User talk:MezzoMezzo

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Abu Usamah, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Welcome!

Hello, MezzoMezzo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Agathoclea 18:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the links! I'm brand new to this site and want to help make information more widely available to people on the web. I will definately make sure to read those links tonight so I can get better at editing and maybe throw in some HTML formatting too. MezzoMezzo 20:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

African Muslim Agency

Hi there,

First off, Welcome to Wikipedia. I disagree with your edit to the African Muslim Agency article. Cited criticism is valid for most articles (nearly every well-written article on a controversial group/person has it). As for the reference needed, you should read Mammeur Ameur where it spells out the case. I will be adding the source to it now anyway. Thanks and look forward to working with you more on this article in the future.--Thomas.macmillan 15:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Just went into the article and found the exact quote below.

[edit] allegations

The allegations Ameur faced during his Tribunal were:

a. Association "The detainee was captured in a suspect al Qaida safehouse. The detainee worked for the African Muslim Agency. The African Muslim Agency is linked to Al-Ittihad al Islami (AIAI). Al-Ittihad al Islami (AIAI) is listed as a terrorist organization on the President's Executive Order 13224. The detainee's computer contained a file from an Islamic website concerning biological weapons in the United States. The detainee was a member of an armed Algerian resistance group. The detainee lived in a guesthouse that sent fighters to Afghanistan. The detainee is associated with an organizer of Islamic fighters." from Mammar Ameur and his procedure at Guantanamo Bay.--Thomas.macmillan 15:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Done and done. See the article now and tell me what you think if you would--Thomas.macmillan 15:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Salams, see discussion of Mawlid

On another note you may want to help in the article Islam and Slavery. Jazak Allahu Khayr Aaliyah Stevens 22:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments let on my talk page

Barak Allaahu feekum for the comments left on my talkpage. I think the best way for you to contact me is my sneding me an email through wikipedia and I can respond to that. I don't want to put too much personal information on Wikipedia. ZaydHammoudeh 19:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Islam in Morocco

Hi there, I took a look at the page and corrected a few things. I moved Islam in morocco (notice the capitalization) to Islam in Morocco, which had formerly been a redirect to the Demographics article as you know. If you want to create a page on a redirect, you should go to the top of the page and find the blue link underneath the name and click on it. Remember to be bold and don't worry if you mess up because there are a lot of people eager to help and nothing you do can not be undone if it is incorrect. It is all about trial and error. If you want to look at a good Islam in X country, I like the article Islam in Mozambique, which I also started. I like it because it is concise. A country like Morocco deserves a long article on Islam in, so I suggest looking at Islam in Egypt. It is also quite good but I have not edited it yet. The CIA and other US government publications can be good (even if biased). I usually include how Islam came to the region, what type of Islam it is (Sunni or Shi'ite, which school they generally follow if you can find it, if there are Muslim political movements, how the government does or does not work with them etc. If you have anymore questions, feel free to let me know, I am happy to be of service. Good luck!--Thomas.macmillan 00:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe you responded to some vandalism regarding Hamza Yusuf

In talk you responded to an edit dated April 9 from 213.42.2.24. I have just updated the user page associated with this IP address to warn editors that this IP address is strongly associated with an ongoing pattern of serious vandalism. I'm leaving the article talk for Hamza Yusuf unchanged, so perhaps you could fix it. No reply necessary and with all respect: Chrisbak 21:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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/Abu Usamah. 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: 16:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Salams brother your help!

RE: Scholar Tim Winter's very fair & accurate article

http://masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/plovdiv.htm

there is a Muslim Xenephobe user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TodorBozhinov

& perhaps others

who is continually removing it's inclusion on the page on Plovdiv

I don't quite understand what to do about it but I've relinked it several times & in fact considering a major heading title which it really deserves

User:Faith&reason & others have also tried against this/these people

can you join in struggle against these censors?

fi hifz Allah!

Salams

Mahdi Bin Daoud (Matthew Thistle)

User:Enthogenesis

Tim Winter article link on Plovdiv

Salams brother!

jazzaka Allah khair for your message RE your two points..

