User talk:Matt57

Archives: --1-- --2--

Organization of British ex-Muslims

The organization has 25 founding members and an unknown number of additional members. It is not significant enough to warrant a section on the Islam in the United Kingdom page. If you were to add a section for every group with so few members or impact on the general British Muslim population the article would be endless.

If such a section is added to the Islam in the United Kingdom article then equally sections on apostacy, scularism and athiesm added to the British Jews article and Church of England article. Please do not try to threaten me or taint the Wikipedia project with your Athiest extremist point of view.

Articles that are counterparts on the same subject such as Religion do matter. Wikipedia cannot be seen to be or actually be bias as it will destory the credibility of the whole project. While this organization has been heralded in the media its impact on the actual British Muslim community has been neglible as its numbers suggest. The Sufi Muslim Council also is notable but it does not have its own section and is only mentioned in the Political organisations and pressure groups section. Feel free to add the Organization of British ex-Muslims to the latter section.

I do not have the verifiable data or information on apostacy, scularism and athiesm in the Jewish and Christian communities of Britain and would not attempt to make the needed and factual changes without doing so.

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

Report

You're supposed to do a report anyway. Don't be lazy now. Protectpeople 21:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the suspense, plus the username needs some activity before it can be reported. You should know being an experienced user of this website. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I read that as "I don't have enough proof but I like to mouth off accusations anyway." Protectpeople 21:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

2 of your IP's were proved to be open proxies and have been blocked indef. What mechanism do you use to get these new IP's? Do you use anonymous browsing? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you suppose those IP's are me and not someone else? You should direct such questions to your friends and mentors. Protectpeople 21:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

See His excellency, its no use. Once you've been strongly blocked indef, its impossible to come back. With all your different IP's, you still couldnt do anything. Infact some of the IP's you used been reported and blocked indef. Do more edits and I'll report all of them to be blocked. I'll be observing any edits from this username and file another check user on you in time. Now unless you have something useful to say, I will stop responding to you. --Matt57

I'm His Excellency, you [***]. How many people have you and your gang of [****] falsely accused of being me? 01:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

^{(talk•contribs)} 21:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I see you're using TOR proxy. I've just sent them an email. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You're an idiot. It is quite easy for banned editors to go on without being detected - they wouldn't let you know, would they now? Protectpeople 21:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It could just as easily be Kirbytime. Arrow740 22:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yea, it could be either. All the anonymous users editing with different IP's should be easily reverted. I've noticed once of these two sock puppets creating problems at various articles, so it was the sock puppets of either of these two. Poor guy. He filed a 3RR report on me while he was editing from the various IP's, but that ended up in some of his open proxies being blocked. I'd say that was successful self-reporting. I'll be more vigilant on these open proxies now (he's using TOR). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Does HTML work here? Error1010 00:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ask the people at the help desk. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I used the preview button instead. It works. Error1010 00:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

With Tom harrison inactive we should probably contact Jayjg about this. Arrow740 00:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets wait a little bit and see what happens. I'm filing a 3RR for now. Its probably Kirbytime. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the Qur'an

Responded on my talk page. This is not original research since I supplied article that say so.The Muslims don't argue about the verse.Because they agree they exist.however they just don't want it to be there.Unlike the case of the moon God here we have good reason to add it.I will be very happy if you join the discussion and to explain why it is important.You can see that I supplied full sources.Thank.Oren.tal 15:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

FFI

[1] - Let me explain. I removed it because someone else pointed out to me how absurd it is to trust FFI on an exceptional claim such as that. Seeing that FFI was indeed the primary source for the claim, the claim could not be trusted and had to be removed. Perhaps if something official of Montazeri also backed the claim it could be reintroduced. In retrospect I feel quite silly for keeping that claim there in the past. The Behnam 19:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You will need to make a case or the article will once again have to be adjusted. The Behnam 00:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How is that an exceptional claim? He was just having an email debate with Montazeri. In any case, this is a primary source. Ali did the debate and he mentioned it on his website. You can add "According to Ali", or "Ali claims", but you cant remove. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was planning on using 'claims' in the next readjustment. As there is nothing backing the claim aside from FFI itself we really ought to use "claims." Perhaps this must be done for some other supposed debates and exchanges mentioned on the page - I'll look into them. But yeah, I can't believe I didn't consider the possibility that it was made up before. I'm almost ashamed. Anyway, either you can change it to "claims" or I can. I'd appreciate it if you did as a sign of resolution of this dispute. That is, unless there are further objections on your part... The Behnam 04:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Its not made up. You can put "claimed" if you want, or rather put "according to Sina". --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking and WP:ANI thread

Benham has filed a note on WP:ANI complaining that you appear to be staking them: following them around, reverting changes, commenting inappropriately about their edits, etc.

