User talk:AAA765

You have new messages (last change).

File:SickGirlInPyjamas.jpg

Aminz is taking a short wikibreak I'll answer to messages remained on my talk page though.

Archives

/Archive 1

/Archive 2

/Archive 3

/Archive 4

Another bit of scripture you might like

The great Way is easy, yet people prefer the side paths. Be aware when things are out of balance. Stay centred within the Tao.

Tao Te Ching verse 53 (Stephen Mitchell translation)

Itsmejudith 09:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Taoism will give you links, but there is also a western Taoism website that I love and found through googling but I don't think is currently linked. Taoism does not use stories but Zen Buddhism, which incorporated much of Taoism, does. I find parallels between Zen stories, which are full of paradox and try to unsettle fixed ways of seeing, and Jesus's parables. (If you read the parables directly without the layers of interpretation put on over years of official religion.)

“When they lose their sense of awe,

people turn to religion.

When they no longer trust themselves,

they begin to depend upon authority.

Therefore the Master steps back

so that people won’t be confused.

He teaches without a teaching,

so that people will have nothing to learn.”

Tao Te Ching verse 72

Itsmejudith 10:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Website is www.westernreformtaoism.org. Itsmejudith 13:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

~~~ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding, {{subst:User:Cowman109/Smile2}} or {{subst:User:Cowman109/Smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Itsmejudith 21:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back to Zora

I'd like to say ***welcome you back*** to Zora from here ! I'll promise on the behalf of Timothy Usher, that he will be nicer to you! What do you think Timothy? :P Zora, I'll send the email I was supposed to send very soon! (I was over-active with wikipedia these days ) Regards, --Aminz 00:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Noticed your new defence commentary on Timothy Usher. I find your protecting him inexplicable. He incidentally happens to be particularly interested in that bit of the Aisha article that speaks on her being 6 at marriage. He incidentally supports FNB's freedom of speech rights when FNB posts a picture on his user page, of a pig with "Allah" superimposed on it in Arabic. He happens to edit Musaylimah to point out that he's a false prophet, just like Muhammad. Other than you, every other communication he's had with a Muslim had been in a form of an attack, either directly or through references to denegrating Islam and Muhammad. I can't make any interpretations of your behavior without violating some bloated or twisted form of some WP policy for another, so I won't. I would think it a terrible idea that a barnstar or two and some flattering words would be all it took to make a person acquience to hate speech. His Excellency... 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

H.E., please let me go through your evidences. I haven't read your comments to this detail but I will and I'm always open to change my mind 100%. Also, FYI, I have told Zereshk about this ArbCom. I've asked him to inform all other related editors here. Surely Zereshk doesn't have a good view towards Timothy Usher, and I did it intentionally and in fairness since you were thinking I am not a good sample here. I didn't want to be responsible for it, so I informed Zereshk. Everyone should speak up. Your point that the way Timothy talks about Muhammad is sometimes offensive to Muslims is a valid point, it was the same to me, and we had discussions over it through email. He claims that he does so not only for Muhammad but also for Jesus and other people. He told me some jokes... I didn't find it to be his specific attitude towards Muhammad. You may think I am doing a mistake. Maybe. I am not free from it. But my responsibility is to decide based on whatever I have seen. --Aminz 16:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, re the Aisha age, I am more inclined to accept she was married at 6 but stayed in her parents' home till she had reached puberty (at 9 or maybe 10 according to Ibn Hisham). Aisha reached pubetry early and this is stressed by all her accounts (Spellberg points out). So, there is absolutely nothing wrong with her marriage at age 6. And this not only my own view, but the view of the dominant majority of Muslims. Now indictment of Muhammad based on this just shows rank of ignorance (to my mind of course) and I don't think Timothy has done so. If he has, I can argue with him and convince him but I don't think he has done so in the first place. I need to check your other evidences... --Aminz 16:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Even I will say that anyone marrying a 6 yr old is a pedophile. Anyone having sex with a 9 or 10 year old is also pedophilia. Timothy knows that, and it's with that knowlege he edits the article to emphasize that aspect of Aisha's life. The majority of Muslims aren't even aware of the Hadith that makes that claim, much less the long dispute over the authenticity of that claim and the opposing views on that. Timothy Usher made it quite clear he believes Muhammad is a murderer. "Muhammad himself violated a woman named Safiyah after torturing her husband and beheading him" [1] "Muhammad would be considered a war criminal - executing POW's, ransoming others, poisoning wells with dead bodies, etc." Does it take an ounce of intelligence to see what tilt his arguements aim to support? In "Criticism of Islam" you justified the existence of the article by saying "I am a Muslim and support the existence of this article for I believe it is constructive." An article that is larger than WP policy would suggest as a normal size, documenting and analyzing every single claim against Muhammad that can be vocalized. Fixing the POV in that article becomes a difficult task when a person who calls himself a Muslim uses the "I am Muslim and I endorse this article" line, despite criticism of the article's POV by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. You've brought the same hurdle to Arbcomm now, defending someone whom most objective readers see as indefensible because of the obvious bias in his works. And sorry, but I don't buy it that you are unaware of Usher's edit history, you're as well-acquainted with him as I am...just as I don't buy your ignorance plea when Dhimmi was stating as a matter of fact, that the Muslim marriage amounted to slavery. His Excellency... 17:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Starting from the end; Man, Why don't you buy my "ignorance plea when Dhimmi was stating as a matter of fact". If you have a look at my edits to Dhimmi article, you'll realize that I have been working on the article from the top sections (because they are read first) and the Shia ritual purity section (which I was more familar with and was picked up first). Just check it. I am going to make a claim and I'm sure you'll not accept it from me: See this edit of mine [2]. There was a dispute between Pecher and Itsmejudith on the section of "Places of worship" & other passages. Now, do believe me if I claim I haven't read this very section closely? I have read the first paragraph closely and have an idea of what's going on there, but just an idea.

Now, I should say I remember once Faisal and Timothy were discussing marriage somewhere and sometime. Faisal believed husband should be Muslim since the children go for the religion of husband. This, I remember. But still you are willing to accept that I am a liar as you have evidences of that. --Aminz 19:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You've been editing this article for a month. You're telling me you've been editing it for a month but you never read it? The same content has been disputed in the talk page time and time again with Muslims taking strong opposition to the inclusion of the notion that Muslim marriages are relations between slave-owner and slave. Faisal was arguing precisely over the content I later argued about. You do all this in-depth research, it doesn't make sense to me that you'd be oblivious to the content of the articles you work on. From your earlier request for info on Timothy Usher's support of the pig image, it's apparent you intend to claim you don't know of Usher's antics either. Read through the evidence I posted on the Arbcomm page, on Timothy Usher. Read through the pages you've been editing for so long. I won't pretend to give you the benefit of the doubt. And please do not use "I am a Muslim" to express your endorsement of things you haven't even read, things written by hate mongers to defame Islam and insult Muslims, just because they were written by your friends. His Excellency... 20:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

For a month!!!! Did you know that I was editing (well, never succeeded to insert more than a sentence into this article till recently) this article long time ago. I, together with Farhansher & Pecher were involved in an unsuccessful mediation over this article. I then left, then Faisal came instead of me. I was little active when Faisal was there. And he left when I came back. Funny Huh?! H.E., do you want me to show you a diff from the very past (when you were not here but I was involved in this article for 'awhile'), expressing the same thing that I have only read parts of the article?? The same situation. It is painful to find it; I have a vague memory of it; but I'll do it though "doubt" you'll ever believe me. --Aminz 20:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Per your comment, sure, I'll never use the phrase "I am a Muslim" in cases you are/maybe/was/will involved. --Aminz 20:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

H.E., please give me time. I still have to respond back to you on many points on your last comment. Thanks --Aminz 20:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Here is one link([3]): "It is not on my current agenda to defend the Farhansher’s version. I have not even read the Farhansher’s version once; however I will be willing to help people considering that version in an NPOV manner"

Background: there was a dispute between two versions of the article dhimmi. I was blocked because of passing 3RR by reverting Pecher's version to Farhansher's version before making that very comment. yet, "I have not even read the Farhansher’s version once;" and never did it actually. The mediation was on for about a month. --Aminz 20:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to beg....

I was going to hold out until you made me a chocolate cake, but I suppose begging will suffice. JDoorjam Talk 08:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Timothy

Continuing our discussion: H.E., I have studied some of the first evidences you provided in the ArbCom. I think Timothy is inspired with an imperfect (if not incorrect) understanding of 'how mainstream Islam (safely mainstream shia per my knowledge) views and interprets itself.' His view of Muhammad is formed based on the secular western sources; but the Muslim picture of Muhammad is formed from Muslim's own sources and interpretations. For example, many stories accepted by Muslims (and influencial in how Muslims view Muhammad) are simply rejected by western academics. Another example is the battle of Khaybar. To shia, the important thing there is Ali's power in taking out the door of the castle. Thus Khaybar is wellknown for its door to shia. They barely (to best of my knowledge) get into other details (similar to Christianity in which [I think] pastors usually focus on moral issues rather than theological issues). Here is how Muslims view, interpret the battle of Khayabr [4]. Timothy on one hand considers this story to be *POV*, and later after the article becomes more *NPOV* considers the NPOV version as how Muslims really view the battle. This is not true! If Muslims want to learn something moral from Muhammad, they learn it from that *Muslim POV* version, not from the version compiled by secular sources.