>I noticed that some other users have also added the same article, so I suppose that it is well known and that other people would like to see it included. Have you messaged any >of these brothers or sisters?

not yet, I just noticed your patrolling of Sh Tim & Sh Hamza pages & removing vandalism, Alhamdullilah so you seemed to have more knowledge about 'wikiing' than anyone else in the time the I devoted hence my message to you

>There appears to be several editors that have removed the link from the article and have expressed opposition to it on Plovdiv's talk page. Have you considered discussing it >with them there?

No I hadn't although since hearing from you I've learnt that's it's standard wiki protocol which unfortunately I am laregly ignorant of, it's just a few minutes I get distracted here & there to deal with this stuff!

I guess I would like to make a level 2 headline & really address the knowledge conveyed by Sh Tim but I'd expect violent reaction from the Plovdiv anti-Muslim wiki league hence my trepidation until I get more knowledge to defend from that kind of response.. what do you think?

I mean who has the final say if all other avenues have been pursued with a certain user? So easy to get drawn into useless argueing which really nobody needs

Salams brother & taufiq in all your projects, inshallah wa'tala

Wa alaykum as salaam

(re edits to the topic Salafism)

SubhaanAllah, may Allah have mercy on us.. jazakallahu khayr for asking me before making the edits i really appreciate it. I looked at it afterwards with fresh eyes and realized it really may be too long.. you may certainly trim it down as you wish. Feel free to take off our local forum (trinimuslims.com) also if it isn't applicable. I got the structure from www.salaf.com. In any case, i posted the list here also: http://aa.trinimuslims.com/viewtopic.php?t=3222 . May we meet some time inshaAllah ta'ala. - `Abdullah (servant@trinimuslims.com). Servant114 21:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As Salaamu alaykum ya akhiy. I signed up for facebook, but i dont actively use it. But i do have a hi5 account at http://trinigeeks.hi5.com/. I also use MSN messenger with the username abdullah_mohammed@msn.com. Was Salaamu alayk.

Belated thank you...

Thanks for your message about the getting Indonesia promoted to FAC. Nice to know that people are taking an interest. Sorry to ask this, but have we come across each other on other articles? Anyway, see you 'round, drop me a message anytime. Merbabu 16:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

proposed deletions of Sufi-related articles

Salaam Aleikum Mezzo!

I undid some of your deletion recommendations, I think most of those are very valid articles of interest to a lot of people. The ones where you suggested that the topic was already covered in Lataif-e Sitta should actually just only be (and are) briefly described there, and then expanded further in their own articles. While the articles are nowhere near fully hashed out, there's definitely lot's of room to expand them, which hopefully someone will do in the future. Thank you! – cacahuate ^talk 06:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, and regarding Yaqeen... one of your reasons for wanting to delete were because the only link provided as a resource doesn't mention this concept at all ... when in fact it mentions it a few times throughout. Did you even read it? Please be more careful, these articles are of interest to some people. Thanks! – cacahuate ^talk 06:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Walaikum salam sir, and thanks for your interest in the mentioned articles. While there is no denial that they may be of interest to people - someone spent the time to write them, after all - my issue with many of them wasn't just notability but also that some of them were definitions and as I mentioned, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Would you mind mentioning which nominations for deletion you took issue with? As for the link to the article based on ibn Arabi's work, yes, I did read it, and found that much of the material was copied and pasted directly onto some of the articles I was checking. I did not, however, find "yaqeen" in there. Perhaps you could show me where I missed it. I will check out the articles you take issue with being deleted shortly. MezzoMezzo 14:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the ibn Arabi article does mention yaqin, seven times I believe. That's incredible that I completely missed that. MezzoMezzo 14:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I figured I should just tak a look at the articles to save us all some time. Here are my issues:

• Murid - it isn't one of the 99 names of Allah as far as I know. The article says that it is but I have never heard that before, unless it's a mispronunciation of another word which is possible.
• Sulook - you removed the tag and said that you feel the article is totally valid, but didn't explain why. As I explained when I nominated, it seems to just be a definition and a stub at most with none of the cited links explaining specifically why that term is notable enough to warrant an article.
• As for Ruh, Qalb, and Nafs, why must they be expanded? You say that they are but don't explain why. If one of them already has more information than Lataif-e-Sitta, then why not just merge them? Again, same issue - I don't see a reason why these concepts are notable enough to warrant space for their own articles. One random article from a site commenting on ibn Arabi's work doesn't exactly constitute strong interest in readers.