It is particularly concerning that, on first glance, you have showed up at pages they edit regularly and commented against them as your first edit there.

Can you explain what you've been doing here, and what your motivations were?

Nothing you have done so far is a blockable offense by itself, as far as I can tell. You are pushing the line on the WP:STALK policy, but you may not have been aware of it. Can you read that policy and respond here to explain your actions? Hopefully this can just be resolved by discussion here.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a false and more importantly trivial claim of stalking and reminds of Kirbytime who did the same. I've explain on ANI there. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Iran Leader

About this [2]:

The claim "In Western media, the sitting Supreme Leader is sometimes referred to by the religious title The Ayatollah of Iran" was original research because the sources do not say anything like "In Western media, the sitting Supreme Leader is sometimes referred to by the religious title The Ayatollah of Iran."

Apparently an editor saw the usage of "Ayatollah of Iran" in those articles and made the original conclusion that "In Western media, the sitting Supreme Leader is sometimes referred to by the religious title The Ayatollah of Iran." But the sources did not actually say this.

Do you understand how that is original research? The Behnam 00:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Cuteness, The Behnam, and vandalism claims

Please do not label Behnam's edits as vandalism. I know you strongly disagree with his removal of the photos from the Cuteness article, but I see no indication that his actions are anything other than good faith edits to (in his opinion) improve the project. To label his actions as vandalism does nothing to help move the situation towards a resolution, and really only serves to inflame a already antagonistic edit war. Vandalism means a number of things, but IMHO Behnam's edits are not one of them. (That all aside, I'm generally of the opinion that the article was much better when it had pictures. But the fact that I also generally disagree with Behnam still does not make his actions vandalism.) - TexasAndroid 13:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok I agree, it wasnt right of me to call it vandalism. I should have taken a breather before responding. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Islam in Germany

You informed me about the missing explaination of the npov tag. This is absolutely right. Usually I leave an explaination and therefore do not understand why I did not do it this time. I´m sorry about this. Now I left an explaination. --Thw1309 23:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

Just a friendly reminder that you should discuss changes before a revert. It is the right thing to do. Padishah5000 07:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Matt. Thanks for your message. However you should be aware that removing sourced content is not vandalism or against policy here. It is not a valid reason to revert such an edit either. For example if a 100KB article, that was entirely sourced, needed to be trimmed down to 50KB, it would be impossible to do so without removing sourced content. Have a nice day. ΞΞΞ 01:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I know it doesn't necessarily need trimming., I was giving you an example. But your edit removes other sourced material - there's no need for me to revert you on that basis alone. By the way the "removing sourced content" thing is not something I read directly from policy here but from a senior admin. I don't remember which, but if I do, I'll be sure to let you know. ΞΞΞ 01:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It was either Tony Sidaway or Tom Harrison. Cheers. ΞΞΞ 01:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If you revert again today in Islam then you will be reported for violating WP:3RR. --- A. L. M. 15:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Safiyya

Apologies, I have voiced my concerns once more with the article and tagged it.--Tigeroo 21:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

On watchlists

I'm not sure why you are under the misapprehension that a user's watchlist only shows the most recent edit to each article - try clicking the arrow next to each one. --Random832 21:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Behnam told me now how I could adjust the watchlist (if you check "expand" in options, it shows all the edits) - its better now and I might be using my built-in watchlist now however I still support those community built shared watchlists. I dont know why people have problems with these watchlists, they're just a link of articles and they're not going to do anything more than what I'll do with my own watchlist. Thanks though. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Flamgirlant

GOOD catch. I'm embarrassed that I knew this account was somebody's sockpuppet or reincarnation, but didn't think to check for Kirby's obvious tell-tales. - Merzbow 05:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea, that was a good catch! I cant wait for my next one, heh. Its a lot of fun. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

He's gone off the deep-end this time: [3]. Arrow740 08:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Shia watchlist

Hi, Thank you for this list. May I improve the list. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I also tried to imrove muslim scholars' watch list. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, by all means. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation update

Please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Islamophobia#Parties.27_agreement_to_Messedrocker.27s_offer. ITAQALLAH 14:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: your note

