.244.63 06:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages

I request you that let's please discuss the issue on the talk pages of the related article. --Aminz 08:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. Arrow740 03:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Unbelievable, and unacceptable

No brainer. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prester John/Userbox/Allah is Satan -- Avi 14:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Avi. Much appreciated. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Sorry I didn't have the chance to weigh in. It is time to put a stop to these games.Proabivouac 02:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pro. It is just like a cat & mouse game. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Muhammad#Moon photo

FayssalF, if you have time to look at this dispute, it would be much appreciated. In my experience Aminz works hard and adds material which is often useful. However, it is often desperately in need of editing, and he makes this process very contentious and time consuming. I am near the end of my wits on how to deal with this. The text is also problematic; as a compromise I had removed the image and placed a clean-up tag on the text, which it seemed he'd accepted, but then resumed edit-warring the doctored photo back onto the article with the assistance of Kirbytime (himself fresh from a block for edit-warring) and over many objections. This kind of material makes Wikipedia look like a joke.Proabivouac 19:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments.Proabivouac 23:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I'll be sending an email for both you and Amin w/in 24h. Cheers. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything you think might help is welcome.Proabivouac 00:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. I am pretty sure that you and Amin are one of the best editors i've ever met in Islam-related articles. The problem is simply misunderstanding and hope i could fix it. So never hesitate Pro. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lack of clarity in "supremacy"

i would like to resolve this civilly. i have no agenda except to be specific. what kind of supremacy did dhimmis have to acknowledge? please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dhimmi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.157.159 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Deserved

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For all your hard work defending and preventing Wikipedia from being used for SOAPboxing purposes. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

annoying habit

Dear friend, please do not keep editing your old comments because that make look person replying you stupid. Like you are doing on Depiction of Muhammad talk page. You could post new reply. Just a request and hope your will not mind. :). --- A. L. M. 20:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your point, it's a perfectly fair request. But I was already in the midst of editing my own comments...after running to your subpage to add your quote below the Italian Catholics thread, I didn't even notice your reply in the edit window. You are free to adjust your own responses accordingly. Simply waiting a few minutes between posts (I'll try to follow this, too) will help us solve this problem (as well as avoiding edit conflicts).Proabivouac 20:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom case

Your points are excellent. Perhaps you could make them as an uninvolved editor on the ArbCom page; that paragraph would be enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement on Arbcom case

Proabivouac, I'm puzzled slightly by your statement. I know PR (like many) is a single-issue editor. But what is the evidence that he's a sockpuppet? Also, you say that "the only questions are whether Palestine Remembered committed major fraud or merely totally unacceptable citation practices, and whether he should or should not be community banned." Are these really the only questions? Other questions I'd want answers to are 1) When Jay's "obvious call" about Holocaust denial was shown conclusively to be false, why didn't he retract it? Why did he instead bizarrely suggest that a 1989 book had "copied" material from an online essay published in the late '90s? [12] 2) When a false charge about something as incendiary as Holocaust denial has been spread into a discussion about about whether to ban an editor permanently from the community, is it possible for that editor to get a fair hearing? Thanks, --G-Dett 02:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The copy I saw was published in 1998. It appears that the online essay was adapted from Garaudy's 1995 book. And nothing has been shown to be "conclusively false"; we may never know for sure where PalestineRemembered got the reference from, but we do know that he didn't get it from the Evening Star of Auckland, and we do know that exact same information is referenced in Garaudy's essay. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, this reply seems very, very far from candid, and only deepens my misgivings about the process by which a motion to ban PR has been initiated and sustained. PR has given a comprehensive citation from a work of scholarship from 1989 – that is, six years before the Garaudy denial book you keep invoking. That 1989 citation he gives appears to be accurate, and it's not anywhere online, even on Google Books, so the idea that he ran and found it to cover his behind is all but inconceivable. There is no possible conclusion but that the 1989 book was his source, exactly as he's said. So we know everything we need to know, and yet you keep insinuating. Your initial unfounded accusation may well have been made in good faith; we can't "know" this, of course, but should assume it. Your refusal to back away from the accusation when it has been shown conclusively to be false, however, is unsettling, and it's hard to know what to make of it.--G-Dett 05:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I make of it is that Jayjg doesn't trust this editor. Having trawled through his contributions, I can see some reasons why one might not be surprised to learn that PR had drawn information from the site of a Holocaust denier, indeed many respected editors who are familiar with him did not seem surprised.