Those are the primary issues, I may come with more soon. At the root of it it's just a lack of proof of notability for a lot of these terms - all of the articles are short, written primarily by one or two users, and have little to no discussion which my initial impression was that that is due to a general lack of interest. You figure if these were more well know and notable concepts there would be more people discussing and editing (and probably even arguing). MezzoMezzo 14:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right about Murid, not one of the 99 names, I removed that line from the article... however it's a very common name for a student of Sufism, there are millions of them in the world, and while the article is a small stub at the moment, I still think it has potential. We've got articles for disciples, sadhus and yogis, so I think this one could be expanded into a decent article as well.

For Sulook, I don't know much about it, but a google search turns up several websites that refer to it. I don't feel that strongly about this one, but personally I'd rather see information expanded than just deleted... we aren't really that short on space that we need to start deleting all of the stub articles are we?

As for Ruh, Qalb and Nafs, they are a central and incredibly important concept in most Sufi orders. I wouldn't necessarily be against merging them into the Lataif-e-Sitta article for now until it gets unruly, but the tag that was put on the articles made it sound like the articles would be deleted if the pages weren't updated or merged within 5 days, and that's what initially prompted me into action, as I think that's a bit hasty. I think there are lot of people that would be interested in deeper articles about these subjects, including myself... and while I think they're very notable, as with the higher concepts of any religion, there aren't a ton of people out there with intimate first-hand knowledge of the subject who can write about it in depth, so I would expect that they would develop slowly. Again, I have no problem with them all being merged into Lataif-e-Sitta, but I don't want the info that's there to be lost in a hasty delete. I'll add a merge tag to the top of them so we can suggest that it be done. Does that all sound okay? p.s., I copied all of this discussion here since it's easier to read in one place... I watchlisted your talk page so I'll see your response. Thanks! – cacahuate ^talk 04:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right, it's not as though Wikipedia is dying for bandwidth. But if there doesn't seem to be much traffic on a page, or much interest in it, I don't see much point in keeping it. Granted, you've stated that you do find Sulook to be relevant so I think it may be good to just add more on to it soon.

As for the other concepts, I think a merge would be best. Like I mentioned before, or maybe I didn't and just meant to and forgot, Ruh, Qalb, and Nafs aren't just Sufi concepts but are also concepts in mainstream Islam as well. "Ruh" is just an Arabic word for soul and "nafs" is similar to desires, when I talk about resisting my nafs i'm talking about not doing something I shouldn't do (hopefully you're already familiar with that stuff). I would either expand each article explaining the general Islamic concept and include a section or sub-section on the specific Sufi view, or just merge with Lataif-e-Sitta (at least for the time being) which would be much easier. Also, I would propose we change "lataif-e-sitta" to "lataif as-sitta". Let me know what you think. Also, what happened to your user and talk pages? MezzoMezzo 05:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, familiar, I have no problem with that. As for the name, I'm not the right person to ask, maybe propose that on the article's talk page? Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Just updated my preferences, talk link should be working now ;) – cacahuate ^talk 03:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

wikistalking

و عليكم السلام ... it's funny to be wikistalked :-) thanks for your other comments. ITAQALLAH 00:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

List of notable converts to Islam

Please dont take out important details as you did here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Its not an allegation, its a fact. He was accused of it. BlessSins as usual is also taking out information from the article again, which will be restored. Regarding your comment to Arrow740 here on the same issue, if I'm charged with being a serial killer, this is notable information, whether or not it is disputed. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to improve that article, improve the refs so they're not just numbers but real URL's with titles. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The claims you removed are not "unsubstantiated" as you said here. How is this statement "unsubstantiated"? Accused of preaching messages of hate towards non-Muslims and has links to a suspected Al Qaeda operative [[Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri - Did you see the news source? This is exactly what it says. See his main page as well. Thats what this guy is all about. He's famous for preaching hate. Search his name in [Accused of preaching messages of hate towards non-Muslims and has links to a suspected Al Qaeda operative [[Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri Google]. If something makes big headlines like:

• American Imam Spews Hate In U.K. [1]
• BRITAIN'S NEW PREACHERS OF HATE [2]
• Radical cleric praises bin Laden [3]

Then that is notable and must be mentioned. Is there anything else notable about this imam? Notable means, something for which he is famously known for, or something that made big headlines everywhere. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

List of notable converts to Islam

You and Matt57 have been edit warring here lately (recent reverts: [4] [5] [6] [7]). Please see WP:EW and try dispute resolution to discuss the conflict instead of constantly reverting edits you disagree with. You might want to try WP:RFM if the discussion isn't working. Cheers. Dmcdevit·t 04:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		From what I have seen, you are a refreshingly good-natured and friendly editor on what is a contentious space, and a model of civility that myself and others can only hope to benefit learning from. ITAQALLAH 16:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work

Salam alaikum brother, good work on the articles for the Green Lane Masjid and Undercover Mosque. Looks very nice, just thought i'd say keep up the good work. MezzoMezzo 16:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wa'alaikumsalam warahmatulah - thank you, I did nothing really though. I'll fix it better later on though inshallah ... PS>sorry for the late reply, had exams so haven't been checking my page lately. Wikipidian 23:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Yusuf Estes

Bismillah aRahman aRaheem

Brother Salaam walykum a rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,

In the name of truth, I am genuinely confused about your removal of a cited reference to Yusuf Estes emails concerning Sh Hamza Yusuf on AllahuAkbar.net

This publicly available reference is, as far as I understand, what the page was asking for...! Please enlighten me brother.

Perceptions are a funny thing & it seems what this is about.

Shouldn't people know? & Why did you accuse me of vandalism? I was providing a verifiable reference according to Wiki guidelines!

Why is it that you're removing of it, is not considered vandalism in turn?

& Who is the final arbiter?

RE: AllahuAkbar.net

Have you read the material from that website? & have you seen where it's coming from? Have you lived in Saudi Arabia?

I have my brother for almost 3 years, in the provinces. I have never seen such lack of khusho'ur & inward concentration & understanding of this deen with exceptions & there are many good & righteous people there.

Actually I'm not surprised the site is based in India & not in the KSA they'd be banned as extremists, from what I saw living there.

It's called, in the set of definitions as I understand them, 'literalism', some say salafism others say wahhibism: it needs to be defined & discussed in the light of the majority of scholar's opinions.

As you know balanced ikhtilaf is welcome. But it too is considered a sect & in fact an aspect of human psychology that you can observe anywhere in the world in any religion.

The point is:

Why did you remove it (ie the writings of Yusuf Estes himself) from Yusuf Estes page but include it on Sh Hamza's? Can you not see that?

That's a clear imbalanced & prejudiced decision, that according to the terms you accused me of vandalism you just committed yourself!

I haven't gone & reported you in turn, but I'm writing to you instead.

Brother, are you unable to perceive the hateful, xenophobic, imbalanced accusative nature of the material? It lacks credibility & is clearly defined.

OK Put it up & let people decide themselves & but don't remove it from the very links from the author's page it self! ( ie Yusuf Estes)

Go & take it to well-respected scholar with recognizable education from a traditional, acceptable, well known institution & get a fatwa if you're uncertain.

But how much have you studied the works of Sh Hamza in comparison? How many scholars of the inward sciences, not just the outward have you met & studied with?

The majority opinion is the balanced & middle view, hence why all the 4 imams (of the madhahib) studied Tassawuf, (as originally referred to, is an inward 'science' of Islam) & in absence of the Prophet ( salalahu 'alyhi wa salam) the sahaba & taba'in (RA) & understood deeply it's purpose & recommended it to develop ihsan.

Remember we are brothers in this deen, I respect your opinion! & welcome it with respect, but brother don't commit the very thing you accuse others with! It but reveals your own un-objectiveness.

As such I don't understand your actions & the nebulous interpretation of terms used to define it, as I see it it equally applies to your own decisions to defend hateful slander in turn as represented on that divisive site. I understand you're a student, perhaps that explains it.