I said Homa Darabi was not a notable Iranian physician and psycologist. She was a notable activist though. Parvin's notability is secondary to Homa. Parvin Darabi is not notable enough to have her photo on the page. Neither her book is notable nor her activity (relative to people like Azar Nafisi, Shirin Ebadi and Marjane Satrapi). BTW, she lived shortly in Iran and is hardly considered Iranian. Sina Kardar 18:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand why you are interested in including Parvin's photo. As I mentioned Parvin lived most of her life out of Iran and she is hardly Iranian. Her book was not a success. It did not become a bestseller even in the west. She is not known in Iranian society. Azar Nafisi for instance lived and worked in Iran. Her book became bestseller and she is now a professor at Johns Hopkins University. Shirin Ebadi is another activist who lived almost all her life in Iran and got Nobel Prize. Parvin Darabi may be a notable American anti-Islam activist (Islamophobe) but not a notable Iranian woman. In any case I did not delete her name from the list, but having her photo is pushing for pov, as far as I can tell. Sina Kardar 20:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind

But I have taken the liberty of self-adding images of Muhammad to your page: User:Matt57/Pictures of Muhammad and Wikipedia policies--Sefringle^Talk 17:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for the addition! --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, indeed.[4]Proabivouac 17:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Historical persecution by Muslims

Hello. I have been keeping one eye on this article for a few hours now. You have called the incident in question (to wit) the Banu Qurayza event as having been properly cited. For the sake of argument with the next editor who would like to remove the reference to this so called massacre, would you please point out the citation which describes this event? It would be easier to have something to back up any argument with editors bent on removing the material here. Thanks in advance. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 19:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've added the reference now and will be watching arguments on the talk page. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of books critical of Islam

List of books critical of Islam, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of books critical of Islam satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books critical of Islam and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of books critical of Islam during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 03:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime

Good catch :). I am going to remind the admins there to block the IP address that he is obviously using too. -- Karl Meier 09:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks lol, I can detect Kirbytime from 6 miles away. Good point. Looks like he's using this IP but most likely it will keep changing slightly (thats why his checkuser came as "likely" and not confirmed) so the IP ban might not work. In any case he'll get into trouble and get blocked no matter what he does, so thats good. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

image in signatures

I have already gone through this with other editors. The rationale behind not using images in signatures doesn't really apply to my situation, and the page that you reference is not policy, it is a guideline. I am not obliged to follow it by any means. Cuñado - Talk 18:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kirbytime

You might want to look closely at the edit history of this one... --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup! Will do. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Original research

Matt57, the issue of Banu Qurayza and other instances have already been discussed extensively on Talk:Historical persecution by Muslims, and you should try presenting your arguments/sources there first. unless there are reliable academic sources insisting these events constitute persecution, which there apparently are not, you should refrain from adding your own personal conclusions or deductions into articles. see WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. thanks. ITAQALLAH 23:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

furthermore, the Qurayzans were not killed because they were Jews. they were killed because it was believed they had conspired with the Meccans against the Muslims, in violation of their agreement. please familiarise yourself with the event as related by reliable sources, and stop this tendentious editing. ITAQALLAH 23:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Killing all the men and enslaving all the rest is persecution. Arrow740 05:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a peer review may put this interminable argument to rest. Hamster Sandwich 23:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Hamster, Banu Q looks like the only issue Itaqallah has. Itaq, Muhammad ordered to kill anyone who left Islam and I quoted that directly. How is that OR? Similarly for the other "kill them" order by Muhammad. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

i see you are avoiding directly addressing why no sources claim the Banu Qurayza event was persecution. as for your other point, the article is about historical persecution, i.e. persecution that occured. if you want to prove any event was persecution, bring some sources asserting it, as per Wikipedia policy WP:V and WP:OR - and not your own personal arguments. ITAQALLAH 00:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets continue the debate on the article talk. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Submission image

Replied. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 15:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Suicide-killers.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Suicide-killers.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bleh999 01:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Islamic Golden Age

