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.

Abuse of Power

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Edina_Lekovic

Qur'an and miracles

For this, the title of the article is (Qur'an and miracles), so it makes sense to list the scientific miracles in Quran, the WP:OR does not apply, as i did not post any personal research or opinions, what i posted was proved facts

Please check Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, your contribution history suggest you're anti-islamic. (Imad marie (talk) 09:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

The Qur'an is not considered a reliable source. Your exegesis of the text is A.) your own research, and is B.) an opinion, not a "fact". Please understand that neither the Qur'an or the Hadith (or the Bible, or any primary source) are considered usable for citations in and of themselves, more specifically in the case of exegetical presentations. Finding a reliable source that links these concepts is another matter. WP:NPOV does not help you here. Matt's removal was according to policy, in that he removed unsourced original research.--C.Logan (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you that Qur'an is not considered a reliable source. It is widely accepted between Islamic and Christian leaders that Qur'an is a reliable source, i suggest completing this discussion in the article talk page. (Imad marie (talk) 09:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia policy does not consider it to be a reliable source, because it is a primary source, and is too easily interpreted or misinterpreted by observers such as yourself (or anyone). I'm unsure what the rest of your comment is saying, but no, "Christian leaders" do not widely accept the Qur'an as authoritative by any measure. Please see WP:MOSISLAM#Qur'an and Hadith, which disallows the use of the Qur'an and the Hadith as secondary sources.--C.Logan (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is this a big deal to you? (Imad marie (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

Removing comments

What you removed was not a personal attack. He was talking about the guy in the picture (who is carrying the camera). The allegation that the guy is blind came from Yahel Guhan, not Atif who was trying to refute that argument.

If a comment is distasteful or irrelevant, then Yahel Guhan has the right to remove it from the talk page, not you.

You must also realize this: removing comments from talk hinders necessary dialogue.Bless sins 18:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Tahrir-ol-vasyleh

Do you have access to this book? Tahrir-ol-vasyleh. Want to verify the infamous "thighing" quote. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a link on the site to the an arabic copy.--CltFn (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Elonka adminship

"Don't blame me, I voted for the other guy." Sound familiar? Mindraker (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes very. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I just thought I'd say that although we don't have the same opinions about this AfD, I appreciate the way that you have remained calm in what must be a difficult topic for you. If you have any concerns or problems in the future and think I might be able to help, I hope the fact that we have disagreed on this subject will not make you at all hesitant to contact me. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Now (almost) all of the drama has died down, I thought I would contact you and a few other users who opposed the RfA. Since I helped Elonka get adminship I now share the responsibility if you are correct and she misuses the tools. I still think this is unlikely, but if you do become aware of any such abuse could I ask you to contact me and I will try to deal with it. I don't want any future "dramabomb" and I may have a better chance of being able to mediate and defuse conflicts. Anyway, I don't think this will be necessary, but I thought making this offer might help avert any future problems. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, but if you need any help or advice please feel free to contact me. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm considering putting Elonka up for RFC seeing as the election process was corrupted. Mindraker (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)