I welcome your comments.

fi hifz Allah! Wa salams

Enthogenesis 17:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

comment

Here you said that "the work for this user is done by two and sometimes three people". I just want to clarify that there's actually one person doing the editing for this account, because if multiple people are doing the editing then it becomes a role account, which isn't allowed in Wikipedia. If you have other people available to help with research tasks like translation, then that's fine, as long as only one person actually uses the account. I have no problem with your editing myself, the reason I'm posting is to give you a heads-up in case an admin sees your post and decides to block first and ask questions later. - Merzbow 02:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Islam

Not the right change in family section. You have not added deleted paragraph. --- A. L. M. 16:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Opps. It is correct. Sorry. --- A. L. M. 16:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

salamun 'alaykum warahmatuLlah || 23:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, let's acknowledge we have a conflict of interpretations, and that expressing our views is going to lead to problems. Now back to reality, I am person who did the "trashing" of al-Albanee. I stand by what I wrote.

My points in summary are:

• Sufis are not the only people who "have a negative view of his contributions" -- though if necessary let me be the first to stand by this concept... (that not all contributions are expressly positive.)
• There are non-sufi groups who share the above view. Yet as stated above, I'll take all the blame, (if I could).
• It is a fact, that's undeniable, al-Albanee did spend a lot of time in the Dhahiriyya Library.
• A hadith scholar from Aleppo, Sheikh Raghib al-Tabbakh, visited the Dhahiriyya Library in Damascus, and authorized him "in all the chains of transmission that I have been authorized to relate."
• They did meet and speak, and the sheikh authorized him with a general ijaza.
• THUS, the sufis do not deny this ijaza, (that of tabarruk) (d)(e).
• These, (and the above,) points are referenced to [8]:

“ (...) I am the translator of ‘Umdat al-salik [Reliance of the traveller] in Shafi‘i fiqh, that we have known each other for some time, and he approves of my way. The scholarly value of such ijazas is merely to establish that we have met. (...)" ”

• As for the other considerations related to the ijazas, of al-Albanee, (I quote the same source as before,):

“ (...) it could only be (according to Sheikh Shu‘ayb) from someone with far less knowledge than himself. (...)" ”

As for the final points provided about him not writing properly, or other things, I do not comment...

“ He has also been criticized for the influence he had by articles in 'al-Manaar' magazine, which was edited by Muhammad Rashid Ridah (d.1935 CE).

In addition, the first Volume of the original contains 250 ahadith, in which al-Albani had said 'Sahih' (an authentic Hadith) in one of his books and then contradicted himself by saying 'Daeef' (a weak Hadith) in another of his books.

”

I generally don't respond to comments from anonymous users. You're just an IP address and I can't verify your identity. Someone else could come in and claim to be you, or some other issue like that. It's nothing personal against you, but understand that it's an identity issue that prevents any serious discussion.

As for the article, Nuh Keller is a very knowledgeable man when it comes to modern day Sufism and his tariqa. Regardless, he is also extremely biased and is known to promote historical inaccuracies in some of his work. He writes from the pulpit and not as a historian, and thus his criticism of someone he was ideologically opposed into is neither objective nor reliable. As an external link it is fine, because it is a valid opposing viewpoint. But as a reference for the article, it doesn't cut it as it's just opinion (and a historically disputed one at that).

As for the method in which you basically trashed the article, it wasn't because of the opinions you have. It's because you're an anonymous user whose identity can't be verified and you completely rewrote part of an article on a controversial person. That's not cool. This matter is closed for the time being. MezzoMezzo 02:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

WRT Maqaam

enerally when a page or parts of a page are "lifted directl from a source", it's best to hit it with {{copyvio}} and/or {{db-copyvio}}. The exceptions are ederal publications and really old stuff which are KNOWN to be PD, but even then there're reasons to not do that... 68.39.174.238 11:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks for the info on that. MezzoMezzo 14:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ali

Should a Salafi Nasibi be allowed to edit an article about Ali? Maybe You should back off and refrain from vandalizing the article and edit Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Wahhab articles instead. Take that as a vandalism warning not as a request. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 22:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wahhabi

I've replied on my talk page. --ROGER ^TALK 11:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ali

Refrain from reverting every edit that goes against Salafi teachings. This monopoly on the article is getting very upsetting. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 21:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think both of us know you are monopolizing the article and acting like an innocent boy scout doesn't convince anyone that your edits are anything close to good faith. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)