Yes. That's why I updated it. It's not too far a stretch either since it's end overlaps with the end of renaissance period and well before the Industrial revolution in Europe after which the European colonial empires take-off and the Muslim empires decay. As for the other statement about the Safavids, Moghuls, Ottomans etc. yes they are talked about in the same book and quite a few others and again the period mentioned corresponds to the peak of the power of these nations. This is just for your information, I did not put it in yet because I just didn't get around to working on that aspect yet. When or if I ever get around to adding it, I will source it until then I'd rather avoid putting it in because it would be OR and the article is not really a stub right now.--Tigeroo 19:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I did a Amazon search as well just now to see if there was something to help you verify the information. Here it is on Amazon. Also it is available on Google Books for your verification.--Tigeroo 19:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did put it in last year after researching a similar question raised then. It's on the talk page for the record that discussion, and you will see what I found and put in was vastly different from what I thought the answer would be when I started looking. Which is why I spotted it had changed now and I restored it to what the book had to say. I think I've given you links to help you verify that those are indeed the dates mentioned in the book and not something I have concocted. The part of the Safavids etc. I have not added because I have not cited it and referenced and until I do that it would not be WP:V compliant. I think you are getting slightly confused between OR and Verifiability, and what one can say or discuss as a general background in talk pages vs. what one can actually put into the article. I say and believe a lot of things, but unless I can give a citation to reputable sources that say the same thing I can't put it in. P.S: There is no new discussion on the accuracy of the dates on the talk page, if you create one I would gladly copy these responses over or you can move them in as well.--Tigeroo 19:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The easiest place to verify it is on the back matter of the book. Most of my summation in the intro is based on the backmatter. The specific chapter "Later years" talks about the second golden age. Then there is the timeline on page 231 as well. I will edit the page number references no problem, just headed to bed for now.--Tigeroo 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It does vary from article to article but yes I was lax in this instance.--Tigeroo 17:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

request

I have been asked to look at Talk:Historical_persecution_by_Muslims#Muhammad.27s_treatment_of_non-muslims by User:Itaqallah but I am a bit reluctant to read through it all if you can find some way of sorting it out between you. Do you also think things are stuck going in circles? --BozMo talk 10:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Things are likely to be stuck in a circle. I've had frequent problems with Itaqllah. He's an aggresive editor. I've asked these people (Itaqallah, Tigeroo) simple yes/no questions about persecution and they keep avoiding the questions. If a man says "Kill anyone who leaves religion X", this is persecution by defination. Muhammad gave at least 2 such orders recorded in hadiths for apostates and Jews. I'm not seeing any resolution soon for this issue and this is just a small part that should be in that article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah may be aggressive, and has strong views but he listens and thinks too. Building bridges with people like that is part of what Wikipedia is for IMHO. Does making something a criminal offence punishable by death always amount to persecution? Or only if it is something which we don't regard as an offence any more? I am not trying to lead an argument anywhere just exploring the word since the "persecution by defination" isn't so clear to me. --BozMo talk 17:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Its persecution if the killing is based on a person's religious views. Persecution is bad stuff done to a person, on the basis of religion. Its pretty simple logic if you look at the defination of persecution. There is no "analysis" needed as Itaq is suggesting, in order to come to this conclusion. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Which dictionary are you using for the definition? --BozMo talk 20:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

All of them give the same meaning: [5], [6]. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is to refer to persecute the verb which means "1. to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, esp. because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently. 2.to annoy or trouble persistently". So does making something (religious belief for example) a criminal offence punishable by death always amount to persecution? I would guess not unless it is disproportionated efforced? Did King Darius persecute Daniel or did his courtiers? Comments like "at that time in England Roman Catholicism was illegal but practising Roman Catholics weren't persecuted" comes to mind. You could be right but I think you need to discuss it a little more before assuming anyone who disagrees is wrong by definition. --BozMo talk 05:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll say it like this. If I ordered people to kill anyone who left the religion XYZ, that is persecution, isnt it? There are other hadiths in which ex-muslims were actually killed. Even the order to kill by itself is harrassment at the least, becuase its a discrimination based on religion. If someone is targetted and harrassed on the basis of religion - and this is what Muhammad did by saying ex-muslims should be killed, thats persecution. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, ordering someone to be killed sounds like persecution/harrassment. Whereas declaring apostasy as a capital offence may not be so. Are traitors in England persecuted: no, high treason is a capital offence but no one has been charged for decades. What a hadith means or how to view it in this case you might want to discuss on the talk pages. Did he really stand up and say "go find and kill" or did he say "turning one's back on Allah merits death"? --BozMo talk 20:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You got it! It was specific clear unambigous orders to kill: "if anyone leaves Islam, kill him" and this: "if you gain a victory over the men of Jews, kill them". These are exact quotes. So you agree this is persecution? Now I'll expect Itaqallah to appear magically here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