H.E., Still, I am not convinced that he is an anti-Muslim bigot. He is an american after all. I'll continue reading. --Aminz 07:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? I'm an American too, born and raised. I happen to also not be a Muslim, though I am from a Muslim family. Timothy seems well informed with books and online sources. He knows Islamic history as well as most Muslims do. "He is an American after all" doesn't cut it. There are many millions of Americans who are not so hateful of Islam. His Excellency... 16:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Timothy? How much imperfect my understanding is? I hope not too much :). I enjoy seeing my theories analyzed and criticized. --Aminz 09:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There may be truth to what you say - at least, that few Muslims gloat in the details of these events as recorded by early Islamic scholars - but the real point here, in my view, is that a view of seventh century Arabian history is not an indictment of any living person or people. I'm aware that some might take it as such, but that's rightly their problem (though in practice, thanks to Wikipedia's wilful publication of personal attacks, after Bishonen, it's been made mine). It's not helpful to the encyclopedia that anyone be allowed to designate a portion of the past as "their" sacred history, for them and them alone to describe or suppress - particularly when that history is held to span nearly thirteen hundred years of a vast quarter of the old world.

Any mainstream textbook treatment of European history would be considered the rankest blasphemy by this sort of reckoning. Scholarship as we know it is simply not possible in such an enviroment...which, when you think about it, is precisely why we are reliant on often unsympathetic Western secondary sources. Worthy scholarship cannot arise - and is not thought necessary - where the answers are predetermined.Timothy Usher 12:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I understand your comment, but I was just focusing on these following edits of yours ([5], [6]). My comments rounds around how Muhammad is currently viewed as exemplar to Muslims themselves. I am not talking about any "evaluation". I never claimed it is "good" that Khaybar is wellknown for its door to shia. I didn't try to evaluate Muslim's seeing the massacre of some Jews as God's judgment rather than Muhammad murdering them. --Aminz 16:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, when I read your comments again, I feel I haven't really get what you say in depth. I am a bit confused. I am just trying to understand now. --Aminz 16:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

:...as for "violating the women", Muhammad himself violated a woman named Safiyah after torturing her husband and beheading him : [7] "...by modern standards Muhammad would be considered a war criminal": [8] [9] "No, it's not about proving that Muhammad was a child abuser. What is proven is that the Hadith of Bukhari and Abu Dawud say that Aisha told a number of people that she was six when Muhammad married her and nine when they had sex.": [10] "That the ancient Jews were, by their own admission, genocidal criminals, then millenia later, so was Muhammad and his followers? I'd have hung them all.": [11] "...but would behead them, seize their properties and enslave their women and children, as did Muhammad, or expel them as did Umar" : [12] Read the next paragraph of the article: raping female slaves doesn’t sound like kindness to me - if you have a different perspective to share, I’d be interested to hear it." : [13] "no mention of the fact that he and he alone was exempted from the four-wife limit (33: 50, thanks be unto Gabriel for conveniently coming to his rescue)," [14]

Courtesy of my evidences page.

This is what you're defending on Arbcomm. His Excellency... 22:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The leap you keep making is that a critical view of Muhammad's life, as recounted in hadith and sira, equates to bigotry against Muslims. Non sequitur. When you attacked Jesus as a "coward" for failing to resort to violence, was that an attack on 2+ billion Christians? The only person around here I've seen attacking Muslims ("They're pathetic.") is you.Timothy Usher 00:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If I made those kinds of comments REPEATEDLY, directed AGAINST Christian editors on articles like "Criticism of Christianity" or "Jesus", then yes, it would be bigotry against Christians. It would be repugnant and disgusting. If I made a regular habit of editing articles on Judaism and mocking their religious figures on talk pages dealing with Jewish issues, THEN I'd be a true anti-semite. When I said "Jesus was a coward", it was in direct response to a Christian saying a Hadith had some 'erotic' theme to it. I was angry. I have a right to be angry. WP editors are human too, after all. It's not JUST these comments that are offensive, though they are offensive enough. It's that your works all over Wikipedia are a product of these opinions. And yes, these comments strongly suggest your editings constitute works of bigotry. His Excellency... 04:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You're entirely wrong, but never mind. Let me ask you again: what do you need from me to stop denouncing me? Evidently, retiring from disputed articles and talk spaces doesn't cut it. What would? Please answer. I just want this to stop.Timothy Usher 06:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You should've asked this a long time ago. Merzbow opened the Arbcomm case naming you as a party. Even if I had some sympathy for you, I have no choice now. You're as much a party to this process as I am, and I'll make it a point that your career in Wikipedia come under thorough review. Your editing history here, your insulting and inflammatory comments, all contributed to creating this situation. It's quite possible that I'll be banned from Wikipedia too, but I frankly don't care. These admins sat by, knowing Wikipedia was being used as a platform to promote polemic. I've lost all respect for this project thanks to people like yourself and people who acquience to your games. His Excellency... 15:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The word murderer means (according to a dictionary): "a criminal who commits homicide (who performs the unlawful premeditated killing of another human being)". This word means much more than one who has done the act of killing. Thus, using this word in the context where only killing is established is offensive to Muslims.

"By modern standards Muhammad would be considered a war criminal": Assume the technology progresses and we would be able to produce "meat" in labs. Then people will stop killing animals. Now some may come and claim that all of those who have killed animals in previous periods of time are the most savage people one can ever imagine. The question is why some may ask such question? If it is the question of whether Muhammad is the exemplar, well, I don't know anybody who have married with a young girl and have justified it religiously. --Aminz 02:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The marriageable age of girls according to sharia is 9 (12 for boys). This is also the legal marriageable age for girls in Iran nowadays thanks to Khomeini. Pecher ^Talk 13:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Marriage regulations are defined by Shia religious law, although non- Shias are permitted to follow their own religious practices. Before the Revolution, the legal marriage age was eighteen for females and twenty- one for males, although in practice most couples, especially among lower- class urban and rural families, actually were younger than the law permitted when they married. Consequently, the average marriage age for both sexes was 18.9 years. Since the Revolution, the minimum legal age for marriage for both males and females has been lowered to fifteen and thirteen years, respectively, although even younger boys and girls may be married with the permission of their fathers. The average age of marriage is believed to have fallen as a result of official encouragement of earlier marriages.[15] I guess, in cities, average marriage age for boys should be around 26-27 (sometimes later since it is hard to find a good job and all these things) and for girls should be around 22-25 I guess. --Aminz 18:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

talk:Iran, Shi'a, and Middle East related articles noticeboard/Incidents

Re: talk:Iran, Shi'a, and Middle East related articles noticeboard/Incidents, The page was moved. Moved to where? Kiumars 15:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved to here: Wikipedia: Iran, Shi'a, and Middle East related articles noticeboard/Incidents. I hope others would be able to find it. --Aminz 16:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

The criticism after incivility and reason was of "His excellency's" approach, not yours.Timothy Usher 09:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

History

Probably it is off-topic for the arbitration, so I will reply here. I supported, for example, including Karen Armstrong, even though her scholarship is not comparable to Lewis'. She presented what some editors saw as a more favorable perspective, and I was willing to trade accuracy for harmony. As things have turned out, I see my idea was misconceived. Live and learn. And of course you are right: what Mehmet II (for example) did five hundred years ago says nothing at all about Islam today, or the character of the Turkish people, or anything else. George Washington owned slaves, grew hemp, and distilled his own whiskey. Those are all illegal today. That does not mean Washington was a bad man, just that he was a man of his time. Well, almost all of us are. Anyway, I like history, but I look forward to spending more time working on the mechanical engineering pages. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Tom. I remember you were supporting Karen Armstrong. Tom, your presense was very helpful until you decided to leave the article. And I would say your block of H.E. was quite right. H.E. was doing personal attacks badly. And your comment on the arbitration page shows your good faith assumption. It is true that I am not assuming good faith in the case of Pecher. But Tom, I am tired. Do you remember the view of lankarani on the ritual purity? Pecher first wanted to add it to the footnotes. The whole mediation was wasted on something that could have been solved very quickly. I have this problem over and over again. The article Dhimmi was completely written by Pecher. I want to bring neutrality back to it by not trading accuracy for harmony, but by using accurate sourced material. But that's even painful. --Aminz 05:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)