That said, as I stated in at WP:CSN, PR's claim seems to me probable on its face: there is indeed a 1989 hardback edition,[13] just as there is a 1998 paperback edition. I agree that Jayjg should - and I am guessing that, in light of this, probably would - acnowledge this.

Nor do I see any reason to assume that Jayjg's assumptions were made in bad faith, or that his wariness is unwarranted by previous experiences with PR. It does seem to me, G-Dett, that you are making a big effort to turn this around on Jayjg, and hardly extending to him the same assumption of good faith you expect him to show PR.Proabivouac 06:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a 1989 hardback edition, as well as a 1998 paperback edition. The pagination is different, however. PR's citation is from the 1989 edition. There would be no way for PR to have produced his citation without having the book to hand. Though there are pages and sections of the 1989 edition that can be viewed online through Amazon and Google Books, the available sections do not include the page PR cited.

I am sorry that you think I'm trying to turn this on Jay. I believe that if you read the Community Sanction Noticeboard discussion all the way through from the beginning, you will find that I raised questions about the accusations from the beginning, and was shocked to see that the very editors (including but not limited to Jay) who expressed such outrage about PR's alleged use of Holocaust-denial material did not appear to care in the slightest when those allegations were revealed conclusively to be false. You argue that if I want Jay to assume PR's good faith, I should assume Jay's. The comparison is misleading. Jay began with an unfounded accusation that he refused to retract even when it was shown to be false. I began with no assumptions at all, only questions and a request for better evidence. As my questions were shrugged off, and the evidence never arrived, and false accusations were left hanging in the air, I have reluctantly come to question Jay's candor. The more important difference, however, is that I only want Jay to retract his allegation, and publicly concede that it has tainted due process. Jay, by contrast, wants to have PR banned from Wikipedia for life. Please consider the difference. Thanks, --G-Dett 11:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Funnypop12/User:Albertbrown80, User:Dhanmondi

Hi Fayssal, I have two abusive users I'd like to bring to your attention.
First, Funnypop12/Albertbrown80, who continues the same blanking he's been doing for six months now. He's ignored all the warnings and blocks directed his way. I think it's time for an indef as a vandalism-only SPA. It seems like a waste of time to bring this to WP:ANI, but I suppose I will do so if you recommend it.
The other is a new user User:Dhanmondi. This is a spam-only SPA. While there hasn't been too much activity yet, I can't see the purpose of giving him a second chance, as there's not really any "him" there, just spam. I have seen spammers blocked incrementally before, it doesn't work: at best, they wait until the block expires and resume. If User wants to return under some other name and participate normally, nothing really stops him from doing so.
In both cases, users have been unwisely encouraged by third parties, User:ALM scientist and Matt57 respectively. That these disruptive users have are allowed to persist sends the wrong message to established editors; conversely, indefs in both cases might prove therapeutic to members of our community who we would rather see on the right track.Proabivouac 07:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pro. It seems Funnypop12 is back but i like process and will file a CU request today and sort this out once and for all. As per, Dhanmondi, the next time they would do it again it would be indef. I've just left them the final warning. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aniconistic WP:ANIC

You may be interested in this edit:[14] --ProtectWomen 05:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 295: / Line 295: @@
 In both cases, users have been unwisely encouraged by third parties, User:ALM scientist and Matt57 respectively. That these disruptive users have are allowed to persist sends the wrong message to established editors; conversely, indefs in both cases might prove therapeutic to members of our community who we would rather see on the right track.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 07:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 :Hi Pro. It seems Funnypop12 is back but i like process and will file a CU request today and sort this out once and for all. As per, Dhanmondi, the next time they would do it again it would be indef. I've just left them the final warning. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up®''</sup></font>]]</small> 09:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
+== Aniconistic [[WP:ANIC]] ==
+You may be interested in this edit:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29&diff=131230563&oldid=131219198] --[[User:ProtectWomen|ProtectWomen]] 05:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)