why magically? i have been reviewing the whole discussion. Matt57 isn't able to give the context in which Muhammad said the quote regarding the Jews (it looks like he's inventing one) - Muhammad could easily have been referring to Jewish combatants. there is nothing in Islamic law stipulating that Jewish men be killed - at all - which would not be the case had Muhammad unequivocally said "Kill all Jewish men", which he simply did not. as for the killing of apostates, BozMo is right: it was regarded as treason. this passage from Bernard Lewis clarifies that: "The penalty for apostasy, in Islamic law, is death. Islam is conceived as a polity, not just as a religious community. It follows therefore that apostasy is treason. It is a withdrawal, a denial of allegiance as well as of religious belief and loyalty. Any sustained and principled opposition to the existing regime or order almost inevitably involves such a withdrawal."[7]. that is why you can't just kill apostates who don't live under Islamic law. ITAQALLAH 17:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

What distinguishes persecution from prosecution is that the latter involves the enforcement of a criminal law of -general- application. Laws like 'any adult will be punished for stealing or killing' have this general application.

But a law of the nature 'you will be discriminated against for being a former adherent of (only) religion X' is not so and that is the situation faced by the murtads.

Also look at the internationally accepted definition of a refugee:

"a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race ... membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country."

High tribunals of record in many jurisdictions have dignified exmuslim apostates as a recognisable 'particular social group' that attracts this status and its protection with respect to certain notorious Muslim countries and societies. See, just for example, here and here (this was a comment by a sock, but its still relevant)

ItaqAllah, do you have any sources for saying that apostasy is treason and thats why they were killed? "If anyone eats an apple, kill them" , this qualifies as a simple apple-killing. It doesnt say they were killed becuase they had $50 in their pockets. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt57, i have provided a source above which says it was considered treason. now, perhaps you can reciprocate and provide some reliable sources alleging persecution. otherwise, you may stop defending unverified POV claims. ITAQALLAH 19:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said its persecution by defination. I'll wait for Bozmo to reply now, ok. You wont get another reply before Bozmo replies. Also, you keep avoiding the questions I asked you on the Talk page of that article (diff given above). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

who says i need to answer irrelevant questions? who says it's persecution by "defination"? i don't see any dictionary concluding persecution from Muhammad's words. your assertion is unverified, and there is no reason to believe otherwise. WP:V and WP:RS clearly say you need to provide a source relating specifically to the topic of the article. please provide it. ITAQALLAH 20:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Not responding to you ITAQ, before you respond to my questions on the Article talk. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

the basis for the inclusion of material is determined by policy, not by non-sequitur questions. ITAQALLAH 21:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Good, keep avoiding my questions ItaqAllah. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am following the discussion still but both of you should (1) cool off a little and (2) try to understand the other's point of view a bit. Both of you are showing signs of irritation. It seems to me that the question of persecution is a little more complicated that the existance of a capital offence for religious practicise; but only just. I don't think the bit about refugees helps clarify. IMHO it turns on how the offence was declared and how it was enacted. If Matt57 can substantiate the "posse" feel of these commands then it was persecution: e.g. if Mhd exhorted people to pursue it. If Itag can substantiate the "procedural" feel then it wasn't. But I have no knowledge of the actual quotations or context. Was it given as a command as part of a long list? Was it given in response to a particular event? Matt57 says people were actually killed because of it: definitely? many? Soon after enactment? --BozMo talk 10:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Help with sock

A new sock (probably of Kirbytime) is stalking me, see [8] and [9]. Arrow740 07:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks more like His Idi. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Altering my user page

I'm surprised that you did this without consulting me. The correct action, of course, would have been to leave a message on my talk page. I'm reverting your edit for now while I decide whether I need to check out this user or not. Itsmejudith 14:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Good afternoon, while we are on this subject, I would like to make note that the altering of one's user page without explicit content, especially for the purpose of modifying user comments and such, if considered to be a form of vandalism. Further misconduct could lead to a block from editing. If it is your conviction that the user who awarded this barnstar is a sockpuppet, this is not the way to handle your claim. Take it to CheckUser info, provided you supply sufficient evidence. If you would like to talk in your own defence in regards to the WP:WQA complaint made against you, I suggest you click here. I am hoping this is the last violation of policy we see from you, and if so, please return to constructive editing. Thank you, and have a nice day.The Kensington Blonde _Talk 19:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)